Sitting of 6 July 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  HARRIS TWEED BILL [Lords]
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    London Implementation Group
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the proposed programme for the Government's response to the report of the London implementation group.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to conclude the reorganisation of hospital provision in London.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): "Making London Better" sets out the timetable for improving London's health service, including our £170 million programme for strengthening primary care in the capital. The need for change is most urgent in inner London, where a number of hospital site option appraisals are already under way. Another key element will be the recommendations of the recently published independent specialty review reports. The main proposals for the future configuration of services in inner London will come forward in the autumn. Any major proposals to change services will, of course, be subject to full public consultation.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I recognise my right hon. Friend's problems and motives in rationalising health care in London. In the present economic climate, and with particular reference to Bart's, about which there has been so much public concern, can she give the House an absolute assurance that adequate funds will be available for the movement of units from Bart's to the Royal London hospital? If she is unable to give the House that assurance, will she say that the units, which have been recognised as centres of excellence in the specialty reviews and generally, will be allowed to operate on two sites so that nothing of value is destroyed?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I give my hon. Friend a clear assurance that the intention of "Making London Better" is to improve and strengthen the specialist services. Independent commentator after independent commentator has reinforced the point that the London specialty services are fragmented, duplicate each other and will not
    166
    be national, let alone international, centres of excellence unless change is embraced. My hon. Friend is right; we need to take great care and show consideration for preserving excellence, but I commend to him the words of Professor Besser when he said:
    "Bart's would not have survived 870 years if it had not been flexible."
    I welcome the discussions that are under way between Bart's and the Royal London hospital and I am sure that strengthened services and the safeguarding of excellence will emerge out of them.
    Mr. Banks: What does the right hon. Lady have to say to the statement made by Mr. Sandy Macara, the new chairman of the British Medical Association, who said that the national health service would be dead inside seven years unless the rot was stopped now and that it was underfunded by £6 billion?
    What does the right hon. Lady have to say to Professor Jarman, who published an article a couple of weeks ago in the British Medical Journal that proved conclusively that London was not overstocked with hospital beds? When she answers, will she please not read out a list of misleading statistics produced by Conservative central office—as she normally does—because the more she does that, the more she sounds like a Dalek in a nurse's uniform?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members should read the edition of the British Medical Journal from the week after the specialty reviews were reported, which said:
    "The specialty reviews show clearly that some clinical services in London are not as good as they should be … Those who ultimately make the decisions on London should not lose sight this summer of the fact that their aim is to improve services for Londoners and the people of the Thames regions … it is not to protect institutions."
    It is well understand that primary care is not up to a sufficient standard in London. I commend to the hon. Gentleman some of the developments in his area, such as the increase in the number of community psychiatric nurses and district nurses and the investment in primary care, as well as the £11 million development at Homerton hospital.
    Mr. Congdon: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the need to implement the changes to health care in London at a sensible rate, in line with the changes in demand? Will she ensure that the changes in the number of acute beds are in line both with changes in demand and with improvements in primary health care?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I give my hon. Friend that clear assurance. We said that we would not make progress in London until we had invested in primary care. This year, £43·5 million is going into primary care, in 78 different capital schemes. Tomorrow, I shall open the South Westminster health centre, a £1·7 million investment in family doctor and community services. There is an urgent need to take our proposals forward because, all over the south-east, district health authorities are changing their patterns of referral. The London specialty services treat, on average, about half the number of cancer patients that are treated in other parts of the country, so it is extremely urgent, if their excellence and their reputations are to be protected, that we take change forward.
    Ms Primarolo: Does the Secretary of State agree that the way in which she has handled the Tomlinson report and the specialty reviews has blighted the whole of London's health service and that she is responsible for the low morale of staff, for undermining patients' confidence, for talking down the national health service and for causing chaos, because she does not have a clue what to do now that the reforms have failed? Are not the reforms that she said would save the national health service destroying it like a creeping cancer?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Again, I urge the hon. Lady to do her homework. I commend the words of Christopher Ward, a consultant at Charing Cross hospital, who said:
    "Too many specialist services are supplied to the dwindling population of London. These vary from the excellent to the inadequate".
    I commend also the words of Paddy Ross, of the Joint Consultants Committee, who said:
    "Ministers should be congratulated on the way they have responded to the Tomlinson Report. As a result of meaningful consultations they have produced a Government response the broad thrust of which is supported by the medical profession at national level".
    There is great agreement that changes need to come. We shall move as swiftly as we reasonably can. With such serious decisions to be made, it is right to take properly into account the independent specialty reviews and the reviews of the special health authority research which will be published shortly.
    Mr. Couchman: As my right hon. Friend takes the momentous decisions that she has to take to strengthen primary health care in London, will she bear in mind the fact that the destruction of a world-famous centre such as the Royal Marsden hospital would need justification stronger than that thus far offered by the differing opinions of Tomlinson and of the review group? Furthermore, will she also take into account the facts that London's gain over many years has been the loss of areas such as mine and that she will have to bear a great burden in deciding where to direct the resources that she takes from London and redistributes to the provinces?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I certainly respond to the second part of my hon. Friend's remarks, because London has been spending 20 per cent. of the money on 15 per cent. of the people. There have been improvements, but there has been a distortion in the balance of provision in London because of the numerous duplicated speciality services and the great number of sites and institutions that have not changed at the same pace as the delivery of health care and the great investment outside London.
    In reply to what my hon. Friend said about the Royal Marsden, I want to do nothing more than to protect and enhance London's national and international reputation for clinical services, research and education. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members would be hard pressed to find any authentic representatives of the academic or the medical profession who do not agree that services in London are duplicated and too small and that they need reintegration and rationalisation to become stronger.

    Health Authority Mergers
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received on the subject of health authority mergers.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I have received a number of representations on that subject, including one from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Most recently, I had a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
    Mr. Pike: As we move towards the merger of the two health authorities in north-east Lancashire, can the Minister give the assurance that when the consultation takes place it will be genuine, and not a total sham, as was the consultation before we moved to trust status? Will he also guarantee that, as a result of the merger, there will not be a rationalisation that will provide less effective local services to the people of north-east Lancashire?
    Mr. Sackville: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point is that I can give him that assurance. Those to be consulted will include local Members of Parliament, any districts or family health services authorities that are affected, local community health councils, interested local authorities, trusts, universities and professional and representative organisations.
    On the second point, there is every reason to suppose that the new purchasing arrangements will be of great benefit to patients in the hon. Gentleman's area.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is well aware that Macclesfield borough council, Crewe and Nantwich borough council, Macclesfield community health council, myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) are strongly opposed to the proposed merger of Crewe and Macclesfield health authorities.
    Does my hon. Friend agree that those bodies and individuals are more representative of the people of that area than anyone else? Will he take their representations seriously into account? Does he accept that it would be better for the Government to halt the merger of districts until they have considered the merger of regions, and perhaps put the Mersey and North Western regions together, enabling Macclesfield to have a more natural partner to the north rather than Crewe to the south?
    Mr. Sackville: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's views. He has failed to mention all the bodies and organisations that are in favour of the merger. I must remind my hon. Friend, however, that if he wants the best for the patients in his constituency, he will want a stronger purchaser with a larger number of residents, so that the purchaser has more influence with providers. That is the whole point of the purchaser-provider split.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that that was the greatest load of claptrap that even he has ever uttered? There is no reasonable argument—medical, political or economic—for jamming together those two health authorities, which do not have common services and do not want the amalgamation. Will the Minister admit that he has no more intention of taking any notice of local people or local Members of Parliament than he has of learning to fly around the Chamber without a kite?
    Mr. Sackville: The hon. Lady must realise that common services are not the main point. The main point is that a strong purchaser representing her constituents will be better able to assess the health needs of the whole area.

    Mental Health Act 1983
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the working of section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 provides for a patient suffering from mental disorder to be compulsorily admitted to hospital for assessment for a maximum of 28 days. We have been reviewing the general adequacy of the Act's provisions in relation to vulnerable or potentially dangerous psychiatric patients and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce her conclusions on this shortly.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have given previous notice of three cases to my hon. Friend. The first involved a patient who was detained on inconclusive evidence, with subsequent devasting damage to the patient's family. The second case involved a patient whom two doctors had certified should be detained. The social worker refused to detain the patient, who then went outside and bopped the social worker on the head. The patient had to be brought inside and detained. In the third case, the patient could not get any evidence—
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is trying the patience of the House. Will he come to his question to the Minister?
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for your advice, Madam Speaker. In view of the abuses of the current system, will my hon. Friend consider reviewing the system whereby a mental health tribunal takes 21 days to settle such cases? Will my hon. Friend set up a quicker conciliation procedure?
    Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notes of the cases to which he referred. As he said, some of the cases were referred too quickly and others were not referred quickly enough. I am seeking comments from the authorities involved about the cases raised. Section 2 requires a tribunal to act within seven days, not 21. Under the 1983 Act, the Mental Health Act Commission acts on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in keeping the working of the Act under review. That can include any aspect of the Act.
    Ms Lynne: Can the Minister explain how it can be right that people detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 have no statutory right to after-care under section 117? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Health to use her powers to direct health authorities, local authorities and NHS trusts to have some minimum standard of after-care, thus preventing mental health patients or ex-patients who recognise that they need treatment going for help and being turned away?
    Mr. Bowis: It is our wish that everyone who needs treatment and after-care should receive it. That is why we have put in place the care programme approach, which ensures that everyone who leaves institutional care has a programme of treatment and social welfare and a key worker to assist. The mental health task force under David King is travelling around the country ensuring that social services departments are better able to receive such people and, indeed, to look after them while they are in the community.
    Mrs. Browning: Is my hon. Friend aware that, for example, in rural communities, schizophrenic patients who from time to time have to be sectioned find that when housing is found for them they are housed in a large urban conurbation? That exacerbates their problem because they are away from the area where they are known by the local community and the area with which they are familiar. Will my hon. Friend examine that issue? It is a particular problem in rural constituencies such as mine.
    Mr. Bowis: I accept entirely that the point that my hon. Friend raises is important. The programme for housing between the health authority and the relevant local authority social services department should be put in place before the patient is returned to the community. Certainly, the wishes and needs of the patient as well as of the patient's carers will be taken into account. I am sure that needs will be met in the way that my hon. Friend wishes.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern that the Government's only apparent response to the increasing lack of public confidence in community care is to amend the mental health legislation and strengthen its provisions? Is not it astonishing that the Government admitted in the last oral Health questions, that they did not have the least idea where thousands of psychiatric patients who had been discharged while the Government have been in power had gone?
    When will the Government start on the basics of community care: guaranteed after-care and support, proper accommodation, and care plans that are agreed when patients leave hospital and regularly reviewed when they are in the community? When will the Government realise that community care must be much more than simply closing hospitals and saving public expenditure?
    Mr. Bowis: I wonder whether it is not time that the hon. Gentleman understood that it is our policy that everyone who has a mental health problem should be considered carefully and have his or her interests taken into account. It is not the case that beds are closed and people are thrown out into the community; bed closures must be set against a much wider range of provision in the community for former long-stay patients.
    If the hon. Gentleman wishes to exchange facts, why does not he explain the real fact about funding mental health provision in Britain at the rate of £2 billion every year; the real fact about trebling the number of community psychiatric nurses; the real fact about trebling independent sector residential places; the real fact that funding for local authority services for the mentally ill has been increased by 86 per cent. in real terms; and the fact that mental health specific grant has increased this year by £13 million to £34·4 million, including £250,000 to the hon. Gentleman's borough?

    Cardiac Unit, Plymouth
    Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made regarding plans for a specialist cardiac unit at Plymouth.
    Mr. Sackville: I understand that South Western regional health authority has asked local health districts to prepare a business case for the development of a cardiac surgery unit at Derriford hospital in Plymouth.
    Mr. Streeter: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is simply not acceptable for people living in Plymouth, which is the 14th largest city in the country, to have to travel 120 miles to Bristol or 240 miles to London for cardiac treatment? Does that not further show the urgent need to reallocate the surplus capacity in London's specialty services to ensure that those vital facilities are available for the regions where they are badly needed and would be warmly welcomed?
    Mr. Sackville: I have visited my hon. Friend's constituency and talked to some of the patients at Derriford hospital who have had to travel large distances and I am aware of the problem. However, my hon. Friend should be aware that a decision on a cardiac unit is not taken lightly: the unit must be of a certain size. He will be aware also that, of those patients currently treated at Bristol, some will continue to be referred to Bristol and others may well continue to be referred to Oxford or London. Before any such decision can be taken, it has to be proved that there will be a sufficient number of referrals to a new cardiac unit.
    Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister aware that the incidence of heart disease in the Plymouth health authority area is among the highest in the country, yet that is one of the few areas of England without a dedicated unit to carry out angioplasty and bypass operations? As hundreds of people are travelling from Devon and Cornwall each year for cardiac treatment in London and Bristol, will the hon. Gentleman now give urgent consideration to providing funds so that such a unit can be set up in Plymouth without further delay?
    Mr. Sackville: The hon. Gentleman should not pretend that it has been a matter of resources. It has been a matter of the need to refer to a suitable centre. He will know, perhaps, that the region is intending to cater for 316 coronary artery bypass grafts per million population. That is above the national average of 300. That increase may justify a new centre.
    Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the fact that a cardiac unit in Plymouth would serve not only Plymouth and that part of Devon but Cornwall? It is a long day's march from Cornwall to London, as I and other hon. Members from Cornwall know. It is also a long distance from my constituency to Bristol. Will my hon. Friend examine that matter with urgency and sympathy?
    Mr. Sackville: The long distances are a major factor. It would appear that, if there is to be a second centre, the most suitable location would be Plymouth.

    Trent Regional Health Authority
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the management of Trent regional health authority.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Trent regional health authority has an excellent record in the delivery of health services. In the past four years, for example, it has seen a 75 per cent. increase in the use of day surgery, releasing resources to treat more patients. Long waiting times, in particular, have fallen dramatically. Almost a third of the region's population now benefit from having a GP fund
    172
    holder, which is well ahead of the national average. We expect that, from next year, all but four of the region's units will have been strengthened by NHS trust status.
    Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State is one of the few people left with confidence in Trent regional health authority. Is she aware of the catalogue of disasters going uninvestigated in that authority: Beverley Allitt; brain damaged babies at Doncaster royal infirmary; Neil Silvester, the psychiatrist who released one of his patients, who, two days later, stabbed to death an innocent 12-year-old girl in Doncaster; and, recently, an unfortunate stabbing in Doncaster royal infirmary?
    Public inquiries have been called for in all those cases. All were refused. When will we have a public inquiry into that catalogue of disasters? If the Secretary of State refuses, may we have a public inquiry into the management of Trent regional health authority?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman cites a number of cases, all of which are complex and, as he rightly says, deeply concerning. I commend an article from the Solicitors' Journal that identifies the cases in which a public inquiry is the best approach as distinct from an investigative inquiry where the results are revealed. It states that the format of the public inquiry is quite unsuited to the delicate and sensitive issues of health and child care matters, and that
    "The only criteria to be satisfied in the Allitt case are that:
    the inquiry team are competent and independent
    that they have access to the information
    that witnesses are confident to come forward and give their evidence
    that the report is published in full".
    It goes on to say that clearly the decision of a private inquiry
    "will satisfy the overriding concern of the parents, the medical profession and the public that the truth be known".
    That is important advice.
    All the cases that the hon. Gentleman cited from his constituency have been investigated. The health advisory service is currently considering the care of the mentally ill in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. At the same time, in his constituency as elsewhere, there have been great improvements in care. No one in Doncaster generally has to wait more than 18 months, 12 months for a cataract operation or nine months for hip and knee operations.
    Mr. Blunkett: Will the Secretary of State tell the House why she is refusing to meet the parents of Beverley Allitt's victims unless they agree not to discuss the proceedings of the Clothier committee, and why she is refusing a public inquiry on a day when the Clinical Standards Advisory Group has declared the devastating and indicting state of neonatal intensive care facilities in Britain? Does the right hon. Lady agree with the advisory group that the market in health has failed, that there is a need for proper health planning and that, unless that takes place, people throughout Britain can have no faith in the national health service under the right hon. Lady's tutelage?
    Mrs. Bottomley: That is another typical example of the way in which the hon. Gentleman fails to understand the changes that have been taking place in the health service. The Clinical Standards Advisory Group was set up by the Government precisely to advise on specialist services. It certainly does not say that they are in any way jeopardised

    173
    by the changes that have taken place. Its advice must be considered by purchasers in securing ever-increasing standards of care for their local health authorities.
    I have made it clear that I am happy to meet the parents of Beverley Allitt's victims and I have met a number of them informally. At the moment, judicial matters are under way. In particular, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments of the South Lincolnshire community health council. My wishes are those of the parents and staff—to get to the bottom of the case, to reveal all the facts, to publish the report and to ensure that the lessons are learnt. There has already been a lengthy criminal trial and an independent management investigation. The community health council stated:
    "The nature of a public inquiry with its adversarial atmosphere and the length of time that such proceedings demand may not necessarily establish the truth nor at the end of the day throw a lot of light on what actually happened."
    It is the opinion of Sir Cecil Clothier, a distinguished, eminent and independent Queen's counsel, that that is not the way to get to the truth.

    "The Health of the Nation"
    Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the implementation of "The Health of the Nation".
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The White Paper, "The Health of the Nation", which was published a year ago, has been widely welcomed both within the NHS and further afield, not least by the World Health Organisation which described it as a model for others to follow. Progress towards meeting the targets set out in the White Paper is generally good. A wide range of activities is under way to ensure that we secure the improvements in health which are the overall aim of our policy. Much of the work is being reflected this week in a range of publications and events to mark the first anniversary of the White Paper.
    Mr. Callaghan: I thank the Secretary of State for that rosy report on the state of the nation's health, but can she justify to the House her proposals to close so many of the nation's hospitals, including five in north Manchester alone? Is she aware that there is such a wave of anger that this weekend 500 people took to the streets of north Manchester opposing the closure of the Booth Hall children's hospital? In the light of that, will she reconsider her decision to close that hospital?
    Mrs. Bottomley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, no decision has been taken on that matter, but the health of the nation cannot be measured in institutions which were built for generations past. Investment in health is important in primary care, family doctors and community nurses, emphasising prevention as well as cure. In the hon. Gentleman's health authority since 1979 there has been an increase of half as much again in the number of day cases, a two thirds fall in the one-year waiters, a 59 per cent. —nearly a 60 per cent.—increase in the number of general practitioners and a 67 per cent. increase in the number of dentists. That is a clear investment in health. Health is not only about institutions—in this country or anywhere else in the world.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that "The Health of the Nation" White Paper has taken the health service a giant step forward towards its original goal of
    174
    securing improvements in the overall state of health? Does she also agree that the Labour party is constantly displaying its lack of vision by continuing to focus on input measures, such as the number of beds, when the health service is changing and the emphasis should be on improving health?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The health service should not be measured by the number of beds. It is not a furniture warehouse. We should measure the health service in terms of the number of patients treated. That is why the extra 400,000 patients treated in the past year represented such a great achievement for the staff involved.
    The key element of the NHS, which we have at last been able to set in place so long after its establishment, is that it is a health service, not an illness service. It is about health, not health institutions. It is about prevention as well as cure. "The Health of the Nation" strategy, following the improvements in the family doctor services, "Working for Patients" and the establishment of trusts, is the third leg of the stool that will lead to a health service that will continue to be the envy of the world into the next century.
    Mr. Blunkett: Given the Secretary of State's special understanding of the feelings and emotions of unmarried mothers, will she denounce as insensitive and hypocritical the comments made at the weekend by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), who speaks for a Government who have cut family planning resources, who have reduced the school health service, who have failed to tackle teenage pregnancies and whose policies are designed to undermine and destroy rather than build up and secure responsibility and commitment to the family?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am a little surprised by the hon. Gentleman's approach. Be that as it may, however, I believe strongly that children need families. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was pointing out that rabid ideas of feminism are not the best approach to bringing up children and that children need mothers as well as fathers. I believe that my hon. Friend is exactly right and I also congratulate him on his work in talking about the importance of sex education in schools, where he has been taking a clear line that children need to be prepared for the world in which they are to live.
    Family planning services have changed dramatically over the years. Now, 98 per cent. of GPs provide family planning services. That is why we have had a review to ensure that the clinics are focused on the needs of today and tomorrow and especially on the needs of the young.
    Mr. Sims: One of the key aims of "The Health of the Nation" is a reduction in the incidence of coronary heart disease, in which two contributory factors are smoking and diet. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on their success before the European Court on the question of health warnings on cigarette packets, but can she tell us what steps she proposes to take to reduce smoking among 11 to 15-year-olds in the light of the chief medical officer's concern that targets may not be reached? Can she also tell us what success the nutritional task force, which she appointed in December, has had in persuading us all to follow healthier diets?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has long been a champion in the fight against smoking. He will know that we have had greater success than almost any other European country in reducing smoking. Only the Netherlands has a better record than ours. The Netherlands shares our approach to the voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising, but also our policy of taking vigorous and determined action to ensure that we get the message home to young people as well as their parents. Children of parents who strongly disapprove of smoking are seven times less likely to smoke than other children.
    Our success at the European Court is an example of our firm intent. The health warnings on our cigarette packets are 50 per cent. bigger than in any other country and we have chosen to use the most direct messages on those packages. We shall continue to strengthen the campaign because we intend to meet the target by the end of the century. In particular, as my hon. Friend rightly suggests, we need to renew the campaign against young people smoking.
    The nutrition task force produced its new programme this morning. I hope that all hon. Members will study the programme carefully and let us have any further advice that can change the dietary habits of us all.

    Royal Free Hospital
    Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of the Royal Free hospital in the pattern of London's health care following the Tomlinson review.
    The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): The Royal Free hospital will continue in its role as an important and well-managed provider of services to local patients.
    Ms Jackson: Does that mean that the recommendations of the London implementation group specialty reviews will not be implemented? Under those recommendations, the Royal Free would lose cancer treatment, neurosurgery, paediatrics and a world-renowned renal transplant unit. Are not the review boards, brought into being by the Department of Health, yet another smokescreen put up by the Government in an attempt to conceal the basic fault in their policy, which is that a market economy cannot provide the health service that the country demands and should receive?
    Dr. Mawhinney: Of course they are not. As the hon. Lady knows, the specialty review reports represent independent advice to Ministers and they will not determine—by themselves, certainly—the future pattern of services. The recommendations as they affect the Royal Free will no doubt be a subject for discussion with the region, with local hospitals and with the implementation group, to ensure that all points are properly satisfied. That is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the hon. Lady on 23 June and I confirm it.
    Mr. Tracey: Does my hon. Friend agree that we can all go on about our own local hospitals and that I could make a strong case for more resources for Kingston hospital, but that our policy is about universal health care across the whole of London and our first priority must be primary care across London?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. When I visited the Royal Free on Friday, I found it adopting a more positive attitude towards its future than the hon. Member in whose constituency it lies ever adopts in the House.

    Free Dental Treatment
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of the rules governing free dental treatment.
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of the rules governing free dental treatment.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's review of the remuneration of general dental practitioners set out a number of options for changing the way in which we deliver general dental services. We have consulted widely on his report and will announce our proposals in due course.
    Mr. Gunnell: Does the Minister agree that prevention is both wise and, in the longer term, economic? Is he not willing to implement the Select Committee's recommendation that a core service of diagnostic and preventive care should be available to all patients free of charge?
    Dr. Mawhinney: Prevention is, of course, an important aspect of health care; the hon. Gentleman is right on that point. We have read the Select Committee report with great interest—and great care—and will reflect on it seriously before making a judgment. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I remind him that paragraph 151 of the report says:
    "There was, however … much more consensus amongst witnesses concerning the problems than concerning the solutions."
    It is right that we should take time in order to get a proper solution.
    Ms Eagle: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government have no intention whatever of removing from pregnant women and nursing mothers the current entitlement to free dental health care?
    Dr. Mawhinney: What I will do is take the hon. Lady's views into consideration, even though the consultation period has concluded. I will do that against the background of my knowledge that at no time did the Labour party offer any considered view as part of the public consultation on the way in which dentistry should develop in this country. I have taken note of that. I have also taken note of the fact that the Liberal Democrats do not have a considered view for the future either.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the G7 economic summit in Tokyo.
    Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that Her Majesty's Government and our leading partners will exert maximum pressure on the Japanese to open their markets to imports of all kinds and to the sort of free trade that is now developing rapidly in the European single market?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise that. One of the key aims of the G7 summit will be to agree on measures that can help to further the recovery of the world economy, including the maintenance and sustenance of free and competitive trade. My right hon. Friend's aim will include very much ensuring that sufficient progress is made on the market access and services package to permit early resumption of the multilateral negotiations in Geneva and bring a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is the Lord President aware that, last night in another place, his ministerial colleagues said that the defeat that the Government suffered on the Railways Bill struck at the heart of that legislation? Does he agree?
    Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made it clear that the Government have set out and seen accepted in this place their arguments on this matter and he will take a lot of persuading to believe that the policy should be changed. Nevertheless, the other place has asked for reconsideration and, of course, we will carefully consider the points that have been made.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is it not crazy that the French, the Germans or the Italians will be able to run trains on British railways and the only people who will not are British Rail? Why do the Government not show some common sense and simply admit that they have got it wrong?
    Mr. Newton: The right hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends have fought every privatisation for 12 or 14 years. As one by one the privatisations have proved successful, they have been forced to abandon most of that. The people who need to learn the lessons are Her Majesty's Opposition.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has published figures today showing an 11 per cent. increase in new care sales over June 1992? Is that not further evidence that the recovery is being sustained?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend has described exactly the figures published this morning by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. What is more, the SMMT goes on to say that recovery in the new car market in all but three of the past 15 months is now clearly established. That comes alongside all the other evidence that we have seen—manufacturing output tip, car output up, exports up and unemployment down.
    Mr. Bradley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bradley: Does the Leader of the House recall that on 29 October 1987, less than six years ago, as the then Minister for Health, he proudly came to my constituency
    178
    to open the Duchess of York children's hospital? Is he aware that, last week, South Manchester health authority confirmed its plan to close that purpose-built children's hospital despite overwhelming opposition?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he supports the all-party campaign, which has overwhelming public support, to keep open our children's hospital, or will he accept the invitation which is on the way to him, to return to Manchester, to close that hospital on behalf of the Government?
    Mr. Newton: I well remember the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although I have to say that the hospital was not opened by me but by the Duchess of York. I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is considering the proposal, but the hon. Gentleman knows that it will be subject to full public consultation. My right hon. Friend will make her decision in due course.
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that political parties should not sell the right to choose their leaders or decide their policies? Can he confirm that the Conservative party remains committed to one man, one vote?
    Mr. Newton rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The activities of political parties are not a subject for Prime Minister's Question Time. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) must question the Government about their policies. It is Government policy in which we are interested.
    Mr. Newton rose—
    Hon. Members: No.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House has been with us a long time and he is a respected man in this place. I am sure that he has an appropriate reply.
    Mr. Newton: I was going to say that I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) was asking about the Government's attitude to such matters. [Interruption.] I think that that question is entirely right. I have read with great interest the press reports of recent days, starting with that about the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who said that he was going to have a confrontation with the unions, and followed by the comments of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who said that she was looking for compromise. I just wonder when we shall have the climbdown and capitulation.
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Heppell: Is the Leader of the House aware that 405 former council properties are empty in the city of

    179
    Nottingham and that 80 of them have already been vandalised, when 350 households have been designated as statutorily homeless and another 104 families live in conditions that are statutorily overcrowded? Does the Leader of the House not believe that it is time that the Government took a compassionate and humanitarian view and allowed the city council to spend some of the £53 million that it has amassed from the sale of council houses to put roofs over those people's heads?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know that, at this period of time, Nottingham city council—in common with others—has full freedom to spend capital receipts. It can also take advantage—[Interruption.] It may spend capital receipts generated at this time. It also has access to the full range of measures that my right hon. and hon. Friends have introduced to assist the housing market.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Viscount Runciman and his colleagues on the report of the Royal Commission on criminal justice, which has been published today? Although many of its recommendations will require a great deal of thought and consideration, does my right hon. Friend agree that some improvements in our criminal justice system are desirable not just to protect the innocent but to ensure that the guilty are properly convicted?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Newton: It is obvious from the response of my right hon. and hon. Friends—and, I suspect, a good deal of sympathy from the Opposition—that there is a wide welcome for the report that has been published today by the Royal Commission on criminal justice. There will no doubt be differences of opinion about some of the report's conclusions, but the importance of that matter is undoubted. The contribution that the royal commission has made to the debate on those matters is undoubted and the Government will give its recommendations the most careful consideration and then come to conclusions about what to do.
    Mr. Tyler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Tyler: Is the Lord President aware that the Prime Minister visited north Cornwall exactly five months ago today and promised my constituents that he was taking action on excessive water and sewerage charges? Will he confirm whether it is the Government's policy to renege on existing environmental obligations or does he intend to break that promise?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to my right hon. Friend's visit to the south-west and to his recognition of the concern felt in the south-west, and much expressed by my hon. Friends, about the level of water charges. My right hon. Friends have been actively examining the options for reducing the increase in charges and, particularly, phasing in the burdens of the waste water directive in a way that would help. That consideration is going on at the moment.
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Senator Campos, who is currently leading a Brazilian Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Westminster, when he said last night that Brazil is not just a country of the future, nor Britain just a country of the past, but that both are countries for today? Is that not best illustrated by the figures for Jaguar cars, which show that output has gone up 46 per cent., exports to Germany and the United States by 20 per cent., and that confidence in that company is greater than for many years.
    Mr. Newton: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's interest in Brazil and echo the welcome that he has given to the visitors who are here from that country. I join him also in hoping that they may boost Jaguar car sales still further by taking some back with them. Meanwhile, I endorse my hon. Friend's pleasure at the British motor industry in accelerating away from its European competitors and links with the figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders that we were discussing earlier.
    Ms Abbott: If the Government are really concerned about single mothers on benefit, when will they bring forward a strategy for child care? Is the Minister aware that most women on benefit would dearly like to go out to work and be independent but that their main problem is child care? When will the Government understand that investment in child care would be an investment in growth in general, and the surest and most humane way to get women off social security?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady will be familiar with the increase in pre-school provision of all kinds in recent years. She will also be well aware that at least as important a part of a policy in the area with which she is concerned are those policies for the improved collection and enforcement of child maintenance represented by the Child Support Agency, now getting successfully under way.
    Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is it correct to say that my right hon. Friend's colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry have secured a further £2 billion of help from European Community structural funds to help two of the most disadvantaged areas of the United Kingdom? If so, is that not proof of the merits of working vigorously and whole-heartedly within the Community, rather than constantly fretting about our relationship with it?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the whole House will wish to pay tribute to the Minister for Industry on his negotiating success in the Community at the end of last week. He succeeded in reaching an agreement which will extend objective 1 status under the structural fund to Merseyside and to the Highlands and Islands enterprise area, and to the areas Argyll, Bute and West Moray which were not proposed by the Commission. That agreement is likely to bring about

    181
    £2·25 billion to the United Kingdom over the next six years, to all its objective 1 areas, including Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: With regard to political contributions, why is it all one way? What incentives do the Government give to rich Britons to make political contributions to right-wing regimes abroad, or does the whole idea stink?
    Mr. Newton: As I may possibly have said on some previous occasion, I will listen to lectures from such as the hon. Gentleman on that matter when we stop facing the prospect of a position in the Labour party where it will be one man, 2 million votes.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that a few weeks ago, the new Minister of State for the Armed Forces, to whom I have given notice of my intention to raise this point, proclaimed at the Dispatch Box his concern for the welfare of the serving men and women of this country. As a result, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence about my constituent, Brian Marshall, from south Kirby, who is suffering from what is known as desert fever. That gentleman has lost two stone in weight and is having difficulty climbing stairs—
Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member come to the point of order for me?
Mr. Enright: Having written to the right hon. Gentleman about the matter, I was astonished last evening to hear the Minister of State declare on television that he had received no representations about people suffering from desert fever. I suggest that that is unacceptable behaviour—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates that I shall not allow a debate on the matter. It is not an issue for me. He must take it up with the Minister concerned. I cannot adjudicate on the accuracy of what is said in the course of television programmes—
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley)rose—
Madam Speaker: —and that is the end of that.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House will know that there has been a serious incursion into the precincts of Buckingham palace and an evident lack of security, with no fewer than 17 people within the curtilage. The Home Secretary is at present the police authority for London, and is responsible for the protection of Her Majesty.
I am wondering, Madam Speaker, whether you have received a request for a statement to be made about the matter to the House and, if not, whether the Home Secretary, having heard this exchange, will lose no opportunity to come forward and explain what steps have been taken.
Madam Speaker: I have not received a communication from a Minister seeking to make a statement. The occupants of the Treasury Bench will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Hanley rose—
Madam Speaker: Do I understand that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is rising?
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Yes, on a point of order, Madam Speaker. You correctly pointed out to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) that he was out of order. May I ask you to point out to him also that we in the Labour party refer to one member, one vote, and not one man, one vote?
Madam Speaker: I understand the point that the hon. Lady is putting to me. When I was a Back Bencher, I used to get very annoyed when speakers referred all the time to "hon. Gentlemen".
Mr. Hanley rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the point of order about which I think the Minister is seeking to rise. I must deal with Ministers and Back Benchers in exactly the same way. Having dealt with the point of order, it is now a question between the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) and the Minister. They must resolve it between them. It is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Reverting to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), when Princess Anne was apprehended by a madman in Pall Mall, the Home Secretary gave a statement that very day. I am sure that the House would wish to know precisely what has happened at Buckingham Palace today.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench have noted the wishes of the House.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will allow me to make my point, and forgive me if it appears to return to a previous point. As the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) did not begin with a proper point of order, how can it be fair for the Minister to he prevented from giving an answer?
Madam Speaker: I have to deal with so many bogus points of order in this place—I have hardly heard a genuine point of order in the past six months.
Mr. Harry Barnes: How long should it take for an answer to be given in Hansard after a question is posed? On 3 December, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked for information to be provided from the Northern Ireland Office about people who had been killed due to paramilitary violence, and the sites of the killings. I asked a similar but wider question of the Prime Minister on 7 June and requested information about those killed by paramilitary violence in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The information forthcoming in both instances was, "This material will be supplied in the Library in due course.- The "due course" seems to be a tremendous amount of time. It might be appropriate for us to follow up those questions today, the day on which John Matthews has been released. He had faced a false charge involving the London taxi bombs. The City of Derry is celebrating the fact that today that false accusation has not been carried through. We need information about who has been correctly convicted.
Madam Speaker: It is a matter for the Minister, and I suggest that, if the hon. Gentleman tables a further question, he might be able to obtain the information that he now seeks.
Mr. Graham Riddick: I apologise for raising this point, Madam Speaker, but you have always been terribly fair. When someone has raised a bogus point of order or tried to score a point at another hon. Member's expense, you have always been fair and allowed the subject

185
of the point of order to respond, if only briefly. I wonder whether you might consider allowing my hon. Friend the Minister to do that.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has not been following my habits in the past year. Once I have dealt with a point of order, even if it is a bogus one, that is the end of it. I will not allow exchanges on bogus points of order to continue across the Chamber.

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

TERRORISM
That the draft Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (Application of Provisions) (India) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
Question agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 99(2) (Matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland).

STATUTORY RULES
That the Thirty-Fourth Report from the Examiner of Statutory Rules, being a Matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
Question agreed to.

Births and Deaths Registration (Amendment)
3.37 pm
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 in relation to the place of registration of deaths in England and Wales.
The Bill would amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 to enable deaths to be registered in any district in England and Wales, not simply, as at present, in the district where the death occurred.
One might have thought that a death could be registered with any recognised registrar, but that is not so, as I discovered from an elderly constituent of mine, a lady in her 70s, living in Chester, whose 95-year-old mother died in a nursing home in Kent. To register the death, my constituent, the only surviving relative, was obliged to travel hundreds of miles, at considerable expense and inconvenience, at a time of great personal sadness, to complete a bureaucratic formality which could equally well have been undertaken in Chester.
The lady's case may be unusual, but is by no means unique. The National Consumer Council has alerted me to a comparable case in which a daughter had to register her mother's death in Ely, because the nursing home in which the lady's mother died fell within the Ely district, although the nursing home was closer to Cambridge, where the funeral was to take place, while the bereaved daughter lived in Worcester.
The registrar would not have welcomed registration of the death either by the proprietor of the nursing home or by the undertaker, so one afternoon the daughter travelled from Worcester to Ely for that purpose, only to discover, when she got there, that the registrar's office was open for business from 9 am until noon only, and on just three days a week.
While it is obviously gratifying for the good people of East Anglia to feel that the rate of mortality in Ely is such that it justifies a week of only nine hours on the part of the registrar, it is clearly absurd, and in truth unnecessary, for people already having to cope with the trauma of bereavement, perhaps involved in the making of funeral arrangements, and possibly elderly themselves, to have this additional administrative burden thrust upon them.
In the age of the telephone and the fax, it must make sense to introduce a system whereby a death can be registered in any district in any part of the country, thus relieving bereaved people of the difficulty and the expense of travelling to the district where the death occurred. It must make sense.
Indeed, as we can see, it does make sense, which is why a benevolent Government made such a proposal in the White Paper on registration back in January 1990, with a promise of legislation at "an early opportunity". Three and a half years later, that early opportunity has still failed to present itself, which is where I and my Bill step in.
Having been a Member of the House for only about 15 months, I pride myself on still being loosely in touch with reality. Unjust as it may seem to Members of Parliament, there are in the real world some who look on our proceedings with a mixture of scorn and incredulity.
They partially understand our role in the constituency as that odd amalgam of citizens advice bureau, untrained Relate counsellor, housing officer, doormat, punchbag

187
and inveterate function attender with an insatiable appetite for finger food and raffle tickets. But to many of them our purpose at Westminster is less clear. This weekend, one of my constituents said to me, "What do you MPs do?" Before I had a chance to offer a dignified reply, he went on, "Whatever it is, I wish you would do less of it."
I believe in less legislation, less regulation and less bureaucracy, and in the validity of William Blake's dictum that he who would do good must do it by minute particulars. My Bill is a very modest measure. It is not significant. It is not spectacular. It is not even controversial. It will not make a noise, but to a few people it might make a difference. That is why I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gyles Brandreth, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Peter Butler, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Ms Glenda Jackson, Mrs. Angela Knight and Mr. John Sykes.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Gyles Brandreth accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 in relation to the place of registration of deaths in England and Wales: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 July, and to be printed. [Bill 233.]
Orders of the Day

  European Parliamentary Elections Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

  European Parliamentary Elections Bill

    Clause 1
    INCREASE IN NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
    3.44 pm
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, leave out '71' and insert '70'.
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient also to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 10, after '"71"' insert—
    '(ba) in paragraph (b) (Scotland) for "8" there shall be substituted "9".'.
    No. 9, in page 1, line 10, at end insert—
    '(bb) in paragraph (b) (Scotland) for "8" there shall be substituted "9"; and '.
    No. 3, in page 1, line 16, leave out '"71"' and insert '"70".'.
    No. 4, in page 1, line 16, after '"71"' insert—
    '(ba) in paragraph (b) (Scotland) for "8" there shall be substituted "9".'.
    No. 12, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
    '(bb) in paragraph (b) (Scotland) for "8" there shall be substituted "9".'.
    No. 5, in clause 2, page 1, line 20, after 'England', insert 'Scotland'.
    No. 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 1, after 'England' insert 'Scotland'.
    Mrs. Ewing: It is strange that my amendment should be the lead amendment in this group. I am grateful to the members of other parties who have associated themselves with my amendment. I had thought that I might speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box, but Labour Members might not have found my company especially agreeable. From time to time we do not find each other's company agreeable, but today we are agreed on the serious principle of Scotland's representation within the European Community.
    Mr. Graham Allen: In the spirit adopted by the hon. Lady, we congratulate her on doing such a fine job of hijacking the Opposition's amendment by tabling her amendment before we managed to table ours.
    Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman should congratulate my research officer, who did a great deal of work on the issue, although I recognise that other hon. Members have been working along the same lines. Within the procedures of the House, the way the cookie crumbles very much dictates who has the key amendment.
    We are having difficulties with the allocation of the additional seats in the European Parliament. The principle of increased membership was agreed at the Edinburgh

    189
    summit last December, yet it is not until the hot, sticky days of July that we are considering the implications and knock-on effects of that decision.
    There were earlier opportunities to consider the matter and to have discussions between the various parties in the House. Instead, we are considering the issue in an air of panic, because the Government have introduced the Bill without giving the House a full opportunity to explore all its aspects.
    The Government should not always base their arguments on the niceties of numbers. Last week, we all received from the Home Secretary various details about the number of and comparisons between the seats in Scotland, Wales and England. Northern Ireland is exempt, because it has proportional representation.
    The niceties of numbers are not in the spirit of the Community. The Home Secretary's comments during our debate last Wednesday—in particular, those reported in column 984 of Hansard—show that he was using a British state argument rather than looking at the Community as a whole. If we are to enter into the spirit of the Community, any additional representation should not be seen as just a numerical gain: it should properly reflect the various peoples of the Community.
    Those on the Treasury Bench suffer from the delusion that Britain is a nation. It is not; it is a state that combines three natural nation communities—Scotland, England and Wales. Underpinning the philosophy of the European Community is the idea that the smaller nations should not be penalised because of size, and that they should be recognised as equal partners. My contention today is that Scotland should be recognised as an equal partner, and that it should have additional seats.
    I have long pursued that argument with various Government representatives. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 14 January, subsequent to the Edinburgh summit, asking how decisions would be made on the allocation of the six additional seats. He responded:
    "We are now looking at how to allocate the six new seats as between the different parts of the United Kingdom. This distribution will eventually have to be enacted in legislation. The Scots, but also others, will be watching carefully to see that this is fairly done."
    We are seeking a very careful distribution of these seats.
    I go back to the idea that there should be equality within the communities. I have brought with me a copy of the autobiography of Garret Fitzgerald, who was, at the time of the original direct elections to the European Parliament, the Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland. He talks in this book, "All in a Life", about Ireland's role within the European Community and the negotiations on the initial allocation of seats for direct election to the European Parliament.
    I want to read this paragraph into the record of the House of Commons, because I believe that we should all be aware of the arguments that were used by the then Government. I do not think that it will be enough for the Minister to respond by saying that it was then a Labour Government. The principles that underpin these comments should be looked at:
    "Callaghan and Crosland came to us to say that they were going to propose 82 seats for the larger countries, which would enable them to give an extra seat to Northern Ireland as well as an extra seat to Scotland and Wales, bringing these to 10 and five seats respectively. We told them we would go along with this. In the end, at Giscard d'Estaing's urging in a top-of-the-table huddle, Callaghan said he would settle for 81 seats by dropping an extra seat claimed for England.
    190
    So it was agreed, but in the event, interestingly enough, Scotland and Wales never got their extra seats. Although the need to make greater provision for Scotland and Wales had been the basis of the British argument for more seats, it was to England that the additional seats were allocated. Scotland's proposed 10 was reduced to eight and Wales's five became four, whilst England got 66 instead of the 63 implicit in what Callaghan and Crosland had said to us."
    That is the record of the initial arguments about the allocation of directly elected seats to the European Parliament. I could argue, of course, that Scotland, being comparable to Denmark, with roughly the same population, should automatically have 16 seats. I recognise that that can be achieved only when Scotland is an independent nation—when we, too, will be allowed to participate in the Council of Ministers, to have our opportunity, not to be the tartan waitress at a European summit in Edinburgh, but to be the host country and to have, in our own right, the position of chief in the commission.
    The argument for Scotland to have an additional seat is increasingly important. The Community is changing very rapidly. It has already been said quite clearly that, with the accession of additional members, the Community institutions will have to change. The Maastricht treaty makes it quite clear that the Parliament will acquire additional powers, and I for one welcome that.
    I have no particular neurosis about this place being the mother of Parliaments and the seat of all democracy. I believe that the future for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England lies within the European Community. I want to move towards consensus politics within the Community.
    Because the institutions are going to change, the influence of each voice will be particularly important. I know that the Minister, along with colleagues in the Cabinet, is very aware of the importance that has recently been attached to the argument for structural funds. Indeed, the Leader of the House referred to this in his capacity as substitute for the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's questions today.
    The Parliament in Europe had a great deal of influence in persuading the Commission that the whole of the Highlands and Islands enterprise unit should be included within objective I. A great deal of work was undertaken by the member of the European Parliament for the Highlands and Islands—and I must declare an interest because of the family relationship.
    That Parliament voted by 277 votes to 27 in favour of the whole of the Highlands and Islands enterprise area being included within objective 1 status. If one MEP, exerting that influence, can achieve that result, surely Scotland should be entitled to additional representation.
    I notice that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) is laughing. He should recognise that part of the victory was achieved because his party did not care to send a Scottish Office representative to the negotiations. Perhaps we should learn from that. Perhaps, when the Department of Trade and Industry represents Scotland's interests, we achieve the results that we want.
    Mr. Brian Wilson: Let me endorse what the hon. Lady has said about the role of her mother-in-law, the MEP for Highlands and Islands, who fought very hard on this issue. I am sure that the hon. Lady will also recognise the role of my colleagues Hugh MacMahon, MEP for Strathclyde, West,and Henry McCubbin, MEP for North-East Scotland, and also that

    191
    of the socialist group, which gave its backing to the same proposals. If ever there was a team effort on behalf of a Scottish interest, that was surely it. I am sure that Liberal MEPs were also involved.
    Mrs. Ewing: I am not trying to claim all the credit for the MEP for Highlands and Islands. There was a great deal of cross-party co-operation, and Labour and Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament have joined me in various representations. There was also the influence of Highland regional council, the various local enterprise companies and the district councils, all of which were very much involved.
    My point is that there was an opportunity, through the influence of an MEP, to persuade the Commission to recognise that its original idea that there should be exclusions from objective 1 status in the highlands and islands area was an example of how political life can operate within the European Community. We want that spirit of community to be pursued, and we want additional representation for Scotland in that regard.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: I readily accept the argument that this is a Parliament within a multinational state. The hon. Lady is referring to the European Parliament, which again is a Parliament in a multinational state. She has referred to the powers given to the European Parliament by article 189b of the Maastricht treaty; would she like the powers of that Parliament to be extended to enable it, say, to initiate European Community-wide legislation?
    Mrs. Ewing: I certainly believe that the European Parliament has a major role to play in the development of economic and social policy. Progress must be made slowly and on the basis of consensus. That is why I am keen for Scotland to be an equal partner in this development.
    I think that hon. Members from all parties will agree that we want to avoid the imposition of an ideology by one or two countries of the Community. We should reach a consensus through mutual discussion and agreement in terms of initiating programmes, but the initiation process, in many ways, should now be transferred from this place to the European Parliament. I believe that the development of the Community is of critical importance, not just to Scotland and the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom, but to the international community as a whole. I look forward to these developments.
    Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her concise answer. An expansion of the legislative powers of the European Parliament must surely lead to a diminution of the powers of the national legislatures. What does she feel about that shift in the distribution of legislative powers between the European Parliament and the national Parliament?
    Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman and I both sit on the Select Committee on European Legislation. I would not describe this as a national Parliament; I would describe it as a multinational state Parliament. I would like Scotland to have a national Parliament, and then, according to the Helsinki agreement definition of sovereignty, we will have to decide how much of our national power we wish to pool for the greater good of the Community. That is how I envisage the Community developing. I am sure that the
    192
    hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) also noticed, during our various visits to European Community countries, that the vast majority of the politicians we met showed the same flexibility of approach. The pooling of sovereignty is the key to the Community's development.
    On the subject of the additional seat, it was argued last week on Second Reading that I advised the Government that the size of the Highlands and Islands constituency should be taken into account, and that an additional seat for Scotland would have an impact upon the Highlands and Islands. I was not arguing that case. I was arguing that, when the Boundary Commission considers the distribution of seats, it should take into account the geography of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. I believe that the Highlands and Islands constituency would wish to remain very much as it is, and I would bear no grudges if an additional seat were granted elsewhere in Scotland.
    4 pm
    I was arguing very clearly, with the support of other hon. Members, that the Highlands and Islands constituency has the land mass of Belgium, stretching for about 350 miles from north to south, and that representing it is a major task. The Member of the European Parliament for the Highlands and Islands willingly accepts the present situation, as I am sure would any subsequent Members, although I do not anticipate a change for a considerable number of years.
    Mr. James Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, and I endorse much that she says about the highlands and islands. Does she also accept that, if the Bill is passed in the form that the Government wish, giving five seats to England, three seats in Scotland will have higher electorates than the average English electorate; North-East Scotland, with an electorate of 576,776; Mid-Scotland and Fife, with an electorate of 544,649; and Lothian, with an electorate of 522,020? Therefore, three of Scotland's eight seats will have larger electorates than the average now given to England by the Government.
    Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman has a valid argument, which reaffirms those made last week on Second Reading: that numbers cannot be the sole criterion on which we base the allocation of seats. Full account must be taken of geography, but we must also take into account the valuable arguments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).
    Mr. Tony Marlow: They were not valuable arguments at all. They were absolute nonsense, statistically speaking. If some seats in Scotland have more constituents than the average in England, some seats in England will also have more than the average number of constituents for England.
    Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman misses the point about the principles of the Community. He is quite willing to be seen as a European sceptic who does not believe in the Community. We have argued that Scotland should be compared with Denmark, which has 16 seats in the European Parliament, that Wales should be compared with Eire, which has 15 seats, and that England could be

    193
    compared with whichever country it wishes to be compared with, and have seats in its own right in the European Parliament.
    That is a Community issue. It is not an argument about the debates between internal political parties in the House of Commons or in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but what about my constituents? What about the people of Northamptonshire, which does not even have a whole European seat and yet has a bigger population than Luxembourg, which has six Members of the European Parliament? Where is the justice in that?
    Mrs. Ewing: Edinburgh, which has roughly the same population as Luxembourg, does not have an MEP either. If the hon. Gentleman would only enter into the spirit of the European Community, he would recognise that, if England were an independent nation within the Community, it might be entitled to additional representation.
    It is not a question of Scotland playing England off against Scotland or Wales. This is an argument about the spirit of the Community, and about ensuring that we all enter it with a rational approach and share the ideal of making the Community work as effectively as possible.
    Last week, the Home Secretary was gratuitously rude to me in some of his responses. It is not my intention to be rude in responding to him, but I believe that there is a valid argument for Scotland to have an additional seat in the European Parliament.
    After all, Scotland is the main oil producer for the European Community; we are the most energy-rich nation. We have the major fishing grounds, yet our fishing grounds are being invaded by other members of the Community, who do not seem to be affected in the same way as our fishermen—by the application of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992, for example. All that makes us a most valuable member of the Community.
    I believe that Scotland deserves more than eight representatives in the European Parliament, especially in view of the way in which that Parliament will develop as a result of the changes introduced in the Maastricht treaty.
    During the debate last week, the Home Secretary said that only the Conservative party was prepared to fight for England. I do not believe that. I want England to be an equal partner with Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and all the other Community nations. The Home Secretary's remark was stupid, and it has caused much offence not only in the United Kingdom but in other parts of the Community, where there are different attitudes and responses, and where we work towards the idea of consensus rather than confrontation in our politics.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland laid great emphasis on the fact that the Community held its summit in Edinburgh. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said last week, in November 1992, the Secretary of State made a speech entitled "Taking Scotland to the Heart of Europe", in which he argued forcibly:
    "If we are to take Scotland to the heart of Europe, we must be Communautaire"—
    that is the spirit to which I referred—
    "but we must also have clout in the Community."
    To have clout in the community, we must have the representation that our country merits.
    In the same speech, the Secretary of State said:
    194
    "it is necessary to build Scotland's own links, both commercial and cultural, with other parts of the Community."
    The most effective achievement of that aim must surely come through representation within the Community institutions.
    The fact that Scotland is being denied an additional seat in the European Parliament reminds us only too well that the Government regarded Scotland as the tartan waitress at the summit. They are happy to serve haggis, and to sell our smoked salmon, our whisky and a variety of the other marvellous products of Scotland, but at the same time they deny us the full and equal representation that we so obviously merit.
    In refusing to allocate Scotland an additional seat, the Government are reneging on the principles of European co-operation, reneging on what the Secretary of State said in Scotland about the future of Scotland within Europe, and reneging on the people of Scotland themselves.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I am happy to agree with the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). At the beginning, she spoke, if I may say so, with an uncharacteristic immodesty perhaps more typical of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) than of herself. But I am sure that she does not mind joining me, and joining my right hon. and hon. Friends in whose names the amendment was tabled.
    Understandably, the hon. Lady crowed about the role of her distinguished mother-in-law, but I am sure that even Mrs. Winnie Ewing would agree that objective 1 status was the result of a concerted effort by many people, including many Scottish Labour MEPs and other colleagues in the socialist group. To them, as well as to Mrs. Winnie Ewing, we owe a great deal of gratitude. That gratitude is widespread, because an enormous amount of effort went into that achievement. I hope that none of that sounds churlish, because I agree with the hon. Lady and with the opinions of my right hon. Friends, as expressed in the amendment. But there is, of course, a strong case for an additional seat, and particularly an additional seat in Scotland.
    The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) failed to take it on board that geography comes into those matters. Perhaps one ought not to be surprised at that, if one heard the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate the other day. However, geography comes into such matters, and was embraced by one of the earlier Acts that dealt with boundary distribution. The Government have given little thought to the importance of geography and to Scotland's special needs and rights.
    For example, it is a simple fact that the average size of European parliamentary seat in Scotland is about 3,000 square miles, compared with a mere 700 square miles for England. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) is leaving the Chamber. No one wishes to deny any country in the United Kingdom the representation that it feels is appropriate to its needs.
    If it had been suggested at the Edinburgh summit that Scotland would not get the extra seat, people in Scotland would have been amazed. As with so many promises that we have had in Scotland, including promises about Rosyth and Ravenscraig, people expected that the Secretary of State meant what he said when he implied strongly that he would give his support to Scotland getting the extra seat. He also implied that, in a sense, the seat was in the bag.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The hon. Gentleman made the same point on Second Reading. I said then that I had not read my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland's speech. I have now read it. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the same speech, my right hon. Friend made no reference to the European Parliament. He was talking about the Committee of the Regions.
    I could find no trace of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State saying that he was expecting, pushing for or otherwise considering an extra seat in the European Parliament for Scotland. He concentrated strongly on the opportunities that the Committee of the Regions would provide for Scotland.
    Mr. Clarke:. If the hon. Gentleman re-reads the Secretary of State's St. Andrews speech, he will see that, although his right hon. Friend dealt at length with the Committee of the Regions, the main thrust of the speech was that the Secretary of State was fighting for Scotland's influence in Europe to be increased and for stronger representation.
    I refer the Minister to what the Government claim to be one of most important documents to have been presented to the people of Scotland, entitled "Taking Stock". That document arose from the commitment of the Prime Minister, no less, during the election campaign to take stock of the thoughts of the people of Scotland. In the document, the Secretary of State said that the Government would
    "take steps to complement and add to Scotland's strong
    representation in Europe."
    I assume that, if the Minister has done his homework, he will have read that introduction. I would like to discover how the terminology can be converted—even in this place—to mean that no extra seat means an extension or an addition.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would provide a chapter and verse reference, rather than a generality. He has given no direct quote from the Secretary of State which refers to the European Parliament. The hon. Gentleman quotes only my right hon. Friend's references to representation.
    I have read my right hon. Friend's Edinburgh speech. He referred to the Committee of the Regions, to various offices and to the ways Scotland could have its interests conveyed and supported within the EC. The speech made no reference to the European Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman can find such a reference, I should be glad if he would underline it and pass it across the Dispatch Box to me. I have not yet seen it.
    Mr. Clarke: The Government usually manage to turn words on their head, but this is rum. If the Government have redeemed any of their promises by failing to add to Scotland's representation in the European Parliament, I should like the Minister to tell me how they have been responsible for any addition to Scotland's representation. If we do not have increased Scottish representation in the only democratically elected body in Europe, where else are we to have it?
    Are we to believe in the placepersons whom the Government appoint to various quangos in Europe, as they propose to do in Scottish local government and as they have already done in the health service? The
    196
    Government are dodging the issue of direct representation based on the electorate of Scotland deciding what is best for them.
    4.15 pm
    Mrs. Ewing: I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman recalls that, in his St. Andrews speech, the Secretary of State said that he welcomed the Maastricht treaty for two particular reasons. The first reason he outlined was the strengthening of the role of the European Parliament. As the Secretary of State for Scotland argued for the strengthening of the role of the European Parliament and its links with Scotland, one assumed that he was arguing for additional representation.
    Mr. Clarke: In the St. Andrews speech to which the Minister referred, the Secretary of State said:
    "It can only be good news for Scotland to have her own representation within Europe increased in this way".
    He was certainly referring to the Committee of the Regions. He said:
    "I can assure you that I am bidding high".
    One assumed that the Secretary of State was bidding high, not merely for representation on the Committee of the Regions but for an additional European parliamentary seat.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: How does the hon. Gentleman make that out?
    Mr. Clarke: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the numerous newspaper clippings which he undoubtedly has in his office. If he does not have them there, I am sure that they are available in New St. Andrew's house. If they are not available there, I am sure that they are available in the well staffed Conservative offices in Edinburgh.
    Time after time, acolytes of the Secretary of State for Scotland claimed in those cuttings that he had gained the extra seat. Not once, even on the Floor of the House, did the Secretary of State admit that he had failed, failed and failed again. We did not find out until the Bill was published. No denials were issued when staff of the Secretary of State at St. Andrew's house claimed that Scotland had gained the extra seat.
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has talked for the past five minutes about speeches and articles which claim what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said. Could he put on record a quotation?
    Mr. Clarke: You would rightly rebuke me for being repetitive if I did so, Mr. Morris. I have already placed on record that dull, uninteresting introduction to the document "Taking Stock", in which a clear commitment was given—and again, not honoured.
    The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South tells me and tells the House that we in Scotland should be happy with a couple of extra meetings of the Scottish Grand' Committee and the doubtful pleasure of Lord Fraser coming to tell us about the health service, but that we shall not have the right democratically to elect an extra representative to Europe. I must inform him that the Scottish people regard that as democracy turned on its head.
    There is every reason why the Secretary of State and his acolytes should have honoured the commitment which Scotland understood him to give to obtain an extra seat. When the Bill was published, it was clear that our

    197
    Secretary of State had been defeated once again. Our Secretary of State had been beaten. Our Secretary of State had failed.
    There was a time when Secretaries of State regarded such failures as a matter for resignation, but we know that, time after time, Tory Secretaries of State for Scotland have their noses rubbed in the dirt and simply accept it. They did so on Ravenscraig and Rosyth, and now they are doing so on representation in Europe. The House will not accept that.
    I am not surprised that Labour Members and Members from other parties in Scotland are aghast that this is the Government's offering, after the lengthy period from February to June in which the Government have tune to consider the proposals. That is a long time, notwithstanding the rushed nature of the legislation.
    We heard the feeble excuse the other day—I think that it was from the Minister—that we had to deal with Maastricht, and that the House was preoccupied. However, that did not prevent the Government from introducing other measures that were particularly unhelpful to the people of Scotland. Therefore, there is no excuse for the Government taking as long as they did, and in the event getting the wrong answer for Scotland.
    I can understand why some hon. Members, who have since left the Chamber, made their silly points. I do not quite understand why the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South seems so enthusiastic about dismissing the fact that even Europe accepts that Scotland is a nation. It should not be dismissed simply as a region.
    We are a nation, with a great history and with cultural links with the rest of Europe and the world. The geographical points that have been made suggest that we will be under-represented when compared with other nations, not just within the United Kingdom but elsewhere. I do not see how that can be justified.
    The Government's proposals utterly fail to take on board the distinctiveness of Scotland as an individual nation within the United Kingdom and Europe. They fail to take on board the sparsity of population in certain areas. The Highlands and Islands seat makes that point. It is larger, as we have argued, than some countries within the Community.
    The fact that those geographical issues have to be taken on board means that there is a distinct danger that the needs of the rest of Scotland, particularly those parts where there is considerable deprivation and where there is what some people describe, although I do not like the word, as an underclass, will not be established and dealt with in Europe. We should be looking for a response within Europe.
    The same applies to rural areas. For example, I have not yet had an answer to the fact that the average Scottish seat covers an area of 3,000 square miles, compared with an average area of 700 square miles in England. The Government seem to think that we should accept that and go home feeling happy.
    The Government have failed to take those arguments on board. They have failed to consider Scotland's remoteness from the United Kingdom and EC centres of power. I find it odd that, if indeed the Secretary of State for Scotland is as committed to Scotland's interests as he claimed in his St. Andrews speech and his introduction to the stocktaking exercise, he has not once appeared at any of these debates, and nor has any other Minister from the Scottish Office.
    198
    Scotland deserves far more than that. An English Tory Member of Parliament who happens to be the Scottish Whip is no substitute for Scottish representation. I hope that we shall see some modesty there that has otherwise been missing.
    In the past few rushed weeks, we have considered a Bill about British representation in Europe, which should have meant that we would seize on the opportunity to ensure that Britain's—and that includes Scotland's—voice is heard.
    If the Bill is approved and the amendments before the Committee are not accepted, Scotland's share of British seats will fall from 9·9 per cent. to 9·2 per cent. It is not a matter of the Secretary of State failing to honour the pledge that Scotland's representation would be increased. In the Bill, to which the Secretary of State has given his support, we see a decrease in Scottish representation, and that is entirely unacceptable.
    If we disregard for the moment representation from the highlands and islands, lowland Scotland is less well represented than even Wales. I welcome the extra seat for Wales—and not just because my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) has been kind enough to join us on the Front Bench, in contrast to the apathy of Scottish Tory Ministers.
    If the amendments are accepted, the average representation for Scotland outwith the highlands and islands will be about the same as for Wales. I am sure that our Welsh colleagues, who are generous and in no sense inward-looking on these matters, will agree that that is perfectly reasonable.
    The people of Scotland look forward, as they did even before the Edinburgh summit, to improving and increasing our links with Europe. We were proud of the appointment of Bruce Millan as a Commissioner, and we thank him for the contribution that he has made. But there is no substitute, and there can be no substitute—I disagree strongly with the Minister if he is telling us that the Secretary of State for Scotland is merely arguing for a stronger Scottish voice in Europe, but not one that has been approved by the electorate—for democratic representation as expressed at the ballot box, and it is for that that we are pleading today.
    Apart from Tory Ministers and those who support the Tory arguments in Committee today, Scotland is completely united on the issue. We have the support of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Constitutional Convention—[Laughter.]—and even, as I understand' it—before the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South laughs again—of the Scottish CBI. Apart from the Scottish Tory party—we are not even sure about that—virtually no one in Scotland gives succour to the Government's position on the matter.
    If we have—as we were told when the Prime Minister came to Scotland at the election and said that he would involve himself in listening and stocktaking—a Government who, despite all their history, are prepared to do that, the arguments presented today by the hon. Member for Moray and, I am sue, in due course, by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), and by the Labour party are unanswerable.
    We are facing in the Bill a mean-minded Government, who did not have the guile to see the damage that they were doing to the United Kingdom to which they say that they are committed, who did not have the judgment to see that Scotland should have that improved representation,

    199
    and who, in view of the fact that they seem to stir up political marks night after night as they are doing with Scottish local government reform, were not magnanimous enough to accept that the Scottish people have a contribution to make.
    If the Government go ahead with this proposal, they are selling Scotland, Britain and Europe short, and, in time, all that will be reversed.
    Mr. Tim Rathbone: It may seem peculiar that a Member from the other extremity of the United Kingdom should rise on what seems to be, and has been argued as, an entirely parochial matter of Scottish propaganda versus the Government.
    Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman must accept that the word "parochial" refers to a parish. We have been debating a nation. Will he please withdraw that comment?
    Mr. Rathbone: Of course I withdraw it if it hurts the legal refinements of argument with which the hon. Gentleman likes to demean himself. I used the word "parochial" to embrace all of Scotland, and it was in no way meant to be demeaning.
    We are here talking about the representation of various parts of the British Isles in the European Parliament, and that is an important question for anyone who is committed, as I believe all hon. Members are, to the proper operation of parliamentary democracy.
    I happen to agree with the thrust of the arguments of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider his opinion on the allocation of an additional seat in Scotland. That is correct not only from an idealistic standpoint but from a position of political wisdom, because it is only through the allocation of another European constituency to Scotland that we shall increase the possibility of representation for the large minorities there.
    In that caregory, I fear, I must count my own party. I should like to see Conservative representation of the many Conservative interests in that part of the United Kingdom, as I would hope to see all parties representing their own political interests elsewhere in the country.
    It is dangerous to concoct—this has to be a concoction —a system of representation with constituency boundaries that tend against giving broad-brush representation of political minorities in any part of the United Kingdom.
    4.30 pm
    The allocation of another seat to Scotland would also be a practical step. There is room for improvement in our electoral system as it applies to the European Parliament. We shall return to that point under the proposed new part III of the schedule.
    Whether that improvement comes within this Bill, or at some point in the future, with the adoption of a pan-European system of elections that would apply to the United Kingdom as well as to other countries, the allocation of an additional MEP to Scotland would be part of it. We must get that right to achieve the correct basis for that system, whenever it may come.
    However, without the adoption of a new method of elections, which would enable those minorities in Scotland
    200
    or any other part of the United Kingdom to be represented —as part III of the schedule would provide—I suppose that the Minister will argue on a largely numerical basis.
    On that basis, the argument of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) did not cast any doubt on the Government's plans. Averages are averages: they are made up of figures above and below. I am not sure that even the enormous area represented by the relative of the hon. Member for Moray in the European Parliament constitutes an argument against the Government's position. I am quite aware of the difficulty in getting round a large constituency as compared with a small one, but with modern forms of communication, especially telephone and mail links, it is possible to represent a considerably larger number of constituents than any one of us currently represents.
    I realise that some European Members of Parliament find some difficulty in keeping in touch with their constituents because of the large numbers involved.
    Mrs. Ewing: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's point about improved communications by telephone and, in particular, by fax. That development has been most important in the highlands and islands, not only because it has improved communication between MEPs or MPs and their constituents but because it has helped to provide employment opportunities.
    Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that Scotland has only 171 people per square mile, whereas England has 955 people per square mile, and that it is important that personal contact should be maintained between an elected representative and his or her constituents?
    Mr. Rathbone: I fully accept that fact, but I do not think that it should weigh in the balance in the drawing of constituency lines. It should, however, be taken into account in allocating travel funds, to allow the representative of a large constituency to travel by hedge-hopper plane or helicopter—or, in the case of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), a huge motor cruiser, perhaps.
    Dr. Godman: Just before the hon. Gentleman gave way to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), he referred to the need for MEPs to keep in touch with their constituents. Does he agree that MEPs also need to keep in touch with the European Parliament? Absenteeism is far worse in the European Parliament than in this place—indeed, I am told that more than 150 MEPs rarely if ever turn up in Strasbourg.
    Mr. Rathbone: I have long believed that people in glass houses should not throw stones, so I do not propose to enter into argument with the hon. Gentleman on that subject.
    Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I promise him that I will not make a specious lawyer's point. I should like him to return to the theme to which he seemed to be warming—ensuring that Members of the European Parliament can get around large constituencies. Perhaps he would like that to be extended to this place, as some of us have more spread-out parliamentary constituencies than others.
    The hon. Gentleman has already said that he favours some other form of election, but what the Government propose in the Bill is a first-past-the-post system. Does the

    201
    hon. Gentleman agree that one of the great so-called strengths of that system is the identification and sense of community of a single-Member constituency? What sense of community can there possibly be in a constituency the size of the south of Scotland, which stretches from East Lothian down to Stranraer and Galloway, up to Cunninghame, South and across to the border with England in Coldstream. How can a single Member succeeding in a first-past-the-post system identify with such a disparate community
    Mr. Rathbone: I will not be tempted into discussing methods of elections, to which I think we come later in the Bill. I am glad to see that you, Mr. Morris, are indicating your assent for my analysis.
    The Chairman: I would not wish the hon. Gentleman to misinterpret the movements of my eyes or head. I was merely indicating that the hon. Gentleman should stay firmly on the group of amendments before the Committee and not anticipate anything at all.
    Mr. Rathbone: I was correctly analysing the movement of your head, eyes and any other part of your anatomy that may have been indicating agreement, Mr. Morris.
    The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland sells himself short. On my frequent and extremely happy visits to Scotland, I have found that there is a much greater sense of community over a much larger area in Scotland than in most parts of the United Kingdom, and certainly in most parts of England. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman finds that degree of cohesion in his constituency, and that MEPs find coalescence of opinion in theirs.
    We should not be tied in these matters to numerical definitions or to local argument on a statistical or quasi-statistical basis about what is fair. We must make political judgments.
    In that respect, I suggest to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that they may have made the incorrect political judgment in not allocating an additional European parliamentary constituency to Scotland—even though that could detract from the additional representation that could be given to England, which, as we know, has been under-represented vis-a-vis Scotland in this House for years and years.
    Mr. Wallace: I certainly endorse the conclusions of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). There is a strong political argument for Scotland to have additional representation, even at the expense of their being one fewer seat for England. What the hon. Gentleman said, and the political judgment that lies behind it—he is a strong supporter of the European Community—is one that I am sure he identifies in the Community.
    Population is often of secondary importance to the identification of communities and nation states within communities. Luxembourg, whose population is much the same size as that of Edinburgh, has six Members of the European Parliament, whereas Edinburgh has one Member for the whole of Lothian. No one in the Community perceives that as inimical to the whole balance of the Community and the loading of numbers. Indeed, it is part and parcel of the make-up of the Community. That is why the hon. Gentleman presents an important case for Scotland having an extra seat. I hope to give that case some additional support through the use of some statistics.
    202
    The hon. Gentleman is perhaps optimistic. I understand that the amendment relating to part III of the schedule has not been selected on the provisional list of amendments. Admittedly, it is provisional list at this stage. As the day goes on, we hope that wiser counsels will prevail and we shall be able to have a proper discussion on how the additional Members of the European Parliament will be elected.
    I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on moving the amendment. She paid tribute to a research assistant who had done a considerable amount of work. I sat down to do the same exercise and go through the Bill. It is a question not simply of deleting one seat from England and adding one to Scotland—there are consequential parts to it. I was about halfway through the exercise when I realised that the research assistant had done the same thing, so there was little point in doing it again. That is why I was only too pleased to add my name to her amendment.
    I make the same observation as that of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)—no Scottish Office Minister is present for this debate. At the conclusion of the debate on Wednesday, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland slipped on to the Government Front Bench. As no Scottish Office Ministers are present when we are debating an amendment that focuses on Scotland's representation in the European Parliament, it raises the question: what are they doing? Perhaps some of us have a shrewd idea of what they may be doing. It may be part and parcel of what is involved in this amendment.
    Mrs. Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Scottish Office Ministers may well be preparing some answers for Scottish questions tomorrow? It would be a unique situation if we actually received answers to our questions. Alternatively, they may be looking at the changes to the local government boundaries.
    Mr. Wallace: I suspect that it may be a combination of a number of things. My point—this relates to what the hon. Lady said about local government boundaries—is that we have similar sides of the same coin. The Conservative party had a lack of success in Scotland and the Liberal Democrats were even less successful. We both ended up with no seats in the European Parliament. [Interruption.] We were both equally unsuccessful. The Greens beat us. It is true that it would not happen today. Under the first-past-the-post system, what does it matter whether one knocks up second place, fifth place, third place or fourth place? That is the problem with that system.
    The Conservative party was unsuccessful. Therefore, one can understand why it is reluctant to allow another seat in Scotland. It probably realised that in the present climate—after Rosyth and Ravenscraig and all the Government's false and broken promises—there was little chance that the Conservative party would win the seat.
    The Government's lack of electoral success in European elections has led them not to allow Scotland an extra seat. Later this week, they will probably propose local government boundaries that will be gerrymandered to try to ensure Conservative councils. The remarks in The Scotsman clearly show that. It seems that the Boundary Commission has come under some influence with some of its proposals for parliamentary seats.
    Dr. Godman: With regard to the protection and promotion of the needs of Scotland, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, over the next few years, the role played by Scotland's MEPs will be more decisive and important than the role performed by the Scottish members of the Committee of the Regions?
    4.45 pm
    Mr. Wallace: That is true. I shall illustrate that point in a moment by quoting a speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has identified the growing importance of the European Parliament. The identification of that importance seems to be at odds with doing absolutely nothing to enhance the role of Scotland in the European Parliament. It has been noted that the Secretary of State for Scotland is one of the names on this Bill. I shall certainly return to that, because the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) makes an important point.
    My point is that the Conservative party, having reached an impasse or rock bottom in terms of its electoral success in Scotland, must now resort to electoral fixes to get some representation. Of course, that cannot be in the democratic interests of Scotland as a whole.
    I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Lewes. I recall the St. Andrews speech of the Secretary of State, which has been referred to on a number of occasions in this debate. The passage I remember the most is the part where he talked about Scottish Office Ministers being in the boiler room of the European debate. It conjured up a wonderful picture of the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland, the hon. Members for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), in their boiler suits, stoking the furnace and, as usual, coming forward with little results.
    On objective 1 status, success was won by the Minister for Industry when no Scottish Minister could attend such an important European Council meeting where Scotland's vital interests were at stake.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: It worked out okay.
    Mr. Wallace: I accept that it worked out okay.
    Mr. Robertson: It is a United Kingdom formula.
    Mr. Wallace: It is the United Kingdom and I have no objections to what the Minister for Industry achieved, but it is significant that the Scottish Office could not send anyone to the meeting to enhance Scotland's case on an important issue for Scotland. It may be a matter for some debate, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will rule me out of order if I go down that line to say that the Minister for Industry succeeded in spite of rather than because of the absence of Scottish Office Ministers.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I think that it was "because of".
    Mr. Wallace: That may be an interesting debate, but I am sure that I will not be allowed to pursue it at any great length.
    I turn to the St. Andrews speech of the Secretary of State, which the hon. Member for Moray quoted. When the Home Office Minister asked for chapter and verse, it was clear that he had not paid any attention to the passage quoted by the hon. Member for Moray. For his benefit, I quote it again:
    204
    "In this connection, I welcome the Maastricht Treaty for two reasons in particular. Firstly, because it strengthens the role of the European Parliament, where Scotland is directly represented. Scotland has 8 MEPs and while I may have my political differences with them, I am anxious to work in partnership with them to further Scotland's interests in Europe. As a consequence of the Maastricht Treaty, the elected European Parliament"—
    this is the point referred to by the hon. Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow and for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), although I am not sure that he was so strong on it—
    "will have more financial control over the unelected Commission, thus improving significantly the accountability of that key EC institution. This dramatic departure from past practice was the result of British ideas being taken on board by our European partners. That shows that Britain does have clout in the Community. It shows how that clout works for Scotland. And it also illustrates our desire to make the Community as a whole more accountable."
    Many of us support the enhanced importance of the role of the European Parliament. That role has been enhanced by the Maastricht treaty and many of us would like to see it enhanced even more by necessary democratic input to European affairs and the Community. At present, decisions affecting more aspects of our lives are made by the Council of Minister in secret meetings. We would like to see a much greater role for the European Parliament and, of course, we want the voice of Scotland to be more powerful in that Parliament.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland may have identified the strength and role of the European Parliament, but one assumes that if he were doing his job for Scotland, he would try to increase Scotland's representation in that Parliament when that possibility was on offer. Far from doing that, however, the right hon Gentleman is a sponsor of a Bill that will not increase Scotland's representation and role in that Parliament.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I, too, had noted that paragraph from my right hon. Friend's speech for use in my own speech. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting it on the record, because it answers the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who sought to convey to the House the idea that, in that speech, the Secretary of State had pledged himself to effecting an increase in Scottish representation.
    As that paragraph makes absolutely clear. however, my right hon. Friend pledged himself to work closely with Scotland's eight MEPs, even if he disagreed with them politically, for the benefit of Scotland. That was the undertaking that he sought to make and that is the undertaking that, uncharacteristically cunningly, the hon. Member for Monklands, West tried to convert into a promise to increase the representation of Scotland in the European Parliament.
    That was plainly not what my right hon. Friend said, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for putting my right hon. Friend's actual promise on the record.
    Mr. Wallace: I remember when I used to appear before the second division of the Court of Session presided over by Lord Wheatley. Every time I made a point similar to that made by the Minister, Lord Wheatley would lean over, look over his glasses and say, "Is that your best point?" I must ask the Minister the same question, because his intervention did not amount to very much.

    205
    The Secretary of State for Scotland made his speech on 23 November 1992, some three weeks before the Edinburgh summit at which it was agreed to increase the number of seats at the European Parliament. It is not surprising that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the eight Scottish MEPs. For the Minister to seize on that and argue that that meant his right hon. Friend gave a commitment that Scotland should have only eight MEPs is disingenuous. I learnt that good word from the Social Democratic party.
    In that speech, the right hon. Gentleman identified the importance of the European Parliament. He also said that it was important that Scotland was directly represented at it. When there was an opportunity to increase Scotland's representation, however, he did nothing. At least to the outside world, he did nothing: he may have fought his battle in Cabinet and lost. There would be nothing unusual about that, because that seems to be his track record. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman is a signatory to the Bill does not help Scotland's case, which was well put, for political reasons, by the hon. Member for Lewes. I accept that the Secretary of State has acknowledged the importance of the European Parliament.
    The hon. Member for Moray also stressed the important role that that Parliament played in achieving objective 1 status for the highlands and islands and, in particular, extending that to Moray and Argyll and Bute. I pay tribute to the work of the MEP for the Highlands and Islands, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Moray would accept that that success was gained through cross-party support. When the votes were stacking u p, the support offered by the Liberal Democrat group within the European Parliament was important.
    The fishing industry, agriculture, the manufacturing industry and the need for further investment and research are important issues to Scotland. Nowadays, those issues also have an important European dimension. Scotland should have a stronger voice to argue for those interests.
    I should like to give the Minister another quote from the famous Government document—it has probably been consigned to most shelves—entitled "Scotland in the Union. A Partnership for Good." Chapter 5, under the heading, "Scotland in Europe," contained the following conclusion in paragraph 5.9, on page 22:
    "The European Community is involved in almost every aspect of Scottish life. It is vital that Scotland's voice should he heard in Europe and under the existing arrangements Scotland is strongly represented in Brussels. The Government have taken steps to complement and add to that strong representation to ensure that there is a multi-pronged approach for promoting Scotland's interests in Europe."
    The Government may have done that and tried to get some representation on the Committee of the Regions, but what steps have they taken to add to Scotland's representation in the European Parliament? That paragraph concluded:
    "As Europe continues to develop, the Government will keep under review Scotland's profile in Europe to ensure that it matches Scotland's needs."
    One can only ask what kind of view the Secretary of State has of Scotland's needs.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman and Labour Members to criticise the Government for the fact that no member of the Scottish Office is on the Front Bench, when no representative of the Opposition Scottish Office team is present?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was listening to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), and he seemed to be making an adequate speech.
    Mr. Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My speech is founded on a good Scottish base.
    "Scotland in the Union—A Partnership for Good" is a recent publication from the Scottish Office and refers to the need to promote Scotland's profile. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Member for Monklands, West has just re-entered the Chamber and perhaps I should explain to him why he has been greeted with cheers of support. Apart from being a recognition of the hon. Gentleman's natural demeanour and good humour, those cheers are in response to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, who, just a moment ago, raised a point of order about what had happened to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South will now be able to sit at ease, perhaps until the call of nature—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's speech is now beginning to wander a little. Perhaps he could get back to the amendment.
    Mr. Wallace: I will wander no more. I am sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South will not wander for a while either.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: The last time I recall getting a cheer like that was when the House debated a firm called Silent Night and reference was made to a millionaire, Mr. Tom Clarke, with whom I have no links.
    The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will be aware that much is set to happen tomorrow about local government and he will appreciate that, like himself, I have to reply to a long list of telephone calls from people who have told me what the Government will not tell hon. Members.
    Mr. Wallace: In case there is any misunderstanding, I will not say anything further except to assure the hon. Member for Monklands, West that I had made no criticism of his absence. I fully understand the problems that he faces.
    Dr. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, in the next few years, the European Parliament and its Scottish representatives and other Members will play an increasingly important role in the development of the regional management of the fisheries? Does he agree that the growing hostility among many Norwegian fishing communities towards membership of the European Community is precisely due to the failure of the European Commission and the Council of Ministers to initiate and establish a fair and reasonable common fisheries policy?
    Mr. Wallace: I will answer that question with care, so that I do not get distracted into a debate on the common fisheries policy. We should have time in the House, however, to debate it at some length.
    The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow is right that fisheries is an important industry for Scotland. It has undoubtedly been subject to considerable upheaval recently. I sometimes fear that the cause of that can be laid at the doors of the Westminster Government rather than at those of the European institutions. As any fisherman will tell hon. Members, many of the edicts and regulations from the Commission or the Council of Ministers have a direct bearing on the future of the industry.

    207
    I understand the concerns expressed by the Norwegians. The common fisheries policy is an obvious issue which a Scottish MEP or, for that matter, a representative from Cornwall, Devon, Wales or from the south coast of England—the hon. Member for Lewes has strong fishing interests represented at Newhaven and I am sure that his fishermen are interested in that policy—could raise in the European Parliament.
    Fisheries is an important issue in the European Parliament and, given the proportional importance of that industry to Scotland, it is another good argument in favour of increasing Scotland's representation at that Parliament. In that way, Scotland's views could be heard. That does not mean that that need detract, however, from the work currently done by Scottish MEPs on behalf of our fishing interests.
    We should consider some of the population and electorate figures, because they are part of the argument against giving Scotland an additional seat at the European Parliament. I have managed to get some statistical information, for which I thank the Library. At present, England has an electorate of 36,411,280 and has 66 MEPs; Wales has an electorate of 2,222,624 and has four MEPs; Scotland has an electorate of 3,931,429 and has eight MEPs; and Northern Ireland, which elects Members by proportional representation, has an electorate of 1,141,466 with three MEPs.
    5 pm
    The average electorate in England is 551,686; in Wales, 555,656; in Scotland, 491,429; and in Northern Ireland 380,489. To shorten my speech, I shall take it as read that no one disputes that Northern Ireland should have an additional MEP—although, if a Northern Ireland Member were to arrive and engage in this debate, his contribution would be most welcome.
    I shall simply consider the position of England, Wales and Scotland. It is proposed that England should have an additional five MEPs and Wales an additional one MEP. England's average electorate is 512,835; Wales's average electorate is 444,525; and Scotland's average electorate is 491,429—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has a piece of paper that gives different figures, but he will see that it says that option No. 1 is "England plus six". I have done my own arithmetical calculation for England plus five and Wales plus one. I hope that my arithmetic is correct, but I shall stand corrected by any other hon. Member who can correct me during my speech—I have some time to go yet.
    I welcome the fact that Wales will get an additional seat, but if the amendment were accepted it would create a more even distribution of seats, giving England an additional four rather than five, Wales an additional one, and Scotland an additional one. If I get the calculation wrong, it is no fault of the Library, as these are my calculations. England would have an average electorate of 520,161; Wales would have an average electorate of 444,525; and Scotland would have 436,825. That brings Scotland and Wales in line with each other, with a difference of less than 8,000. With such vast electorates, that is very little, so I hope that the argument for putting Scotland and Wales on a comparable basis will weigh with the Minister.
    208
    When considering population, even on that basis, it is important to examine what happens in some other European countries. We would then find that Scotland and Wales are disproportionately under-represented. The Library's research paper No. 93/70 gives the population per MEP. One assumes, therefore, that the electorate per MEP is less because the population includes people who are not electors because they are either too young, insane, Members of the House of Lords or in gaol—or all four. They could not be all four, because Members of the House of Lords could not be too young to vote, but they could be a combination of three of the four.
    After the new MEPs have been added, Belgium will have a population of 400,000 per MEP, which would still be less than Scotland, even if Scotland were allocated another seat. Denmark would have 318,750 people per MEP, which would be considerably less than the average in Scotland. I could continue to quote such figures, but one could not argue that, on a population basis, Scotland would be over-represented by having an additional MEP.
    Mrs. Ewing: This matter is of paramount importance. Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that Luxembourg, for instance, which has roughly the same population as Edinburgh, has six MEPs and an average electorate of only some 66,000? That amplifies the argument that the hon. Gentleman is so ably making.
    Mr. Wallace: I was going to stop quoting such figures, but the hon. Lady has given me the encouragement to continue. For instance, Ireland has a population of 240,000 per MEP; Greece has 400,000; and Portugal has 408,000. Again, they would all have less than Scotland even if Scotland had an extra seat. Further examples include the Netherlands, with 474,194 per MEP. As those figures refer to population, as opposed to electorate, they tend to understate my case. So the Government cannot come to the House and argue that, on the ground of population, Scotland is over-represented, when it is clear that, compared to other EC countries, that is far from the case.
    The question of geography—the land mass covered—is also important. The area of England is 13,043,865 hectares; Wales is 2,076,833 hectares; Scotland is 7,879,340 hectares; and Northern Ireland is 1.412,182 hectares. I do not wish to eleborate on the case of Northern Ireland, as I do not wish to take issue with hon. Members representing Northern Ireland who may join the debate later. The average size of electorate in England is 197,634 hectares; in Wales it is 519,208 hectares; and in Scotland it is a staggering 984,918 hectares.
    I can go through that in much more detail, although I must unfortunately switch to square miles unless another hon. Member can translate square miles into hectares. The North East Scotland constituency covers an area of 4,873 square miles; Mid-Scotland and Fife covers 2,140 square miles; Lothian covers 407 square miles: Strathclyde East covers 500 square miles; Strathclyde West covers 794 square miles; Glasgow a meagre 74 square miles; South of Scotland covers 5,979 square miles; and the Highlands and Islands covers 15,661 square miles.
    Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman's statistics are baffling me. In his otherwise fine speech, he has made little or no mention of the role and functions of MEPs. As the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) said, if the Maastricht treaty is ratified, the MEP will perforce come

    209
    into greater contact with his or her constituents in terms of complaints that are taken to the European Parliament's ombudsman. A case can therefore be made for manageably sized constituencies because of the greater role put on MEPs by Maastricht. Amid the plethora of statistics that the hon. Gentleman has given, he has not mentioned MEPs' enhanced roles.
    Mr. Wallace: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I overlooked that matter. I referred to the importance of the European Parliament and, by definition, the importance of the MEP's role, though I am happy to elaborate on that.
    The hon. Gentleman makes an important point in regard to the increasing workload that will fall on MEPs. European legislation and the arms of the European Community are stretching into ever more aspects of our lives, and hon. Members need no reminding of the number of inquiries that we now receive relating to European issues. Populations have a great bearing on that. The greater the electorate, the greater the potential burden on the parliamentary representative, be it in relation to the European ombudsman or other issues.
    Dr. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that—because of the massive European constituencies—if Maastricht is ratified and there are many complaints about maladministration and so on, we may have to act as referral agents for local MEPs?
    Mr. Wallace: That is possible, and to some extent it already happens. I am happy to say that I have formed a good working relationship with the MEP who covers my constituency, and we have a mutual referral system. She often receives details and refers them to me or the local authority, and I receive details of European issues which I refer to her. I anticipate that happening increasingly. The burden will remain, even with a smaller electorate, although a smaller electorate might make matters more manageable.
    Mrs. Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, while the enhanced facilities that now exist for communicating between the House of Commons and the European Parliament and between both of those and the Council and the Commission—directly by telephone and by faxing—make a great difference, there will have to be additional liaison between MEPs and MPs because of the increased interest that people have in the affairs of the European Parliament?
    At least two major Scottish newspapers now have permanent representation in Brussels. The media generally are taking a greater interest in affairs there. That is heightening the awareness of people in European matters. The citizens of the United Kingdom are becoming alerted to the importance of the European legislative processes.
    Mr. Wallace: The hon. lady makes a pertinent point. the fact that national newspapers are covering events in the European Parliament with greater thoroughness must make people more aware of what is happening there. That will undoubtedly result in people making greater demands on their MEPs and perhaps on their Westminster MPs. Indeed, hon. Members throughout the Committee will have noticed over the years an increasing volume of correspondence attributed to European matters. Those matters have involved, for example, motor bikes, driving licence conditions for Community coaches and the common fisheries policy.
    210
    The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow referred to populations. That in turn concerns the sizes of constituencies. After all, the bigger the constituency, the more chance there is of MEPs having to cover a wider diversity of interests, to the point where virtually every subject could arise.
    I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Lewes to refer to the South of Scotland, which is an extremely large seat. I note that several hon. Members who represent that area are in the Committee today, including the hon. Member for East Lothian. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) was in his place and will no doubt be back, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). They represent divers parts of Scotland, but all within the same South of Scotland seat. I fought that constituency in 1979, unfortunately unsuccessfully.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: Shame.
    Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that word of sympathy, although, as the constituency was then known as Berwick and East Lothian, I do not think that he was so sympathetic at the time.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I must admit that I did not vote for the hon. Gentleman.
    5.15 pm
    Mr. Wallace: That comes as no surprise.
    During that, albeit brief, campaign, I learned a great deal about what goes on. I got my nomination papers in with about three minutes to spare, so late in the day had I been selected. I saved considerable public expense because the returning officer had already had the ballot papers printed and was biting his nails wondering whether I would make it in time.
    I learned during that experience of the great diversity within that Euro-constituency, including the sheer difficulty of covering the whole area. During an election campaign, one is trying to cover a wide area in a short period compared with the time available when the European Parliament is sitting normally. I was fortunate to have a home base in Dumfriesshire, so, from the constituency point of view, it was useful to be 90 miles one way to Coldstream and 90 miles the other way to Stranraer, and one could travel easily to places such as Haddington or Killington in Ayr. That experience brought home to me. just what a vast area was being covered.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Did the hon. Gentleman get to Prestonpans?
    Mr. Wallace: I passed through Prestonpans, but I do not think there were many Liberal votes to be won there, so I would not have spent a great deal of time there. I remember a meeting at which I was to talk to fishermen in Eyemouth, but I am afraid nobody turned up. I met some of them in a local hostelry and had a good discussion about the common fisheries policy.
    One of the biggest meetings that I attended during that campaign centred on the issue of nuclear waste dumping, though perhaps that had what might be called more of a general academic interest to people living in, say, Carluke. I had almost forgotten that Carluke was in the then European patch that I was contesting—until about a year later, when a student I was tutoring in conveyancing law

    211
    at Edinburgh university said, "You must be the guy I voted for in the European elections." I had forgotten that I had sought election in his home area.
    I have made those points to illustrate how vast constituencies are. Not only are they difficult to manage, but they can give rise to many issues. If the Government are as insistent on the first-past-the-post system as they appear to be, we are in difficulty, because some of the constituencies are so large that it can be difficult to identify a community of interests.
    That would apply even more to the new boundaries, with 71 rather than the present 66 seats. The average size in England would be 512,835 hectares, and Wales and Scotland would be the figures I have given—[Interruption.] I apologise to the Committee. I have referred to electorates rather than to areas. I must give the correct figures. We propose something different, but I fear that I cannot immediately find the figures. Suffice it to say that our proposal would be more manageable than the scheme before us.
    There is a strong political case for Scotland being given an extra seat. I am not putting a nationalistic argument. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland said in his famous St. Andrews speech:
    "I have talked already of Scots being one of the people of Europe, as much part of the rich tapestry of the Community as Bavarians, Walloons or Catalonians."
    That must be appreciated, as the hon. Member for Lewes has strongly argued.
    Mr. Rathbone: Hon. Members will recall that I doubted the validity of the numerical base for such arguments as the hon. Gentleman is pursuing. Even greater doubt is cast on that numerical base if the single additional Scottish Member were elected for the whole of Scotland, whatever basis of voting might be suggested. It would mean the establishment of a constituency embracing all of Scotland. Any points that the hon. Gentleman is now making about the difficulties of getting around any part of Scotland would be that much greater. Will he explain how those two points are happily married?
    Mr. Wallace: With pleasure. As the hon. Gentleman will be quick to appreciate, we are not comparing like with like, because I have been basing my argument, as we must, on the first-past-the-post system which the Government have proposed.
    Much play is made of the Member of the European Parliament's identity with the community that he represents. In a seat such as the south of Scotland, there is huge diversity of communities. They undoubtedly have things in common—they celebrate St. Andrew's day on 30 November, and the nights around Burns night on 25 January and they have a good time. We all cheer for the same side at Murrayfield and Hampden park.
    There are also other common factors that are much more important and deeply ingrained in the Scottish culture. A Member of the European Parliament deals with a multiplicity of interests. If we were to allocate one seat to Scotland using a proportional system, we would be elevating another principle—fair representation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewes would warm to that proposal, not least because it would achieve some representation for his party in Scotland.
    212
    There is a community of identity in Scotland. But clearly, if one were to have the best of all worlds, we would do away with the first-past-the-post system and have a proper system of fair representation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am pleased to hear the encouraging support from Labour Members. I shall not go into too much detail on that issue now, but I hope that we will debate it on another occasion.
    I quoted earlier from the famous St. Andrews speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland, which I suspect has been over-quoted, as it did not amount to much.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: It is overrated.
    Mr. Wallace: That is a better way to describe it, particularly as it promised so much and has failed to deliver.
    In that speech, the Secretary of State advanced one or two good arguments—on which the hon. Member for Lewes elaborated—on the political value of having an extra seat for Scotland. I hope that I have made it clear that the European Parliament has an increasingly important role which means that there is an additional work load for Members of the European Parliament.
    If there is an opportunity to reduce that work load through a much better distribution of seats in Scotland to deal with issues that are peculiarly Scottish and have a specific and Scottish dimension, it should be taken. In comparison with other European Community countries, Scotland is not over-represented.
    Vast areas will need to be covered. An additional Scottish seat elected under the first-past-the-post system would allow some steps to be taken towards achieving a manageable work load. It would be no means eliminate some of the greater travel distances, but nevertheless it would help to achieve that aim. For those compelling reasons, I cannot understand how the Minister can say that he is not going to give Scotland another seat. The speeches of hon. Members representing the Scottish National party, the Labour party, the Conservative party, and the Liberal Democrats show that there is great cross-party consensus which should be welcomed and encouraged. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the arguments I have advanced.
    Mr. John McAllion: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has made a speech of stunning length–40 to 50 minutes, which seemed like only four or five hours. He held the House captivated throughout his speech. If he ever feels like publishing it, I am sure that it would sell well in the travelogue section of any of the bookshops in Scotland. One of the details which the hon. Gentleman failed to mention and of which I was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), was that the shoreline of Argyll is longer than the shoreline of France. The hon. Gentleman should have remembered and mentioned that when making such a detailed speech.
    I have no intention of referring to the speech allegedly made by the Secretary of State for Scotland on St. Andrew's day. Like 99·999 per cent. of the Scottish people, I was totally unaware that the Secretary of State for Scotland had made a speech on St. Andrew's day. Now that I am aware of it, I have no intention of reading the speech.
    Mr. Wallace: The speech was made in St. Andrews on 23 November, not on St. Andrew's day.
    Mr. McAllion: That explains the matter. I was perplexed when I heard that the Secretary of State had made a St. Andrew's day speech on 23 November, as I had always believed that St. Andrew's day was on 30 November. I thought that perhaps I was wrong. 11 shall not refer to the speech because, if I remember rightly, the Secretary of State for Scotland is the same man who claimed that the Conservative party had won the general election in Scotland on the basis that it received one in four of the votes cast in 11 out of the 72 seats that were at stake. The speeches of anyone who is as out of touch with reality as the Secretary of State should not be listened to or accorded respect.
    I am pleased with the group of amendments tabled in the names of my hon. Friends and hon. Members from other political parties in Scotland. As a founder member and stalwart supporter of Scotland United I was delighted to see the cross-party co-operation that led to the parliamentary leaders of the Labour party, the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats putting their names to the same amendments and being so nice to each other during the debate. It gladdened my old heart to see such cross-party co-operation and restored my faith in the fact that, even at this late hour, Scotland may yet rescue something from the debris of previous general elections, eventually get their act together and perhaps force the Tories into retreat. I certainly hope so.
    Earlier in the debate, the complete lack of participation from anyone from the Conservative party in Scotland was noticeable. Not only Scottish Office Ministers, but Back Benchers, have yet to attempt to catch your eye. Mr. Morris, to try to participate in the debate and explain why they are opposed to Scotland's being given an additional seat and additional representation in the European Parliament. We had to rely on an hon. Member from the other extremity of the United Kingdom—as he described it—to argue the case for Scotland to be given additional representation.
    What struck me about the hon. Gentleman's argument was that he said that he believed that everyone in the Chamber would be in favour of the proper operation of parliamentary democracy, but that it was important, within that process, for the voice of the political minority to be heard. I found that argument strange coming from a representative of the Conservative party as that party is the political minority in Scotland. Not only is the Conservative party given a voice in the proper operation of Scottish democracy: it dominates Scottish democracy. It runs every aspect of Scotland on the basis of only a handful of votes cast in its favour and a handful of seats.
    The latest opinion poll in Scotland gives the Conservative party 16 per cent. support among Scottish people—[Laughter.] However, it is still able to make key decisions about how Scotland will be represented elsewhere. I see that Conservative Members laugh at my reference to the fact that the Conservative party has only 16 per cent. support in Scotland. A spokesperson for the Conservative party went on record as saying that he was delighted that his party had attained 16 per cent. of the opinion poll ratings in Scotland because it represented a marked improvement.
    I was interested in some aspects of the argument of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). She left the
    214
    Chamber as soon as I got to my feet—the Scottish National party must now be opposed to cross-party co-operation, as it skedaddles as soon as a Labour Member rises from his seat. The hon. Lady advanced the argument about the British state. It is important, particularly for Conservative Members, to understand what we mean when we talk of the British state and say that the British state is not a country or a nation.
    As the hon. Lady correctly said, the British state is a multinational state. It consists not of one nation or one country, but three different nations and three different countries—Scotland, Wales and England. I clearly remember at the last Labour party conference in Scotland when we debated whether Labour should stand and organise in Northern Ireland. The biggest cheer of the day was reserved for one of the delegates who took the platform and, in a short speech, simply said that he did not think that the British state should be in Northern Ireland, never mind the Labour party. He received a tremendous reception.
    I do not think that the British state should be in England, never mind in Northern Ireland. I do not think that the British state should be in Scotland, Wales, or, indeed, Northern Ireland. We need a new, democratic deal to bind together the different nations that make up the United Kingdom, not the present system which is supported by the Conservative party and by no other political party in this country which supports the status quo.
    I could not agree with the hon. Lady when she tried to answer that, because we are part of a multinational state, Scotland should be treated as an equal partner with England and be given—as she put it—full and equal representation with England at the European Parliament. As I understand it, England currently has 71 Members of the European Parliament. If the amendments are defeated, it will have 76 Members of the European Parliament. If the hon. Lady is to be taken at her word, she is arguing for Scotland to have 76 Members of the European Parliament, which seems slightly absurd as we only have 72 Members in the United Kingdom Parliament. The Scottish National party seems to be arguing that we should have 76 Members at European level.
    If anyone read The Scotsman this morning—I am sure that you, Mr. Morris, read it every morning of your life —he would have seen an article which was critical of Euro Members of Parliament. It attacked them for living off their expenses and consultancies, and the rich pickings that they can make during the five years of their tenancy in the European Parliament. I did not necessarily agree with the article, but it expressed a view that is held by some people.
    The author is a member of the Conservative party. Indeed, he was a candidate in recent general elections. Naturally, like the majority of Conservative candidates in Scotland, he was defeated. I refer to Mr. Peter Clarke, who writes for The Scotsman. If the views that he expressed were in any way correct—if it were true that Scotland should have not eight but 76 Euro-Members of Parliament living off the fat pickings in Europe—it would be a rather strange world. It is surprising that the hon. Lady should advance such an argument.
    5.30 pm
    It was surprising also to hear the hon. Lady argue that the answer is for Scotland to have independence, that only with independence shall we be able to determine for

    215
    ourselves what our representation in the European Parliament should be. The hon. Lady went on to say that she is a great supporter of further integration at the European level. I have always understood that further integration at the European level would require member states to surrender sovereignty. Thus, the hon. Lady says that she believes in independence for Scotland, but that she believes also in giving up Scotland's independence, in ceding sovereignty to the European Parliament.
    It seems to me that those are contradictory positions, which cannot be used with any kind of logic. I am always struck by the difference between the Labour party and the Scottish National party. We argue for a Scottish parliament within the United Kingdom, while the Scottish nationalists argue for a Scottish parliament within the union of a European superstate.
    I should like now to turn to points that have been made in connection with the amendments. If the amendments are defeated, Scotland will have eight European parliamentary seats out of a total of 93 for the United Kingdom. That is about 6 per cent.
    Mr. Wallace: Eighty-seven.
    Mr. McAllion: I understand that the current number is 87, which will be increased to 93.
    Mr. Wallace: The current number is 81.
    Mr. McAllion: So it is to go up to 87.
    In any case, 6 to 7 per cent. of the seats in the European Parliament will be Scottish. In the case of Westminster, we have 72 seats out of 630–11 per cent. It seems to me, therefore, that there is a contradiction in the Government's argument. They say that it is only fair that Scotland should settle for 6 or 7 per cent. representation at the European level. They argue that we must be fair to England, Wales and Scotland. But if it is fair for Scotland to have representation of only 6 or 7 per cent. at the European level, surely it is fair that it should have only 6 or 7 per cent. representation at the United Kingdom level.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Do not encourage them.
    Mr. McAllion: They are being illogical, and the flaws in their argument must be pointed out.
    They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that it is fair for Scotland to have 6 to 7 per cent. representation in Europe—only about half its 11 or 12 per cent. representation in the United Kingdom. The application of consistency and logic would result in a reduction in the number of Scottish seats in this place to about 39. This is not my idea; it is the logic of the Government. They are pretending to be fair and logical in their treatment of Scotland. Of course, there is no fairness or logic. If the Government were to pursue their argument to its logical conclusion, they would have severe problems in Scotland.
    Reference has been made to the White Paper, "Scotland in the Union—A Partnership for Good". In the foreword, written by the Prime Minister, there is a reference to the Government's deep commitment to the unity of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman recognised that no nation could be held irrevocably, against its will, in any kind of union. He conceded that there was growing anxiety in Scotland about the union and whether it was in Scotland's best interests. He promised that he would
    216
    search for new ways of strengthening the union—in particular, Scotland's place in it—so that Scotland might flourish for a fourth century.
    The Minister may believe that that is just so much guff strictly for the natives up in Scotland, that the Prime Minister makes such remarks only when he is there. When he comes down to England it is a very different argument —the argument that was advanced during the Second Reading debate: that Scotland's place in the union is no different from that of Essex, Yorkshire or Lancashire, that the governing principle must always be fairness as between individual constituencies and the size of electorates.
    If that is what the Government actually believe, they should apply the argument not only in respect of the European Parliament but in respect of the United Kingdom. That would result in their ignoring Scotland's so-called special place in the union. We are to be denied an additional seat in Europe. Consistency would result in our representation in this House being cut.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I had an opportunity on Sunday afternoon to meet some of my hon. Friend's constituents at Timex. The regard of one of them—a woman—for my hon. Friend was exceeded only by my own. Those people made the point that, time after time, the Government miss opportunities in Europe—including the opportunity of the social chapter—very much at their own expense.
    Mr. McAllion: That is an excellent point. Not long ago, I was accused in the Chamber by the Minister for Public Transport, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), of supporting job wreckers at Timex. The hon. Gentleman was referring, of course, to the Timex workers who had been sacked and locked out by management, whereas the real job wrecker there is the multinational company itself. The Government consistently get it wrong by backing multinationals, as well as others who are rich and powerful, against their own people. There is no better example of this than the way in which they have set their face against the social chapter, which would give the workers of this country the protection that is available to workers everywhere else in the European Community.
    The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is muttering into his shirt. I shall not ask him what he said, as I understand that he has been promoted to the post of Parliamentary Private Secretary and is therefore not allowed to take part in debates. That being the case, he should not mutter either. He should just sit there quietly and accept what Opposition Members say.
    There is no possibility that the Government will apply to the European Parliament the logic that they apply to the United Kingdom Parliament. If they were to do so, they would be faced with the break-up of the United Kingdom and of this Parliament, as they know very well. While North sea oil is important to them, there will be no possibility of their risking Scotland's breaking away and deciding for itself that the union no longer has anything to offer to its people.
    The Government continue to be two-faced and inconsistent. They play the national card in England when it suits them to do so. For example, during this debate they say that they are fighting for fairness for England. When they are up in Scotland, of course, there is no such place as England, and Scotland has a special place in the United

    217
    Kingdom. What they say is totally inconsistent, totally two-faced and totally unbelievable. No one in Scotland, except diehard Tories, believes them any longer.
    Ultimately, Scotland's representation in Europe should be a matter for the Scottish people themselves. The hon. Member for Moray argued that, with an independent Scotland, that would be the case. The trouble with her argument is that Scotland has not yet voted for independence.
    Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman note the fact that at 5.37 pm, almost two hours after the beginning of the debate, a Scottish Office Minister now graces the Committee with his presence?
    Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. No doubt, when the Minister saw my name appear on the screen, he hurried to the Chamber.
    It is for the Scottish people to decide how they should be represented at the European level. With an independent Scotland, that would be the case. But we have not yet voted for independence and no major Scottish political party supports that policy. I include the Scottish National party, which is willing to give up Scotland's independence and to cede its sovereignty to the European Parliament in a way that would be much more damaging to Scottish interests than in the sovereignty of this Parliament. The SNP, for example, supports an independent central bank beyond any kind of political control.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We are dealing with a relatively narrow point, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to address himself to it.
    Mr. McAllion: I am trying very hard to do precisely that, Dame Janet.
    How do the Scottish people express their views on what their representation should be in Europe? They choose not to do so through the SNP. Indeed, that would be a waste of time because the SNP holds out only an unrealistic promise. Nor do they choose to do so by voting for incorporation in a unitary Parliament, as the Tories want them to do and even pretend that they have done. The Scottish people did not vote for this Parliament to decide how they should be represented at the European level; they voted for something quite different.
    The democratic authority for the Bill comes from the Tory vision of an incorporating union between Scotland and England. The Tories believe that this is a unitary Parliament in which the majority is all powerful. Their attachment to the reactionary principle that sovereignty rests not with the people but with whichever party happens to have a majority in the House is the vision that they pray in aid when they argue that they have the right to decide for Scotland how it will be represented in Europe.
    That vision has been overwhelmingly rejected by the Scottish people. Three out of four of those who voted in the last general election voted against that sort of incorporating union, unitary Parliament and the Tories having the right to tell us what our representation in Europe should be. Indeed, 61 of the 72 Members who represent Scotland in this Parliament oppose that sort of incorporating union and unitary Parliament. That goes to the heart of the argument between the two sides tonight.
    We do not believe that the Government have a democratic right to decide Scotland's representation in Europe—or any of the other issues that affect the Scottish
    218
    people. The Scottish people have that right, which is why all the opposition parties signed the claim of right for Scotland—
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I hesitate to become involved in this argument, but when we have a Labour Government and the majority of Members of Parliament in England happen to be Conservative, will the same logic apply and the Labour Government not have the right to govern England?
    Mr. McAllion: If English people decide to vote overwhelmingly for parties that want to break up the United Kingdom, that is a matter for them. The sovereign right of nations applies to all nations across the globe, not just to this or that nation. If Scotland has a national right to self-determination, so has England. That is what the argument is about. We are discussing who decides the representation of different nations at the European Parliament. We are challenging the idea that that decision should be taken only by the majority party in the House, which does not even reflect the majority of the English people, let alone the majority of the British people.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument appears to be that we should not legislate on anything, at any time. We must deal with matters as they are.
    Mr. McAllion: If the House decided to stop interfering in the affairs of the British people, that would be one of the most progressive decisions that it had made and the British people—especially in Scotland—would be the first to give three cheers and to say, "Thank God for that."
    Scotland wants a new democratic deal. It wants a directly elected Scottish Parliament, sovereign in its own areas, which can negotiate with the Westminster Parliament, if that suits Scotland, on a particular area, or with the European Parliament, if that suits Scotland, on other areas. That Scottish Parliament would negotiate the division of competencies and powers between the Scottish, Westminster and European Parliaments. That is what Scotland voted for and that is what Scotland should be getting.
    A Scottish Parliament should have been established in the aftermath of the general election, able to negotiate either directly with Europe or, if it thought it better, with Westminster about what the joint representation of Scotland and the rest of Britain should be. Before the House decides Scotland's representation in Europe, the consent of the Scottish people should be sought.
    All too often, the House decides for Scotland and discounts what Scotland thinks. The Tory Government believe that there should be five additional seats for England and one for Wales—and Scotland can jump into the North sea if it so chooses. That is the Government's view, but they have no right to impose it on the people of Scotland.
    One point that has not yet been mentioned is that the Bill is the consequence of an agreement reached at the European Council, which was held in Scotland's capital city last year. However, there was no direct representation for Scotland in the European Council when it discussed additional representation for the countries within the European Community.
    In fact, we were represented by the Prime Minister, who is now so unpopular in Scotland that he is even less

    219
    popular than his predecessor. To be less popular than Baroness Thatcher is some achievement, which I doubt will ever be paralleled. The feelings of the Scottish people were probably better represented outside that European Council meeting when 25,000 people demonstrated in support of a Scottish Parliament.
    5.45 pm
    The Scottish people are becoming seriously disillusioned with the Tory Government's views on how Scotland should he represented in the European Community. The Government argue that we are represented because the Secretary of State for Scotland happens to be a member of the Tory Cabinet. As has been said before, the right hon. Gentleman represents the Cabinet in Scotland; he does not represent Scotland in the Cabinet. That is a tragedy.
    They say that we are represented because the Tory-controlled Scottish Office participates in the United Kingdom governmental machine that influences the United Kingdom's permanent representatives in Europe. They argue that we are represented because that same Tory-controlled Scottish Office participates through the Council of Ministers and agencies such as Scotland Europa and Scottish Trade International, which are essentially Government agencies under the control of Tory Ministers.
    That indirect representation through the Tory Government, who are so unpopular in Scotland, is an affront to democracy and all Opposition Members recognise that. I suspect that Tory Members who are honest with themselves also recognise that. They know they have no democratic right to make decisions tonight about what should happen north of the border.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said that there is no substitute for democracy. Tragically, in Scotland this Parliament is a substitute for democracy. The way that Parliament is governed is an affront to democracy. If the Tories do not understand that, their current poll rating in Scotland of 16 per cent. will plummet even further, and deservedly so.
    Dr. Godman: It is curious that we, in this multinational Parliament, are debating the extent of the representation within another multinational Parliament —
    Mr. Wallace: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) has departed? Again, there is no Scottish Office Minister on the Bench.
    Dr. Godman: The Minister came in so quietly that I did not spot his presence; I certainly did not spot his departure.
    The legislative sovereignty of this Parliament has been severely restricted by the central institutions of the European Community, whereas over the next decade the power of the European Parliament must grow. It cannot be otherwise, because it cannot remain in its present condition. The Bill owes its very existence to the reunification of the two Germanies, which in itself was a most welcome European development? It has important repercussions for the European Parliament.
    I agreed wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that we are members of a
    220
    multinational parliament. There are those who believe that, with European union, if Maastricht is ratified, Europe will develop—albeit slowly—into a multinational federal state. I parted company with the hon. Lady, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), when she argued the case for an independent Scotland within the European Community.
    Given the treaty of Rome, the role of the European Commission, that of the European Council and, perhaps most important, that of the European Court of Justice, there are no independent member states of the European Community. It makes better sense, in my view, to talk about autonomous member states forming, in relation to the Maastricht treaty, a European union.
    I believe that we all now accept, readily or grudgingly, the increasingly important role of the European Parliament and the Members of that Parliament. That greater power of the European Parliament must be matched—if that is the right way to put it—by the increasing diminution of this Parliament in terms of the power of the European Community's central institutions.
    All 12 national legislatures are now subordinate to the European Court of Justice; it is in evey sense a supreme court. As Judge Christopher Bellamy of the Court of First Instance said in his De Lancy lecture last year, those of us who are aware of it are witnessing a quiet legal and constitutional revolution in terms of the power of these institutions. That includes the European Parliament.
    In his lecture, Judge Ballamy claimed that, if we accept
    "that the principle of the supremacy of Community law applies not only when the Act of Parliament in question is inconsistent with the Treaty, but also when it is inconsistent with subsidiary Community legislation, that is to say regulations and directives, then matters have moved very far indeed. Because in that event the will of the once sovereign legislature has become subordinate to another legislative act, which is itself derivative, passed by another legislature, the EEC Council of Ministers. On this view Parliament"—
    he is referring her to the United Kingdom Parliament—
    "has become subordinate not just to a constitutional instrument—the Treaty—but also to subsequent legislation based on the Treaty made by a rival legislature."
    He is talking about the European Council of Ministers, but in time to come that statement would fit the role played by the European Parliament.
    If we look at the powers of that Parliament and the role of the MEPs, we see that, in accordance with the Maastricht treaty, all Community citizens have the right to petition the European Parliament by way of their local MEP—that is article 18—and all citizens have a right to complain to the European ombudsman in respect of the actions of Community institutions. They cannot do this by taking a complaint to a Member of Parliament; they have to take the complaint to a Member of the European Parliament.
    So, in terms of representing the interests of these huge constituencies, certainly where Scotland is concerned, MEPs will perforce, I believe, become much more involved, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) suggested, in a very wide range of issues. He said, rightly, that we are already referral agencies where some matters are concerned in terms of taking complaints to MEPs. This, I believe, will increase in the light of Maastricht.
    Mr. Brian Donohoe: Will my hon. Friend tell us how it is possible to consider an MEP in Scotland to be a local MEP, when two of them represent both the east and the west coasts of Scotland?
    Dr. Godman: I am glad that my hon. Friend was listening so intently. I apologise for that slip of the tongue. I guess it is a contradiction in terms to talk about Alex Smith, the very fine MEP for South of Scotland, being a local MEP, given that his constituency, as was pointed out earlier, stretches from coast to coast. He represents for example, both east coast and west coast fishermen.
    We have to remember that these MEPs are taking part in a European Parliament which increasingly has a powerful role to play—the kind of role that this Parliament cannot play. In terms of the decision making of that unelected body, the European Commission, and of the Council of Ministers, these few MEPs have a more direct, more interventionist role to play with regard to the proposals emerging from the European Commission. Even now, they can block some proposals. For example, they can stop the accession of a country seeking to join the European Community.
    In terms of the European Parliament, MEPs become, vis-a-vis the Maastricht treaty, in every sense co-decision-makers with the Council of Ministers. We have never had that power. According to article 189b, if the European Parliament is so minded, it can reject a Commission proposal. We in national Parliaments cannot do that. Even at this moment, the various Committees in the European Parliament can shape to a considerable degree proposals by the 17 Commissioners to the Council of Ministers.
    So it is not an empty claim that the European Parliament now has powers that we do not have, but which it is often reluctant to use. I believe that I am right in saying that it can dismiss the President of the European Commission. We do not have that power. So we are talking about placing representatives on this increasingly powerful body.
    Under article 189b, the European Parliament can stop a Council regulation. As Judge Bellamy said in his lecture:
    "We will therefore have a joint legislature, the Council of Ministers and the Parliament."
    He is referring, of course, to the European Parliament.
    "In recognition of that fact Community regulations will be
    signed by the Presidents of both bodies."
    We are literally standing on the touchline in this regard, but all this centres upon the immensely powerful role of the European Court of Justice and the roles, certainly nowhere near as powerful, of the European Commission and the Council of Ministers. In a very real sense, we are determining the extent of representation in another multi-national Parliament, which is growing in stature and power, while our legislative power is increasingly constrained by the actions and deliberations of central institutions.
    6 pm
    Some parliamentarians in other member states are even arguing that the members of the European Court of Justice should be appointed by the European Parliament rather by national Governments on the recommendation of law officers, as is currently the case. I do not want the European Parliament to be given that kind of power, but those discussions are taking place, and in the amendments we are arguing for more representation in Scotland.
    222
    We need that extra seat in the European Parliament. I consider it essential that Scotland should be well represented by the very finest people.
    Mr. Marlow: Surrounded as I am by hon. Members concerned with Scotland, I hope that it will be all right for me to stand up and say a few words on behalf of England. Is that in order with the rest of the House?
    The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is a question of whether it is in order with the Chair. Provided it is relevant, the answer is yes.
    Mr. Marlow: I will try my hardest—and I may well succeed—to make it both in order and relevant.
    What does the European Parliament do? What is it for? I do not think that anyone is greatly impressed by the European Parliament at the moment, or particularly impressed by its Members. There are some very bright people, some of them with a great deal of ambition but not a lot of power. It would seem that their overriding objective at the moment is to increase the power of the institution of which they are members, rather than the good governance of Europe. So be it. If we have more members of that institution, we are concerned about how they should be allocated within this nation of ours, this state of ours, this United Kingdom. We are a united kingdom, and we are all equal within it.
    Mr. McAllion: We are not a nation.
    Mr. Marlow: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman says that we are not a nation. I believe that we are a nation state, and the nation state is the United Kingdom.
    Mr. McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Marlow: In a minute.
    I believe that we are a nation state—to which I give my loyalty—and that everybody within that nation state should have equal rights and equal representation. People and businesses in my constituency may wish to get in touch with their MEP, and may have reason to do so. I cannot really conceive why, if this institution has any value at all —and hopefully it does—my constituents should be less fully represented than someone from another part of the country. I cannot conceive why constituents in Cornwall should have a different level of representation from that of constituents in Scotland, London, or the north-west. Why should the regions of the United Kingdom be catered for less fully, just because they happen to be in a different part of the nation state from that part known as Scotland?
    Mr. Allen: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to erode the original premise of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 and subsequent amendments—that it need not be a pure mathematical formula that distributes seats around Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England?
    "The electorate of any Assembly constituency in Great Britain shall be as near the electoral quota as is reasonably practical having regard, where appropriate, to special geographical considerations."
    Does the hon. Gentleman concede that in Scotland, more than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, special geographical considerations apply?
    Mr. Marlow: I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about size and scale. That is a factor, but there are many

    223
    other factors, as I am sure he will agree. Increasingly, in this age of the communications revolution, a lot of work is done by telephone and fax; in the future, much will probably be done by videophone, and so on and so forth, and by meetings of that sort. Although I concede that the population is more sparsely distributed in some parts of the country than in others, I do not think that that in itself is a sufficient reason why people in those parts of the country—
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: Perhaps I may help the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). The Act to which he referred does enumerate the normal boundary commission criteria, but that is in their respective parts of the United Kingdom. The Boundary Commission took cognisance of the geography of Scotland, which is why in the Highland and Islands constituency the large area is balanced by a much smaller population. That is done within the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, and not across the United Kingdom as a whole. The legislation is quite clear about that.
    Mr. Marlow: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but there are parts of Scotland where the population is very densely distributed, whereas there are parts of England where the population is not as densely distributed as it is in Scotland.
    The hon. Gentleman talked about geography and boundaries being consistent, to a certain extent, with identity. It makes sense where possible—where groups of people live within a county, or a high-density area, or a catchment area, or a London, or Edinburgh or Glasgow—that the boundaries should not go through the middle of Glasgow or Nottingham, but should be consistent with people's communities and identities.
    If there is work to be done, the overriding principle of Members of the European Parliament should be that it is done for everybody—every business, every constituent and every interest—in the United Kingdom in equal measure. I see no reason why my constituents should not have the same opportunity of being represented by somebody in the European Parliament as any other constituent in the country, be they in Cornwall, Northumberland, Scotland, Cambridge or wherever.
    The Government are quite right to allocate the seats in the way they seek. I think that in the past England has been unfairly treated, and that it is only right and proper that that unfairness should be addressed.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: How does the hon. Gentleman tie in what he is saying today with what he said on Second Reading? It is my recollection that his attitude to the enlargement of the European Parliament was, so far as this country is concerned, that it was totally unnecessary. If I recall his speech aright, he said it was simply a drain on the Exchequer and the taxpayer. If he is not terribly interested in enlargement, why not bow out of the debate and let those who do feel that it is important that we are represented have their way?
    Mr. Marlow: It is an interesting point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not quoting me aright. I am sceptical about the European Parliament and the motives of its Members, but I am not saying that it does not have
    224
    a role and a purpose, or that it is a total waste of space. It may develop a constructive role which is helpful to the interests of my constituents and of the United Kingdom as a whole, although I am sceptical about that. I am not saying that we have reached that stage yet. It may happen.
    The hon. Gentleman has his view, which is shared by some people in my constituency. I am likewise entitled to participate in the debate, particularly as many of the hon. Members who have already spoken have represented a small but vital part of the United Kingdom: Scotland. Someone should run up the flag for England and ensure that we follow the Government's lead in getting justice and a fair share for England. I am delighted that the Government are proceeding in such a way.
    Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. Perhaps what he fails to understand was betrayed by his opening remarks. He seems to regard the United Kingdom as one unitary state, without accepting that it is composed of the four distinctive elements of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. Recognising those separate identities within the United Kingdom, which I support, let us consider the fact that Luxembourg, with a population that might merit only about one Member of the European Parliament, has six. There has always been over-representation of peoples and nations within the European Community, and it is something that the United Kingdom should have tried to achieve.
    Mr. Marlow: I accept that the United Kingdom, which I call a nation state, is made up of four different nations. They have their different identities and aspirations, but come together within the greater United Kingdom. I think most hon. Members are in favour of that, as it is a good thing. So I do not understand where the difference lies between the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and myself.
    The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland goes on about Luxembourg. Since the inception of the Community, Luxembourg has been over-represented in the European Parliament. I am against overrepresentation and would like it to be reformed because it is wrong. It is nonsense. As far as possible, different parts of Europe should be equally represented in the European Parliament; different peoples, constituents, organisations and lobbies should have equal access. It is wrong that Luxembourg, which is smaller than Northamptonshire—which does not even have an MEP because it is not big enough—has six MEPs when its population is less than that of Northampton.
    The main reason for my opposition to the Maastricht treaty is that the Commission has too much power and is seeking to get more. I want its power to be reduced. It is not properly democratically accountable, and because there is no such thing as party there and it is polyglot, and also because of different interests and shifting coalitions, I do not think that the European Parliament is likely to be an adequate institution to control the Commission in my lifetime.
    The Commission uses its power by gaining the support of the smaller nations of Europe, which feel that it is on their side and that it will produce a federal Europe, which is what they want. They see their power coming from a federal Europe, whereas we see ours coming from the United Kingdom. The Germans see their power coming

    225
    largely from Germany and the French from France. The Belgians, to an extent the Dutch, and certainly Luxembourg, see their power coming through Europe.
    Over-representation helps the Commission to get its own way. When there is a vote in the Council of Ministers, it is wrong that the small countries are over-represented, because that means that there is a bias in decision making in favour of the smaller countries. There is also a bias because some of the smaller countries happen to be the peripheral countries, such as Greece, Portugal, Ireland—the people who are in receipt of net moneys from the European Community.
    6.15 pm
    The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Do I hear the cantering footsteps of a hobby-horse? May we please return to the amendment under consideration?
    Mr. Marlow: I am not arguing at all, Dame Janet.
    I am concerned about the regional allocation of Members of the European Parliament. If the recipients of European funds, the small nations of Europe and the allies of the Commission are over-represented, not just on the Council of Ministers but in the European Parliament, that enhances the power and prestige of the Commission and makes it easier for it to get its way. In my view, when the Commission gets its way, it is more often than not contrary to the interests of the United Kingdom and of my constituents, whom I seek to represent.
    Mrs. Ewing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because I am following his arguments with interest. Given that during debates on the European issue the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has consistently agreed with the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who said last week on Second Reading that it did not matter where the extra seats were allocated, why does the hon. Gentleman now take such a strong stance against the argument propounded by Opposition Members and supported by some Conservative Members that Scotland should have extra representation? Is it not because he is in principle against the idea of a European Parliament?
    Mr. Marlow: I am not a great fan of the European Parliament, as the hon. Lady knows. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is a wise and effective politician and we have a great identity of view, but perhaps the hon. Lady will understand that we are not totally as one on Scottish issues.
    I have two arguments. First, let us be fair to England. Secondly, if we are fair to England and to the idea of equal representation throughout Europe, that will enhance the power of the larger units of Europe rather than the smaller units and, by doing so, will reduce the power of the Commission. I am therefore very much in favour of the Government's point of view.
    Mr. Home Robertson: It is an unspeakable joy to follow the authentic voice of the Tory empire loyalist. I always enjoy listening to the speeches of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), whether he is flogging a dead horse or not. When I saw him rising to his feet, I thought that he was going to solve all our problems. We are looking for an extra seat for Scotland and he has
    226
    made his views clear on previous occasions—I understand that on Second Reading he thought that the number of seats anywhere would be irrelevant.
    I thought that he was going to solve the problem by doing away with the MEP for Northamptonshire and giving an extra seat to Scotland. But I see that he is muttering behind his hand. Perhaps he is prepared to accept a manuscript amendment to that effect, which would get us out of the problem and give us an extra seat in Scotland.
    I agree with practically every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said about the tyranny of the minority from which we suffer in Scotland. That is a deep running sore in Scotland. It is affecting every aspect of public policy and public life, and until that constitutional issue is sorted out, nothing will go right. It is about time that the Government addressed themselves to that problem, in relation to our representation in the European institutions and right across the board. It is an important and serious matter.
    Mr. Phil Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Home Robertson: Here is the other authentic voice of the empire loyalist.
    Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman was discussing representation in Scotland. He suggests that there should be other constitutional changes there. Would not such constitutional changes mean that ultimately there would be a reduction in the representatives coming from Scotland to this place, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has suggested?
    Mr. Home Robertson: I would not necessarily quarrel with that.
    Mr. McAllion: Perhaps the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) will not be here.
    Mr. Home Robertson: As my hon. Friend says, it would give us all the greatest joy if the hon. Member for Ayr and some of his hon. Friends stopped coming here, or—more important still—if they were not in the Scottish Parliament when we succeed in establishing it.
    The hon. Member has made me think of another extraordinary argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North about Britain being a nation. How can a united kingdom be a nation? I know that Conservative Members find the fact difficult to grasp, but the United Kingdom is not a nation; it is a union of nations. For such a union to thrive, all the nations within it must have their place, and must be respected. That is not happening now.
    I admit that I do not altogether agree with everything that has been said by some of my hon. Friends, which will not come as a surprise to them. I must own up to having been one of the five Labour Members who voted for the Third Reading of the Bill on the Maastricht treaty. I make no apology for that. I believe that Europe is important, that it is the way forward for our people, and that it must develop. Europe's Parliament and its other institutions must develop, too, and that will be possible only if those institutions are seen to be increasingly democratic and credible, and to identify with the peoples of Europe.
    That brings me back to the geographical difficulties associated with the British single-Member constituencies

    227
    in the European Parliament. I represent one of the numerous Westminster constituencies which lies within the Euro-constituency of South of Scotland. Several hon. Members have already referred to that Euro-constituency. Indeed, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is the battle-scarred veteran of a lost deposit there.
    Mr. Wallace: The first lost deposit in a European election.
    Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman takes great pride in that fact. The constituency stretches for almost 6,000 square miles, from Ailsa Craig in the firth of Clyde to the Bass rock in the firth of Forth.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: There are no voters there.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I once visited the Bass rock, which is in my constituency, and I was a little alarmed to see that a copy of The Sun was delivered to the lighthouse keeper—so I was not all that distressed when the lighthouse was closed down.
    Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the expression, "addressing one's remarks to Ailsa Craig". Does that not feel much the same as trying to address a reasoned argument to Ministers, especially Scottish Office Ministers?
    Mr. Home Robertson: That is rather a ponderous observation, especially as I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ailsa Craig, or rather for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), is in the Chamber. He represents Ailsa Craig almost as well as I represent Bass rock.
    I was arguing that the single-Member Euro-constituencies, as they exist for Great Britain alone— Northern Ireland is not involved—stretch democratic credibility too far. There is an overwhelming case for a proportional system in elections to the European Parliament.
    As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said at the time, if we had held a snap vote in the Chamber when he first made that point, I think that we would have carried the day, because the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and one or two Liberals were here, and so were my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).
    Mr. George Foulkes rose—
    Mr. Home Robertson: Now here is the bad news.
    Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend may not have heard the bad news—bad news, that is, for him. Today, I am thankful to say, the Transport and General Workers Union decided to continue its support for the first-past-the-post system. I believe that that wise decision represents a turning of the tide for proportional representation. I hope that my hon. Friend will now get off the bandwagon of proportional representation and return to the major issues, such as unemployment, privatisation and the appalling record of the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Home Robertson rose—
    The Second Deputy Chairman: Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I ask him not to be diverted too far.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I shall refrain from asking my hon. Friend how the Transport and General Workers Union democratically reached that decision, and whether it was reached proportionately. But I take your point, Dame Janet; this is all miles out of order—or at least, my hon. Friend's intervention was out of order.
    I return to the question whether there should be an additional Member of the European Parliament for Scotland. There is a case for electing such a Member—and, indeed, for electing the whole lot of them—by proportional representation.
    The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) moved the lead amendment in this important group. Does she trust the Home Office or the Scottish Office to do the business of providing an extra seat for Scotland? I must not be drawn into speculation about boundaries—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] An announcement about boundaries in my part of the world will be made in a couple of days' time. It is embargoed, so it would be totally out of order for me to speculate about where the proposed boundaries, daft though they may be, might be drawn.
    Mr. Wallace rose—
    Mr. Home Robertson: No, I must make progress.
    Mrs. Ewing rose—
    Mr. Home Robertson: I must give way to the hon. Lady.
    Mrs. Ewing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me, because he asked me a specific question.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I have not asked it yet.
    Mrs. Ewing: I do not believe that this is a question of trusting any member of the Government to argue the case for an additional seat for Scotland. The issue at stake is democratic representation for Scotland, where there is clear unanimity of opinion among the 61 Opposition Members of Parliament that there should be additional representation for Scotland in the European Parliament, which increasingly influences the decisions that affect our constituents's lives.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Of course the hon. Lady is right about that, and I agree with her. However, the trouble with all aspects of life in Scotland these days is caused by the people who sit on the Government Front Bench. Good Lord! I see that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) is sitting there at the moment. Is he a Whip? Or has he suddenly been appointed to the Scottish Office, or perhaps the Home Office? What is he doing? Has there been a reshuffle? This is exciting news; news is unfolding on the hoof.
    Nowadays it is people such as the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham who make the decisions about how policies are administered and worked out in the machinery of government, and in everything else, in Scotland. We need look no further than last Friday's edition of The Scotsman to see what can happen when such people start trying to draw maps.
    The leading article in The Scotsman described the Government's proposals for local authorities in Scotland as safe havens for the Tories. Who knows what might

    229
    happen if we got the extra seat for Scotland? Perhaps there would be an MEP for east Renfrewshire. If the Government are crazy enough to propose that there should be an all-purpose, single-tier authority for east Renfrewshire—
    Mr. Eric Clarke: Or for Eastwood.
    Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend is too much of a cynic. Surely he is not suggesting to me or to the House that the judgment of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), would he in any way affected in the execution of his duties as the Minister responsible for local government in Scotland, or that he would take certain decisions on the future structure of local government, simply because he is the constituency Member for Eastwood. My hon. Friend would never suggest such a thing.
    But who knows, if Eastwood is good enough to have an all-purpose, single-tier authority, running social work, education, further education and everything else, although it has a population of only 84,000, why should it not have a Member of the European Parliament too?
    I see that the hon. Member for Ayr is nodding. He is giving the game away, because exactly the same could be argued for Kyle and Carrick—or south Ayrshire, or whatever it is called. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire—or rather, my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley—for saying so, but if the south Ayrshire local authority—Kyle and Carrick district council or whatever it is called—with a population of more than 100,000, makes sense as an all-purpose local authority, would it not be an appropriate candidate as a European parliamentary constituency?
    Mr. Foulkes: I intend to nominate one of the councillors for Girvan, Glendoune for the job. She would do an excellent job, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree.
    Mr. Home Robertson: The thought of Councillor Foulkes in Strasbourg is appealing, and—I am sorry to have to tell you, Dame Janet—there are more such potential constituencies. There is Moray, and—
    Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the idea of Councillor Foulkes, the councillor for Girvan, being dispatched to Strasbourg would be most popular with the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley?
    The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It is previous for the hon. Gentleman to select candidates for seats that have not yet been established.
    Mr. Home Robertson: It would be a good thing if there were more female Members of the European Parliament for Scotland. As an old friend of Councillor Foulkes, I must say that that is a most commendable suggestion.
    Mr. Wallace: What about Stirling?
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman mentions Stirling as another likely fiefdom or Tory safe haven. Stirling may be good enough for a single-tier, all-purpose local authority that would run the colleges, schools, social work departments, transport and everything else with a population of only 81,000. Stirling may be good enough
    230
    for that. The area was described by an editorial in The Scotsman—who am Ito differ from that newspaper?—as a safe haven for the Tories. Perhaps Mrs. Forsyth would be a likely candidate there.
    The real shocker is one that I feel strongly about. It spoiled my porridge at breakfast last Friday. I read on the front page of The Scotsman that a new local authority was to be proposed in the House, either tomorrow or the next day, called Berwickshire and East Lothian. But it will not be Berwickshire and East Lothian, as it includes only a piece of East Lothian. The Government want to chop it up and add it to part of the Borders, because somebody thinks that that might be a Tory safe haven too. The population of such a local authority area would be 76,000—barely enough for a parliamentary constituency.
    Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman is worried about what the Government could create as a European constituency. Does he feel that that is what the Boundary Commission will propose on Friday for a parliamentary constituency? If the Boundary Commission, which is politically neutral by all accounts, can do something like that, what does the hon. Gentleman think a committee of placemen set up by the Secretary of State will do to European seats?
    Mr. Home Robertson: My lips are sealed on any speculation about what the Parliamentary Boundary Commission may be about to propose. It would be improper to say anything about that before it makes its announcement on Thursday.
    We know what information The Scotsman has obtained about what the Government may propose for local authorities. They may hope for Tory safe havens, including the dotty little conglomeration of part of the Borders and part of East Lothian which is joined by the Dunglass corridor over a bridge which just about ties it all together.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to show more ingenuity if he is to convince me that his remarks are relevant to the amendment.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Do not worry, Dame Janet—I am about to conclude. This is the final one on my list, and it is the craziest. If that area is good enough to be an all-purpose, single-tier local authority—I do not know how on earth it could operate a full range of local services with such a small population and given the moronic geography of such an artificial local authority—perhaps the Government will propose it as a Euro-constituency?
    I do not trust the Government. The hon. Member for Moray proposes the excellent idea that we can get an extra Member of the European Parliament to represent Scottish interests, even if we cannot pinch one from Northampton. But does she trust the Government not to mess around with the process—
    Mr. Wallace: To gerrymander.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I was not going to use that word. It never entered my head that the Conservatives would try such a thing.
    Mrs. Ewing: This is a matter for the people of Scotland and their representatives. If all hon. Members who believe that there should be a Scottish Parliament were to take

    231
    destiny into their hands, the House would not be debating an increase in the number of Euro-seats in Scotland from eight to nine. Scotland would have 16 seats.
    Part of the responsibility for this situation lies on the hon. Gentleman's shoulders, because he believes in the retention of the Union. I believe in the establishment of an independent Scotland that would put us on an equal basis with Denmark and other countries within the EC.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I can see that I may run into difficulties with you in answering that question, Dame Janet. I believe passionately in Scottish home rule within the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Wallace: Does not the hon. Member mean home rule?
    Mr. Home Robertson: No, not home rule. I believe in home rule for Scotland within the United Kingdom and within the EC. Those are serious matters.
    The trouble is that, during the past 15 years of grossly cynical administration by the minority administration in the Scottish office, the credibility of the machinery of government and the democratic process has been undermined again and again. We cannot trust the Government to do things in a fair, even-handed way. So in a sense, the hon. Lady may be right—we may have to take hold of our destiny. But how do we do it under the circumstances?
    Mrs. Ewing: Recall the Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Home Robertson: That may be one way. It is important that we should get extra representation for Scotland, and that it should be done fairly, and the sooner the better.
    Mr. Maclennan: When the EC Council of Ministers met in Edinburgh on 11 and 12 December 1992, it would have been far from the thoughts of the Council that, in recommending the enlargement of the European Parliament, the one part of the United Kingdom that would not benefit from the decision would be Scotland —the country where it was meeting.
    The EC Heads of Government, in reaching the decision to enlarge the European Parliament, properly took the view that those matters should be entrusted to the constitutional processes of the member countries, on the understanding that the processes would operate fairly and democratically, and in a proper constitutional manner.
    It is set down in their decision, which it is the purpose of the Bill to enact, that the measure is recommended to member states for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. It may well be asked, in connection with the group of amendments that we are considering, what the proper constitutional requirements are.
    The phrase means little more than this. If it is necessary for Britain to proceed by way of Acts of Parliament to give effect to the decision, that is how we should proceed. As Members of Parliament, we are entitled to ask ourselves whether the proposals contained within the legislative provision are proper and reflect the consensus which prevails in the country about the constitution.
    The basis of the Government's argument about the distribution of the six seats is too exclusively related to
    232
    population. In all the member states of the EC, population did not count a great deal in determining how seats should be divided out.
    Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is a skilful barrister at law. Will he advise me whether it would be possible for a European seat to straddle Scotland and England? Does he think that that might have been one way of creating a rather more equitable distribution of seats?
    Mr. Maclennan: I have no doubt that that matter would not be of interest to the Heads of EC Governments. If it were proper within our domestic law to make such a provision, it would be in order in terms of the decision that we are seeking to implement. It is possible within the EC. On the basis of previous Acts that established European parliamentary representation, it would not be possible within the United Kingdom.
    It would be constitutionally possible to introduce an Act so to provide, but as we are building in the Bill on previous Acts which provided for the establishment of separate boundary commissions for the constituent nations of the United Kingdom, it would not be in accordance with precedent. But that is perfectly possible, just as it was possible in defiance of all constitutional convention not to transfer but to wind up entirely the government of London.
    It would be possible to do almost anything under the terms of our unwritten constitution if Parliament were so inclined, which is a major reason why I think that the time has long since passed when we should have a written constitution setting out the precise powers, and limits to the powers, of the legislature and the Executive.
    It is perfectly plain that the distribution of parliamentary seats between the member countries of the EC population was not a factor to which a great deal of weight was given in Edinburgh when the decision was arrived at. It is clear that there is great disparity of representation between Luxembourg and Germany. Luxembourg with its six seats is over-represented in population terms. Wholly different considerations from population gave rise to the decision to equate the treatment of France and the United Kingdom.
    Therefore, it is neither necessary nor desirable to follow the argument in respect of Scotland that population should be the determinant, certainly for European purposes. The population argument has been well deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), so I do not wish to detain the House on that point. I do, however, wish to raise other issues.
    The powers of the European Parliament, even as they are at present—a point touched on by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—are of increasing significance to the economic life of the nation, and touch in an immediate way upon the effectiveness of Government. Not a day passes in the discharge of my parliamentary duties when I am not conscious of the extent to which decisions of the Council of Ministers, which may or may not have been considered by the European Parliament but usually have been, affect the prosperity of my constituents.
    I apologise for addressing my remarks to the interests that I represent in the House, but I do so briefly to illustrate the point. The fisheries regime, which is so critical, ultimately depends on decisions of the EC and the

    233
    attitudes of the European Parliament. The agriculture regime, which is critical to the prosperity of my agricultural and rural areas, depends so much upon the effectiveness of the European Parliament.
    There are also the prospects of the oil industry, for preserving the environment, and therefore the attraction of tourism. Scarcely an issue that has to be dealt with in one's daily mailbag does not have a European dimension, and that is increasingly so.
    Dr. Godman: I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman's argument. Does he agree that the European Parliament has the power to constrain to some extent the decision making of that unelected body, the European Commission?
    Mr. Maclennan: I think that the hon. Gentleman is entirely right, as so often with what he has to say on these matters.
    Because there is a public and growing perception of the fact that the European Parliament impinges on the lives of people, it is beyond comprehension in Scotland—I put it in that emotive way—that, at a time when it is intended to increase the representation of the United Kingdom, Scotland will not share in that development. That argument cannot be countered by arguments about population when population so clearly has not played a part in the basic decision to increase the representation of this country.
    6.45 pm
    In earlier debates on the Bill, the Minister touched on some of the issues contained in the amendments. I put it to him that to focus so narrowly on the population question is entirely to miss the point. Others have spoken of the geographical difficulties of representing Scotland, particularly its highlands and islands. I am as aware of that as anyone in the House, as, even under the present dispensation, I represent some 2,800 square miles of Scotland, which is a substantial area.
    If the Boundary Commission has its way, it is about to be enlarged by the addition of a further 300 or 400 square miles. Therefore, I know about that argument, but it is not one to which I would attach the greatest weight.
    I wish to reply to what the Minister said on that in his winding-up speech on Second Reading. In advocating an additional Member, it is not our intention to seek to solve the Scottish geographical conundrum. I do not think that that is open to us. If we are to adopt the system of election that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends advocate, the geographical base of representation will be much wider than that at present. It would be wider even than that of Mrs. Winifred Ewing, Member of the European Parliament for the Highlands and Islands.
    We do not seek to make the task of travelling around Scotland easier by adding to Scotland's representation, but rather to address the sense of outrage that is felt by those in Scotland who see a decision taken by Her Majesty's Government in Edinburgh to enlarge the membership of the European Parliament but to exclude Scotland from that process.
    Scotland has at least as varied an economy and social problems as the United Kingdom as a whole. Many matters there are distinct and unique. Its peripherality and its sparsity are unequalled in any part of the United Kingdom.
    234
    I say that not because of the need to cover the ground by the MEP, but because it creates its own distinctive problems. Those problems have been recognised in recent decisions by the Council of Ministers, in deciding what structural assistance should be available in the highlands and islands, and there alone, not in any part of England. That makes the case for a particular deal for Scotland justifiable in terms of the diversity and heterogeneity of the United Kingdom.
    I profoundly hope that, as the debate has progressed, and as hon. Members from both sides have supported the amendments—there has been only one intervention against the amendments: from the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—the Government should accept the force of the argument. I do not propose to canvas all the arguments that have been mentioned by others in the debate, but will simply confine myself to my own point.
    When we move to alter the shape of our democracy, it is extremely important that it should be done with cross-party consent. If the Government do not accept the amendments, they are flying in the face of the expressed consent of the House. That would be a highly undesirable development, and, for that reason, I hope that they will agree to the amendments tabled.
    Mr. Eric Clarke: The argument advanced by many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members is that we need more representatives in the EC and in the European Parliament if we are to democratise that institution. That is the desire of many people throughout Britain and the other countries represented. The role of the Commissioners and appointees must be diminished, and Scotland's voice should be heard.
    What do we do when the new member nations join? Will more time be taken to debate and discuss specific items on the agenda because there will be more representatives from those new member countries? I see them being slower and more deliberate—rightly so, if they are to have a say in laying down laws.
    The United Kingdom representatives should not just be members of the august body: representations should be heard from all parts of the United Kingdom, as they are from the länder in Germany, which lobby for their own interests. I am all for that representation, because I think that we are losing.
    As an hon. Member who represents an area that qualifies for RECHAR money, I lay the blame at the feet of the Government. That money is not being taken up —not because of any lack of effort on the part of the European Parliament and, in particular, our own representative from Lothian, who has cross-party support in this, but because of the lack of additionality money from the Government, who have not honoured their so-called promises.
    As we heard in a debate earlier in the week, there are many areas throughout the United Kingdom that will now qualify for the RECHAR fund because of mine closures. There have been many promises and hints that the mining communities will be helped, but if they get as much help as we and many of the other older mining areas have had, they will be toiling in many ways.
    There is a need to speak up in the House, in the European Parliament and, yes, in the media, because there is a practical proposition to be made. Many other countries, such as Eire, seem to benefit from being EC

    235
    members in a more practical way than Scotland. I hope that, when some of the legislation is passed—I am harking back to the mining industry—we shall not have closures alone in the steel and coal industries. I hope that the coal industry in Scotland will be an industry if privatisation comes off, and that there will be EC help to retain it for ever more. As we all know, we have great assets in that part of the world.
    There has been talk of boundary changes. Some of the things that have emerged—especially pertaining to the leak from The Scotsman—are reminiscent of the Vance-Owen agreement. We seem to have corridors not of Muslims but of Tories—being kept in an enclave to ensure that no one encroaches on their positions.
    There are some boundary changes that we should like to be made: we should like to have Berwick-upon-Tweed back, for example. Berwick belongs to the Scottish nation and was stolen from us many years ago—[Interruption.] Yes, and perhaps some other places that I do not know. I would happily put in a claim right now if that would give the Scottish nation another representative or two.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Gentleman has referred to my constituency. I hope that he will recall that Berwick-upon-Tweed has changed hands between England and Scotland 15 times over several centuries, and that it would be somewhat disruptive if that were to continue.
    I put it to him that the Boundary Commission's activities on both sides of the border at Berwick-upon-Tweed could give us considerable cause for anxiety, given that the same people who will be implementing the Bill appear—if the rumours are true—to be making the most extraordinary proposals about the very piece of Berwickshire with which Berwick has traditionally been associated over those centuries.
    Mr. Clarke: I do not intend to declare war on the people of that area, for whom I have great affection—as I do for my Geordie friends in the coalfields further south.
    This is a serious matter, which should not be left to the Government. It should not be left to any Ministry, and especially not to Dover house or St. Andrew's house. If the people of Scotland were asked, they will give the answer that they gave at the election; they need full representation, and they need it in Europe. I shall leave it at that, as I think that the geographical case has been made by my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Allen: This has been a very good debate. Although the Opposition wholeheartedly welcome—
    Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can you confirm that we are in Committee, and that it is open to any hon. Member to speak twice if called by you?
    The Second Deputy Chairman: I can confirm that that is so.
    Mr. Allen: Although the Opposition wholeheartedly welcome the Minister's decision to grant one of the extra seats to Wales, the decision to exclude Scotland from the distribution is unacceptable to us. It shows the contempt in which the Conservative party holds those parts of the country in which they lack support.
    236
    The Government are effectively saying to 5·1 million people, "You don't vote for us, so we'll deny you adequate representation." The Home Secretary said on Second Reading just the other day that he is fighting for England. It is a shame that he cannot bring himself to fight for the other countries in the Union with as much force as he says he fights for England.
    Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I readily accept that the average size of a Scottish Euro-constituency is marginally smaller than that of an English one. It is nevertheless greater than the average constituency in Wales will be if the proposals are implemented.
    The Home Secretary has given no indication that he took the geographical size of the constituencies into account in his calculation, as he is entitled to do by law, under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978. If constituency size were taken into consideration, it would be obvious that Scotland requires greater representation than it is currently given. The Conservatives are willing to push through a measure amounting to a relative lessening of Scotland's representation in Strasbourg, without even an independent look into the matter.
    The Labour party firmly believes that the Scottish people should have one of the extra seats. In the Europe of the regions and nations, the very least that this Parliament should do is allocate to Scotland a fair share of the new seats to be distributed. An extra seat for Scotland, like the extra seat given to Wales, would mean far more in terms of increased representation than one more or less seat for England. With that in mind, the Opposition propose to divide the House in favour of the amendment.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on assuming so effectively for the time being the leadership of the Opposition—even if she let it slip that she was only a front for her dynamic research assistant.
    The hon. Lady sharpened up the attack from the Opposition Benches, but I do not think that her essential argument that, to be an equal partner, Scotland needs more seats is very convincing. Partnership cannot, thank goodness, be defined by numbers in that way. If it was, it would presumably mean that a partnership could be equal only with equal representation—as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) cogently observed, although I thought that after that remark his speech went sadly astray.
    Partnership between the countries of the United Kingdom is real and of enormous value to each of them. However, it does not finally depend on giving any part artificially high representation in the European Parliament or, indeed, at Westminster where Scotland has long had enhanced representation.
    In many ways, this debate is a reprise of the one on Second Reading. I make no complaint about that. I realise that Scottish Members would like an extra seat in Scotland and I understand why they and other hon. Members argue persistently that they should have one. However, I am as sure now as I was on Second Reading that an extra seat would not be justified and that the Government are right to give five of the extra seats to England and one to Wales. That is what a distribution based on electorate sizes—the fairest way of deciding the matter—produces.

    237
    7 pm
    It is impossible to get average Euro-constituency sizes exactly the same in the different countries of the United Kingdom—there must be a rounding up or down. In each case, that has always been done in favour of the smaller country and never in favour of England. As a result of this Bill, the average English Euro-constituency will still be 4 per cent. larger than the average Scottish one.
    Mr. Wallace: The Minister made a fair point, that it is difficult to average the whole thing out. Does he accept that, by allocating four seats to England, one to Wales and one to Scotland—that would be the consequence of this amendment—the averages for Scotland and Wales would be within 8,000 of each other? That is a remarkably close proximity, given the large size of the constituencies. It would approximate much more closely to the Minister's objective than to what is being proposed by the Government.
    Mr. Lloyd: No. It would mean that two constituent countries of the United Kingdom would be further from the average than they would otherwise have been. The next best thing to 5:1 would be to give the six seats to England. However, that would mean that the average Welsh seat would have a larger electorate than the average English seat. We did not want to allow that, so we gave Wales the benefit of the statistics and it has the extra seat. That is justified for Wales, but not justified for Scotland on the same grounds.
    I understand the argument for distributing the seats in a different way. This distribution keeps to the advice given by the Select Committee in 1978, adopted by the then Labour Government in the 1978 Act and expanded from the Dispatch Box by Brynmor John, who represented a Welsh seat, and others in the Labour Government. The Labour Government were right at that time. This is the fairest way of distributing the seats. I am sorry to see Labour Members and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), resiling from the arrangements that not he but his colleagues supported when in office.
    The hon. Member for Moray quoted Garrett Fitzgerald suggesting that, in the negotiations that took place in the Community before it was decided how many seats each EC country would have, the then Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, secured 81 seats for the United Kingdom on the understanding that Scotland and Wales would have enhanced representation.
    Obviously, I do not know what Lord Callaghan said in private discussions, but the outcome was that the largest countries in the EC—West Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom—all got 81 seats, providing overwhelming circumstantial evidence that the needs of Scotland did not secure United Kingdom-enhanced representation. I cannot tell whether Lord Callaghan tried and failed or did not try at all, but, clearly, no special significance was granted by our fellow members with regard to Scotland, Wales or any national entity, two of which have been referred to this afternoon by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)—the Walloons and the Catalonians.
    Clearly, seats are distributed between the sovereign countries of the Community in Europe with regard to their being separate single sovereign entities. The hon. Member for Moray and several other hon. Members argued that
    238
    Scotland should have at least the same number of seats as Denmark, which has a similar population size. Undoubtedly, if Scotland were a member of the Community separate from England, Wales and Northern Ireland—as the hon. Lady would wish—it would have a similar number of seats.
    I am sure—I refer to points made and queries launched in my direction by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—that Scotland would overall have less leverage in the EC than it does as part of the United Kingdom, which has two commissioners to Denmark's one and, effectively, much greater representation in the European Community. Above all, the United Kingdom has a much more powerful voice in the Council of Ministers than England, Wales or Scotland could ever have on their own.
    When the interests of Scotland especially demand it, Scottish Ministers can and do go to the Council of Ministers with the weight of the entire United Kingdom behind them. I do not want to dwell on this point. It is part of the wider argument about the nature and benefit of the Union, which puts Scotland in a more powerful position in the Community. It would be alone, as is Denmark with its number of seats in the European Parliament.
    Before I sit down, I shall revert to the speech of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). He referred to the St. Andrew's speech in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is alleged to have promised to fight for more representation for Scotland in the European Parliament. On Second Reading, I said that I had not read that speech, but I have now. I realise that the hon. Gentleman could not have read it at that time and probably still has not done so, judging by his interventions today.
    It is clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was talking not about the European Parliament but about the Committee of the Regions on which he is determined to make Scotland's voice heard, together with organisations such as Scottish Europa and the Scottish Trade International. I have a copy of the speech here. I will throw it across to the hon. Gentleman. He should sideline those areas in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State promised or undertook to produce an extra seat in the European Parliament because I would be interested to read it. If he wants me to give way to him, I will do so.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I have had the misfortune to re-read the speech several times. The Secretary of State did not, in that speech or his introduction to the stocktaking exercise, say that he would commit himself to reduced representation for Scotland. Does the Minister accept that that is what this Bill means?
    Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend clearly said that he intended to work with the eight members of the European Parliament representing Scottish constituencies, whether or not he agreed with them politically. That was the undertaking he gave, and the number was eight.
    Mr. Clarke: Does the Minister take on board that the Secretary of State, in his introduction to the document on stocktaking—he has joined us in the past few minutes, having shown no interest whatever in debate over several days—talked about increased representation in Europe? Where is that increased representation? If the Minister cannot assure us—as we are still in Committee and as the

    239
    Secretary of State can still catch Dame Janet's eye—why does not the Secretary of State have the guts to get up and assure us, instead of hiding behind the junior Minister?
    Mr. Lloyd: As the hon. Gentleman will know if he re-reads the speech, my right hon. Friend was referring to the Committee of the Regions. The hon. Gentleman owes my right hon. Friend an apology, and I hope that he will give it before the end of this evening.
    Mrs. Ewing: There is a rumour sweeping the House that the closure will be moved on this debate, and many hon. Members still wish to speak. I draw the attention of the Minister to the development of the idea of direct elections, especially the debates that took place in 1977 and 1978 when the current Foreign Secretary said that the allocation of seats would be on a purely mathematical basis. Is the Minister saying that the Government have not moved from that approach, and take no account of geography or the needs of smaller nations in the European Community?
    Mr. Lloyd: Smaller nations have an enhanced representation in the European Parliament when they are sovereign, independent entities. Seats are divided between sovereign countries. The United Kingdom has been allocated 81 seats and they are divided, on the advice given in 1978 by the Select Committee, between the countries of the United Kingdom on the basis of arithmetic and the size of the respective electorates.
    Mrs. Ewing: The Minister has clearly stated that, if Scotland were an independent, sovereign nation she would receive a different allocation of seats. Does he not accept the basic constitutional principle, however, that the people in Scotland are sovereign, not Parliament? The people of Scotland have clearly shown that they want additional representation within the European Parliament.
    Mr. Lloyd: Every part of the United Kingdom would like extra representation in the European Parliament. I am sure that the hon. Lady heard me say that if Scotland were a separate member of the European Community it may well have enhanced representation. I doubted, however, whether it would have as much influence and leverage as it does now; indeed, I was quite sure that it would not. I then explained why.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the place in which we need strength is the Council of Ministers? Does he also agree that that showed through when we won objective 1 status for the whole of the highlands?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is a good example. We want to be strongly represented in all parts of the Community. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and benefits from that.
    Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Lloyd: I should make some progress, because I sense that the Committee would like me to conclude. [Interruption.]
    The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. Hon. Members who want to engage in conversation should leave the Chamber.
    Mr. Lloyd: Hon. Members have also put the practical argument that an extra seat could help the highlands and islands problem.
    Mr. Wallace rose—
    Mr. Lloyd: I will not give way, because the Committee wants the debate to come to a conclusion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, it does not."] The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland had plenty of opportunity to speak. In fact, he spoke for longer than I will have done. If he will excuse me, I will conclude my remarks.
    Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Lloyd: I have said no.
    Mr. Wallace: The Minister is frit.
    Mr. Lloyd: That is not so.
    The current Boundary Commission rules require that constituencies should be produced with electorates of, as near as possible, the same size. Departures can be made from the electoral quota, however, to take into account special factors such as geography. The Boundary Commission for Scotland did just that when it created the seat of Highlands and Islands, which has a much smaller electorate than the Scottish average.
    I doubt whether any Boundary Commission would feel justified in going much further from the average than that. The odds must be that any new seat for Scotland would, therefore, reduce the average electorate size of the remaining more populous constituencies rather than radically reduce the geographical spread of the highlands and islands. I believe that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, at least, is convinced of that.
    As I said on Second Reading, the arrangements for the distribution of seats between the particular countries of the United Kingdom is fair to all of them—to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. Anything else, however, would be unfair to England.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Bill is an extremely unsatisfactory way in which to address such a serious issue. I wonder how many other member states of the Community will decide the allocation of parliamentary constituencies on the basis of a vote in one Chamber of their Parliament. How many of them have some independent means of determining how that allocation should take place?
    Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is such a serious issue, why was he not present in the Chamber for the first three hours of the debate? Why has he just turned up?
    Mr. Bruce: I must say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] Some Opposition Members now present were not here for the entire debate, either.
    7.15 pm
    The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I would prefer the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) to continue his speech. If we are to have such harsh rules, I shall bear them in mind in the future.
    Mr. Bruce: I should remind the Committee that I spoke on the Bill's money resolution, which was debated last week.

    241
    I am surprised that the Government decided not to accept the amendment. If they had, the debate need not have continued. I find it deeply offensive, as I said when I spoke on the money resolution, that the first line on the first page of the Bill mentions the city of Edinburgh.
    The Prime Minister claimed that he was bringing the European process to Scotland and ensuring that Scotland is fully involved in that process. The fact that he has now introduced a Bill in which Scotland alone is denied a share of the increased representation at the European Parliament is deeply offensive. The Prime Minister's decision is extremely damaging to him and it is extremely harsh to Scotland. The Bill is not the way in which such matters should be decided.
    Hon. Members have also referred to the current representation for Scotland, with which I should have thought the Government were deeply unhappy. There are eight MEPs from Scottish constituencies; seven of them are Labour Members, the other is an SNP Member. I am not criticising those MEPs individually—they were elected, and that is fine—but they do not give a true representation of the cross-section of political opinion in Scotland. It is a profound irony that the Government cannot even get one Conservative MEP elected. I should have thought that the Government would welcome the opportunity for a ninth MEP from Scotland, because that might give them an itsy-bitsy chance of returning a Conservative representative from Scotland to the European Parliament.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: That depends on how the Government gerrymander the boundaries.
    Mr. Bruce: That is true.
    It is a real disgrace—that is too mild a word—that we are about to have European parliamentary seat boundary reviews, in the middle of parliamentary boundary reviews, while the Government are making up their own local boundaries as they go along. There is no correlation between the three.
    The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) whether it was possible to have a seat that straddled the border. Presumably he believes that that would achieve a greater parity of numbers. Many of us would have considerable difficulties with the practical consequences of such a decision and would not wish to be the Member for that constituency and balance its conflicting interests. I suppose that it would, however, reunite the county of Berwickshire, although I know that two of my colleagues have differing views on the merits of that argument. If there was a will and pure numbers was the problem, the matter could be resolved. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley has a fair point.
    Mr. Beith: If the commissioners appointed are not given an additional seat in Scotland to play with, does that mean that they will be unable to do what they are now doing in my hon. Friend's part of Scotland? In that region they are crossing all kinds of community and traditional boundaries to produce the most extraordinary configuration of seats. That option will not be open to the commissioners in Scotland under the Bill.
    Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend is right. His intervention and that of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley show that the Government's claim that this is simply a matter of numbers and an attempt to achieve a degree of parity is not the substantive argument.
    Mr. Wallace: My hon. Friend has referred to cross-border seats for the eastern side of the border. Does he accept that there might be a case for having what could be described as a Solway seat, comprising Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, Dumfries, Carlisle, Penrith and The Border, Copeland and Workington? That area is a communal one, it is home to Border Television and it has a sense of community. It also includes the seat of the Secretary of State for Scotland, so he could kill two birds with one stone. The right hon. Gentleman might end up with a more compact seat for his MEP to represent and at least give Scotland half of what is required, if not the whole.
    Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It raises questions about the Solway firth and the fact that there would be two different local authorities and two different methods of discharging sewage by two different forms of ownership within the same constituency.
    The Government's argument that it was impossible to provide justice for Scotland does not stand up. A numbers argument is not valid because, as the Government have acknowledged, that is not the paramount objective. On local government boundaries, the Government propose that the whole of the Highland region should be a unitary local government authority.
    That is an absurd proposition. It may be all right in terms of numbers, but it makes no sense in terms of geographical community links and denies a proper community identity. It boils down to the fact that the only way in which a community can be represented as a single, all-purpose authority is for it to be Conservative-controlled or, better still, a dead heat with the Labour party, so that the gerrymandering will tilt the balance and secure control. That is not how to determine fair and democratic representation.
    If the Government regard such comments purely as party political objection, they should think seriously about the implications of their actions. They have already abolished a tier of local government in London and the metropolitan counties and are fixing local government boundaries in Scotland to meet their own needs. They are determining the allocation of parliamentary seats for the European Parliament on the basis that it is controlled by a political chamber—Westminster—rather than an independent constitutional process.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, it is high time that we fundamentally reviewed our constitutional procedures and processes and how we do things in this country. Our constitution is such that a law passed by this Parliament can supersede a previous law. There is no external reference and no opportunity for second judgment or for effective judicial review of primary legislation.
    Members such as the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who spoke earlier and opposes the whole idea of the European Community, want to fight for the sovereignty of Parliament. Many of us regard the sovereignty of Parliament not as a democratic advantage but rather as a democratic abuse. A party that can take

    243
    control of this Chamber on a minority vote can not only impose its policies for the duration of a Parliament but can fix the mechanism of the constitution to preserve its power base against external challenges.
    That serious weakness of our political system is, ultimately, turning it into a decadent, corrupt and disintegrating system, which is becoming increasingly out of touch with the people, who cannot understand why they have a Government whom most of them did not vote for and decisions—
    The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is placing a number of constitutional issues on this group of amendments. I do not think that it will bear the weight.
    Mr. Bruce: I willingly accept your guidance, Dame Janet. The simple point is that we should have an independent mechanism for determining how people are elected to any institutions, not only the United Kingdom Parliament but the European Parliament. I object to the lack of independence of that procedure, which is why we have been forced to table an amendment.
    I should have preferred it if we had not had this debate and this amendment. The only reason why we have them is that there is no other theatre in which we can make that argument, achieve justice or get an independent assessment. There is no other theatre in which the decisions are not determined by the political bias of the controlling group. In a true democratic constitution, the rights of minorities are safeguarded and the Administration's right to ride roughshod over minorities is limited. In the United Kingdom, that is not the case, and it is a damaging and weak feature of our system of Government.
    The amendment simply seeks to ensure that the Government recognise that the Prime Minister took the European presidency to Edinburgh as a post-election symbol of the enhanced role that Scotland would play as part of the United Kingdom within the European Community. Nobody could have believed that the upshot of that would be the obscenity—from a Scottish point of view—of a Bill enshrined on the basis of an agreement signed in Edinburgh, which denies the citizens of the country of which Edinburgh is the capital a share in an increased allocation of representation.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland should feel utterly ashamed that he has been unable to secure the follow-through which the Prime Minister promised in Edinburgh. The Scottish people have reason to question the Prime Minister because, a year after the general election, he came to Scotland and said that he stood by the United Kingdom. He said that Scotland had voted for the Union and that it was his mission as Prime Minister to ensure that Scotland played its full part within the Union. How can the Bill be encapsulated as Scotland playing its full part in the United Kingdom?
    Scotland is finding that its influence within Europe is being deliberately diluted as a direct consequence of that action of the Prime Minister. His promises are worthless, as are those of the Secretary of State. Scotland will continue to be sold short. The Government talk about the Union, but use it as a bullying tactic to ensure that the
    244
    aspirations of the Scottish people are frustrated. We insist that the Government think again and recognise that the Scottish people deserve better.
    Mrs. Ewing: I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate—[Interruption.] Although it may be disappointing to those standing beyond the Bar of the House to realise that the debate will continue for some time, this is an important issue and I suggest that they remain silent to hear the necessary arguments.
    The Minister of State was rather ungracious to suggest that having a dynamic research officer should not be correctly recognised. All hon. Members are greatly indebted to their staff at constituency and parliamentary level for the work that they undertake on our behalf. If they correctly carry through our advice and instructions, that should be recognised. We could all do with a bit of humility in recognising our staff's work.
    This fairly wide-ranging debate has lasted much longer than many people anticipated. It has been interesting to note the consensus that has emerged, not only among the Opposition but among Conservative Members, who have shown their belief that Scotland should have additional representation within the European Parliament. Members may disagree on points of detail, but, on the basic principle that Scotland should have an additional seat in the European parliament, the consensus is of fundamental importance.
    The Minister of State failed to answer a question raised in the context of "Scotland in the Union". On page 22, section 5(9), the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
    "the Government have taken steps to complement and add to that strong representation"—
    he was talking about the European dimension—
    "to ensure that this is a multi-pronged approach to promoting Scotland's interest in Europe".
    The European Parliament must form a fundamental part of that approach, because it is an institution which will develop and accrue unto itself additional powers that affect all our lives.
    The Secretary of State added:
    "As Europe continues to develop, the Government will keep under review Scotland's profile in Europe to ensure it matches Scotland's needs".
    Nevertheless, in one of the pieces of legislation that have emerged from the Edinburgh summit we find that Scotland's position is not enhanced; nor are her needs being matched.
    Not only should the Minister read the book by Garret Fitzgerald, which makes interesting reading about the development of direct elections in the European Community, but he should look back to the 1970s, when the principle of direct elections was first mooted in this House. The record of the Select Committee at that time shows that the Scottish National party, which had substantial representation in the House,. gave clear evidence to that Committee. A great deal of interest was generated in the House on the issue of direct elections. Members continue to suggest that some people still fear the idea of European development, whereas I suggest that the development of the Community is crucial to what we are discussing.
    Our discussion of the amendment has dealt with the relationship of Scotland to this Parliament and to the Community. It is clear that the Community is changing. That development will have an impact on the lives of us all.

    245
    I welcome that development; as part of it, the relationship of Scotland as a nation to the Community as a whole is of critical importance.
    The Parliament to which we have directly elected representation is of paramount importance—[Interruption.] My remarks may be regarded as boring by some of the noisier elements in the Committee. Some hon. Members may be wondering why I am speaking in this manner. I assure them that there are strong arguments for the national identities of our communities in the EC to be continued. Otherwise, we might as well talk about having a seat for the south-west Pyrenees or north-west Germany. There are strong identities in the nations of the EC. There should be a single Member representing an identified constituency where there is a strong and continuing relationship between that Member and his or her constituents.
    We must also have the settlement and negotiation of national interests between the different countries to ensure that we find an appropriate formula for proceeding. Our purpose in tabling the amendment is to point out that an appropriate formula has not been found to represent the national interest of Scotland. In that connection, during the debates in the 1970s, the present Foreign Secretary—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I am anxious to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is saying. Given the babble of hon. Members who have not participated in our debates, it is difficult to hear her. Perhaps those who are anxious to listen to what is being said may be allowed to do so in peace.
    The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The Chair will decide. I should have thought, as the hon. Gentleman is sitting right next to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), that he would have no difficulty in hearing her. I agree, however, that there is considerable noise in the Chamber. If hon. Members are unable to remain quiet, they must leave and conduct their conversations elsewhere.
    Mrs. Ewing: Some hon. Members may find it difficult to understand a Scottish accent, or perhaps I should refer to it as a European accent belonging to one who speaks with a European voice. Hon. Members who do not want to listen to a Scottish or European voice should perhaps go elsewhere.
    I was about to recall that the present Foreign Secretary said in 1978, when we were debating what was then the European Assembly Elections Bill:
    "The Select Committee decided that the right approach was the mathematical approach".—[Official Report, 2 February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 786.]
    I find the whole situation depressing. Today, in 1993, the Community having moved substantially forward since that time, there has been no change in the British Government's attitude. They may have changed colour, but they have not changed their attitude. They observe mathematical niceties rather than looking to the communautaire spirit which I strongly endorse.
    In the debates that followed the publication of the Select Committee report, many interesting speeches were made by hon. Members, some of whom are still here; others have departed. For example, in the debate on
    246
    24 November 1977—we were still discussing the issue of direct elections—the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said:
    "if one is talking about the capacity of individual people to exert influence in the increasingly complex world in which we live, if they are able to elect persons directly to a European Parliament, I contend that this gives them another dimension of influence".—[Official Report, 24 November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1804.]
    That remains true today. We are talking about the dimension of influence, and Scotland's influence will not be enhanced by this legislation.
    In that debate in November 1977, Mr. Fairgrieve—now Sir Russell Fairgrieve—who then represented Aberdeenshire, West and who is now chairman of the European Movement in Scotland and played host at various functions during the Edinburgh summit, said that we were trying to put Scotland somewhere halfway between Denmark and Yorkshire. We are not in that position. Scotland should have full recognition in the Community, with additional representation in the European Parliament, and that is what the amendment is about.
    It is almost demeaning that I should have found it necessary to table this series of amendments—that on behalf of the people of Scotland, who are equal in number to the people of Denmark, I should have to beg for a single crumb from the rich man's table here at Westminster. We in Scotland should be equal and have 16 seats in the EC. That may be achieved only as a result of being an independent nation, when we would also have access to the Council of Ministers, have our place in the discussions and, as the Community develops, have a position as the host nation for Commission activities.
    I am fed up thinking about the time in Edinburgh at the European summit when we were seen as the tartan waitress. Our tartan was used for the benefit of a Conservative Government who had only 11 out of 72 MPs in Scotland, with no Member of the European Parliament representing a Scottish constituency. Yet from Edinburgh emerges a Bill by which we are denied additional representation.
    I do not want Scotland to continue in the role of a tartan waitress. I do not want Scotland to have to continue to eavesdrop on the counsels of the world. I want Scotland to be there, helping to influence the development of the European Community and the international community as a whole. If the Government have any respect for Scotland, they will at least grant us one additional seat in the European Parliament.
    Mr. Greg Knight (Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question put, That the Question be now put:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 302, Noes 49.

    Division No. 317]

    [7.37 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Atkins, Robert

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Alexander, Richard

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Amess, David

    Baldry, Tony

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Ashby, David

    Bates, Michael

    Ashton, Joe

    Batiste, Spencer

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bellingham, Henry

    247

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    French, Douglas

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Fry, Peter

    Body, Sir Richard

    Gale, Roger

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gallie, Phil

    Booth, Hartley

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Boswell, Tim

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Garnier, Edward

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Gill, Christopher

    Bowden, Andrew

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Bowis, John

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Gorst, John

    Brazier, Julian

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Bright, Graham

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hague, William

    Burns, Simon

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Burt, Alistair

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Butcher, John

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Butler, Peter

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Butterfill, John

    Hannam, Sir John

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Harris, David

    Carrington, Matthew

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hawkins, Nick

    Cash, William

    Hawksley, Warren

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hayes, Jerry

    Chapman, Sydney

    Heald, Oliver

    Clappison, James

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hendry, Charles

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hicks, Robert

    Colvin, Michael

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Congdon, David

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Horam, John

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Cormack, Patrick

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Couchman, James

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

    Cran, James

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

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

    Howell, Sir Ralph (North

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Norfolk)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Day, Stephen

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Hunter, Andrew

    Devlin, Tim

    Jack, Michael

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Dicks, Terry

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jessel, Toby

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Dover, Den

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Duncan, Alan

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dunn, Bob

    Key, Robert

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Dykes, Hugh

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Eggar, Tim

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Elletson, Harold

    Knapman, Roger

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

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

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Knox, Sir David

    Evennett, David

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Faber, David

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Legg, Barry

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Forman, Nigel

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lidington, David

    Forth, Eric

    Lightbown, David

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    248

    Luff, Peter

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    MacKay, Andrew

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Maclean, David

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Norris, Steve

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Madel, David

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Ottaway, Richard

    Malone, Gerald

    Page, Richard

    Mans, Keith

    Paice, James

    Marland, Paul

    Patnick, Irvine

    Marlow, Tony

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Mates, Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Merchant, Piers

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Milligan, Stephen

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Mills, Iain

    Rathbone, Tim

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Richards, Rod

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Riddick, Graham

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Moss, Malcolm

    Robathan, Andrew

    Needham, Richard

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Nelson, Anthony

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Livingstone, Ken

    Alton, David

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Barnes, Harry

    Loyden, Eddie

    Beggs, Roy

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Maclennan, Robert

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Madden, Max

    Canavan, Dennis

    Maginnis, Ken

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Mahon, Alice

    Connarty, Michael

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Cryer, Bob

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Cummings, John

    Rendel, David

    Davidson, Ian

    Salmond, Alex

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Skinner, Dennis

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Galloway, George

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Trimble, David

    Gordon, Mildred

    Tyler, Paul

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Wallace, James

    Harvey, Nick

    Welsh, Andrew

    Hood, Jimmy

    Wray, Jimmy

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Janner, Greville

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce.

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 255, Noes 306.

    Division No. 318]

    [7.50 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Ainger, Nick

    Bell, Stuart

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Allen, Graham

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Alton, David

    Benton, Joe

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Betts, Clive

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Blair, Tony

    Ashton, Joe

    Blunkett, David

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Boateng, Paul

    Barnes, Harry

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Barron, Kevin

    Bradley, Keith

    Battle, John

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Bayley, Hugh

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

    249

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Burden, Richard

    Hinchliffe, David

    Byers, Stephen

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Caborn, Richard

    Home Robertson, John

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hood, Jimmy

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hoyle, Doug

    Cann, Jamie

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hutton, John

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Illsley, Eric

    Clelland, David

    Ingram, Adam

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Jamieson, David

    Coffey, Ann

    Janner, Greville

    Cohen, Harry

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Connarty, Michael

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Corbett, Robin

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jowell, Tessa

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Cousins, Jim

    Keen, Alan

    Cryer, Bob

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Cummings, John

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Dalyell, Tam

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Darling, Alistair

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Davidson, Ian

    Leighton, Ron

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Lewis, Terry

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Litherland, Robert

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

    Livingstone, Ken

    Denham, John

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Dewar, Donald

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Dixon, Don

    Loyden, Eddie

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Dowd, Jim

    McAllion, John

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    McCartney, Ian

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Macdonald, Calum

    Eastham, Ken

    McFall, John

    Enright, Derek

    McKelvey, William

    Etherington, Bill

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    McLeish, Henry

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Maclennan, Robert

    Fatchett, Derek

    McMaster, Gordon

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    McWilliam, John

    Fisher, Mark

    Madden, Max

    Flynn, Paul

    Mahon, Alice

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Mandelson, Peter

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Foulkes, George

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Galloway, George

    Maxton, John

    Gapes, Mike

    Meacher, Michael

    Garrett, John

    Meale, Alan

    Gerrard, Neil

    Michael, Alun

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Milburn, Alan

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Miller, Andrew

    Gordon, Mildred

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Gould, Bryan

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Graham, Thomas

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Morley, Elliot

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Gunnell, John

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Hain, Peter

    Mudie, George

    Hall, Mike

    Mullin, Chris

    Hanson, David

    Murphy, Paul

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Harvey, Nick

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Henderson, Doug

    O'Hara, Edward

    Heppell, John

    Olner, William

    250

    O'Neill, Martin

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

    Patchett, Terry

    Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

    Pendry, Tom

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Snape, Peter

    Pike, Peter L.

    Soley, Clive

    Pope, Greg

    Spearing, Nigel

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Spellar, John

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Prescott, John

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Stevenson, George

    Purchase, Ken

    Stott, Roger

    Radice, Giles

    Straw, Jack

    Randall, Stuart

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Tipping, Paddy

    Raynsford, Nick

    Turner, Dennis

    Redmond, Martin

    Tyler, Paul

    Reid, Dr John

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Rendel, David

    Wallace, James

    Richardson, Jo

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Rogers, Allan

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Wilson, Brian

    Rooney, Terry

    Winnick, David

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wise, Audrey

    Ruddock, Joan

    Worthington, Tony

    Salmond, Alex

    Wray, Jimmy

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Short, Clare

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones, and

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mr. Andrew Welsh.

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Butler, Peter

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Butterfill, John

    Alexander, Richard

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Amess, David

    Carttiss, Michael

    Arbuthnot, James

    Cash, William

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Clappison, James

    Ashby, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Atkins, Robert

    Coe, Sebastian

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Colvin, Michael

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Congdon, David

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Conway, Derek

    Baldry, Tony

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Bates, Michael

    Cormack, Patrick

    Batiste, Spencer

    Couchman, James

    Beggs, Roy

    Cran, James

    Bellingham, Henry

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

    Bendall, Vivian

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Day, Stephen

    Body, Sir Richard

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Devlin, Tim

    Booth, Hartley

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Boswell, Tim

    Dicks, Terry

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Bowden, Andrew

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bowis, John

    Dover, Den

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Duncan, Alan

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Brazier, Julian

    Dunn, Bob

    Bright, Graham

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Dykes, Hugh

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Eggar, Tim

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Elletson, Harold

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Burns, Simon

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Burt, Alistair

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Butcher, John

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    251

    Evennett, David

    Knox, Sir David

    Faber, David

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Legg, Barry

    Forman, Nigel

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Lidington, David

    Forth, Eric

    Lightbown, David

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Luff, Peter

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    French, Douglas

    MacKay, Andrew

    Fry, Peter

    Maclean, David

    Gale, Roger

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Gallie, Phil

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Madel, David

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Maginnis, Ken

    Garnier, Edward

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Gill, Christopher

    Malone, Gerald

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Mans, Keith

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Marland, Paul

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Marlow, Tony

    Gorst, John

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mates, Michael

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Merchant, Piers

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Milligan, Stephen

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Mills, Iain

    Hague, William

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hannam, Sir John

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Moss, Malcolm

    Harris, David

    Needham, Richard

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hawkins, Nick

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hawksley, Warren

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hayes, Jerry

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Heald, Oliver

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Norris, Steve

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Hendry, Charles

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hicks, Robert

    Ottaway, Richard

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Page, Richard

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Paice, James

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Horam, John

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

    Pickles, Eric

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (North

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Norfolk)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Richards, Rod

    Hunter, Andrew

    Riddick, Graham

    Jack, Michael

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jessel, Toby

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Key, Robert

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Sackville, Tom

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Knapman, Roger

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

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

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    252

    Shersby, Michael

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Sims, Roger

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

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Tredinnick, David

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Trend, Michael

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Trimble, David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Trotter, Neville

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Viggers, Peter

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Walden, George

    Spring, Richard

    Waller, Gary

    Sproat, Iain

    Ward, John

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Waterson, Nigel

    Stern, Anthony

    Watts, John

    Stephen, Michael

    Wells, Bowen

    Stern, Michael

    Whitney, Ray

    Stewart, Allan

    Whittingdale, John

    Streeter, Gary

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Sumberg, David

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Sweeney, Walter

    Willetts, David

    Sykes, John

    Wilshire, David

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Wood, Timothy

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Yeo, Tim

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Thomason, Roy

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Mr. Michael Brown.

    Thurnham, Peter

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Maclennan: I want to speak—
    Mr. Roger Stott: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I realise that the House is in Committee, but I seek your guidance on how to reverse that procedure so that the Home Secretary can make a statement on a certain matter. I was in court this afternoon when a young Irish man was set free by a magistrate and the—
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman's point is nothing to do with this Committee. I cannot deal with it; it must be dealt with by the Chair when the Committee reverts to being the House.
    Mr. Stott: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lofthouse.
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have ruled on the matter.
    Mr. Maclennan: So far, clause 1 has been considered only in so far as it deals with the rather narrow question of whether an additional European Parliament seat should be allocated to Scotland. In fact, the clause goes a great deal further and wider than that. It is the core of the commitment to widen the United Kingdom's representation in the European Parliament, as set out in the decision
    "amending the Act concerning the election of representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage annexed to the Council Decision 76/787/ECSC,EEC, Euraton of 20th September 1976."
    The background to the decision is the view taken by the Community Heads of Government that it was proper to enlarge the European Parliament to give membership to the new Länder of east Germany which had adhered to west Germany and to the European Community. That was a welcome step. However, we must determine whether it is necessary to give effect to that decision of the Council of

    253
    Ministers through the manner proposed by the Government, whether clause 1 is necessary to give effect to that decision or whether it is a self-executing decision under the terms of the treaty of Rome and the European Community Acts.
    I make no secret of the fact that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends feel that the way in which the Government propose to widen the representation is undemocratic because it will only extend the unfairness of the present representation in the European Parliament. It would not greatly disquiet us if the Bill were found to be so defective as to be unsuitable for implementation by the House.
    The question is whether it would be appropriate as well as necessary to give effect to clause 1. It might be argued that if we vote against the clause, that could defeat the Government's intentions and make it impossible for this country to ratify the decision taken by the Community Heads of Government at the Edinburgh summit. That might be regarded as unfortunate, but we believe that the position is not entirely clear. The legal status of both decisions taken on 1 February, to which clause 1 would give effect, and of the so-called Act, as amended, which is annexed to the 1976 Council decision, is obscure. That makes it difficult to determine what would happen if the British Parliament declined to pass this implementing Bill.
    The authority on the question who has been drawn to my attention is the author T. C. Hartley who, in his book "The Foundations of European Community Law", second edition, 1988, page 24, writes:
    "The instrument providing for elections took an unusual form since all its substantive provisions are in an Act annexed to the Council decision. The legal nature of this Act is controversial. Does it take effect as an international agreement between the member states based on a draft recommended by the Council? Or does it take effect as a decision of the Council to which the member states have agreed?
    Perhaps the best view is that article 138(3) of the European Community"—
    he refers to the provisions of the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom Acts—
    "lay down a special procedure for amending these treaties which derogates from that in articles 236 EEC, 96 ECSC and 204 Euratom. If this view is correct, it takes effect as an Act of the member states, but forms part of the three treaties. The importance of this question is that the jurisdiction of the European Court to annul, interpret or enforce the Act depends on the Act's legal status."
    I think that you will agree, Mr. Lofthouse, that that is far from a conclusive view as to the necessity of clause 1 for the implementation of the decision taken by the Heads of Government in Edinburgh. Certainly, it is true that, normally, if the Government commit themselves to a binding international agreement, the commitment stands, regardless of any subsequent inability, for domestic reasons, to implement it.
    To take another example from a different European sphere, if the European Court of Human Rights finds that British law is incompatible with the European convention on human rights, to which the United Kingdom is committed in international law, the Government are obliged to take steps to change the law and to make it clear to Parliament that this is an overrriding commitment.
    If Parliament decides to reject their advice, the Government are placed in a very difficult position, which most Governments would naturally seek to avoid. Normally, the situation is avoided because of' the opportunity that Parliament is given, as the Government are giving us the present opportunity, to consider treaties
    254
    and any necessary implementing legislation before the Government are finally bound by the act of ratification. It is, however, avoided in the case of European Community legislation because the primacy of this is established in United Kingdom law by the European Communities Act itself.
    In the case of the European Parliament elections, therefore, the question arises: are the Government already bound by the agreement at Edinburgh and the subsequent decision by the Council of Ministers, or is the procedure set out in the decision whereby the provisions are to enter into force following receipt of the last notification akin to ratification?
    The language of the decision which clause 1 purports to be importing is, I submit, quite unclear on this point. Council decisions in general are binding in their entirety. Article 189 EEC would seem to make that point clear beyond peradventure. This one is to enter into force on the day of publication—that is, 9 February. It also states clearly that the provisions "shall" be applied to the elections to the European Parliament in 1994. That is made clear in article 2 of the decision, which says that the provisions
    "shall be applied for the first time in elections to the European Parliament to be held in 1994."
    These questions may, therefore, fairly be asked. Is what we are doing necessary? Is it being done in vain? Is Parliament intervening in a manner that is simply not required by European Community law? Is it handling this matter in an inappropriate fashion?
    On the other hand, the provisions—this is the curious contradiction in the decision—are merely "recommended" to member states
    "for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
    That comes at the end of the preamble, just before article 1.
    In short, the reference to respective constitutional requirements seems to imply that this is really a ratification process akin to that in article 236 for amendments to the treaty of Rome. But the other language and legal form of the decision give some grounds for arguing that the Government are already bound to implement the provisions, and that if Parliament were to choose to reject amendment 1, that would not free the Government from their obligation.
    8.15 pm
    The method of implementation is not laid down; we are not required by the decision to proceed in the manner in which the Committee is proceeding. We are certainly not bound to implement the Government's policy in this matter, for it is clear that the adoption of the decision is to be in accordance with our respective constitutional requirements, not according to any European Community law. If the Government were faced with the rejection by Parliament of clause 1 of this Bill, they could conceivably seek an alternative method, depending on the reasons for rejection.
    Nor is any firm deadline laid down for implementation. I put it to the Committee that, if we reject clause 1, it will still be perfectly possible for the Government to meet their obligations under the decision by bringing forward a system of election which does not depend upon a boundary commission procedure, but which gives effect to a system of election which is pursued in many other member countries of the European Community—a proportional system which relies upon the votes cast in the

    255
    existing European parliamentary constituencies. Therefore, a vote to defeat clause 1 would in no way defeat the objectives of the Government in seeking to give effect to the decision.
    I therefore submit that it is an act of high responsibility to question whether the Committee should embark upon a legislative process to implement a system of election which runs entirely counter to the other commitment of this country to seek a common system for elections to the European Parliament, and which is not necessary.
    I have taken a little time to deploy these legal arguments about the necessity of clause 1 to avoid any charge being made by the Government that, in advocating its rejection, we are acting irresponsibly.
    Mr. Beith: I have been following my hon. Friend's deployment of his case, to which he brings his customary legal authority. Looking at it more from a layman's point of view, would I be right in assuming that there is at least an argument for saying that the authority that supports the position in the treaty of Rome requiring a common system is more compelling than the authorities that he cites for implementing the additional number of seats, which would be the basis on which the Government might press us to vote that clause 1 stand part?
    Mr. Maclennan: I would certainly accept that argument. Indeed, I would go further and say that, in the light of the decision taken by the European Parliament in March this year to adopt the de Gucht proposals, and the fact that under the presidency of Belgium in the autumn this matter will undoubtedly be brought on to the agenda of the Council of Ministers, it is highly probable that member countries of the European Community will progress further down the road to a common system of election before the 1994 election. It would be acting very much within the spirit of EC law—and, I would argue, within the letter—if we were to reject the way of implementing the decision that the Government have recommended to us.
    I referred briefly to the deadline laid down for implementation. The decision envisages implementation in time for the 1994 elections, but it does not specify any earlier date after which it would be difficult, or impossible, to proceed on the basis of the new allocation. I concede that that last point would add to the political difficulty if the Bill were rejected—when I say "the Bill" I am talking about clause 1 of the Bill, because that is the heart of the matter. Other member states would not know whether to proceed on the assumption that the United Kingdom would find the means of implementation, or to conclude that the agreement could not come into force in time for the elections and make their own arrangements on the basis of the present allocation.
    It seems reasonably clear from the wording of the decision that, if we fail to make provision for the election of extra MEPs, and therefore fail to notify in accordance with the decision, the other member states would be prevented from taking up their own allocations and the whole agreement would he held up. However, this is not the only way in which our obligation to implement the decision can be fulfilled.
    It is possible that, if we do not pass clause 1, that will be seen by other member countries of the European
    256
    Community as putting a block in the way. That might be so interpreted by the Government that they felt unable to give effect to the decision. It is possible that other member states might try to bring us back to the negotiating table, seek an opt-out for Britain from the Government, or seek to take us to the European Court of Justice to clarify the legal position.
    I referred earlier to Hartley. His view would seem to imply that the European Court of Justice might have the power to enforce the decision once notification had been given, but might be inhibited from doing so beforehand if it regarded the notification procedure as akin to ratification. There is another theoretical outcome: the Council of Ministers might recognise the difficulty of the United Kingdom's implementation by adopting a decision to amend the Act, leaving the United Kingdom allocation unchanged at 81 seats.
    Mr. Beith: My hon. Friend is worrying me a little, or at least Hartley is. Does he conclude from Hartley that, in any challenge in the European Court, it is likely that the provisions of clause 1 would appeal to the Court more strongly than the provision of the treaty of Rome which requires us to have a common electoral system? I would find that a worrying conclusion for the court to draw.
    Mr. Maclennan: I do not think that that is the conclusion to be drawn from Hartley. I think that the court would be more likely to conclude that the matter should be governed by Community law rather than by the domestic law of this country.
    If the outcome of this temporary impasse was that the Council of Ministers thought it appropriate to ask us to adopt a new decision, leaving the United Kingdom representation allocation unchanged, that would require the consent of Her Majesty's Government. I have no doubt that Her Majesty's Government would be reluctant to accept an allocation of seats lower than that of France and Italy. It would be a temporary way out of the impasse for the Community because we would not be holding up the Community's development, but simply inflicting a wound on ourselves. It would be an unnecessary wound, as it would be open for us to proceed very speedily in a different way.
    Clause 1 is unnecessary to fulfil our obligations: that is really the core of my argument. It is not necessary because a wholly different way of proceeding is available to the Government: it implements the purposes of the Bill as set out in its long title. All that the Bill seeks to do is to
    "give effect to a Decision of the Council of the European Communities … of 1st February 1993 having the effect of increasing the number of United Kingdom representatives to he elected to the European Parliament; and for connected purposes."
    Nothing in that long title requires us to go down the route that the Government have chosen to give effect to the decision. The preferable route is one that has been adopted in all the other 11 countries of the European Community. It is a system of election that does not depend on the work of boundary commissions or allocation of seats along the lines proposed in the Bill. It would be necessary to insert a reference in the European Communities Act 1972—either by Order in Council or by primary legislation —hut it would no longer be necessary to amend the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 as the Bill proposes.
    There is a perfectly straightforward way of proceeding, which, to my mind, is infinitely preferable. It is more

    257
    democratic, and tends to support the obligation of this country under European Community law to adopt a common system of election, reinforced by the European Parliament as recently as March.
    I submit that the House should strike out clause I of the Bill and proceed in a wholly new way to give effect to the decisions made at Edinburgh. If it does, it will meet with total understanding from our European Community partners, and widespread support from the vast majority of people in this country who recognise that the system that the Bill seeks to perpetuate in clause 1 is unfair and unrepresentative, distorting our representation and that of other countries' political parties in the European Parliament. It is damaging to the representativeness of Parliament, and is a step back from the developments that we want. I suggest that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. John Biffen: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who has spoken with courtesy and scholarship on what is undoubtedly a very important point. He was technical in its presentation because, as he rightly observed, it has much wider ramifications and I am sure that the Committee will be interested in the ministerial reply.
    The hon. Gentleman's approach had something of the relentless charm of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and I hope that unofficial negotiations can be undertaken to conscript him into that wider audience of men of good will on this topic. However, I am not a mascot to the hon. Gentleman's organ grinder, so my contribution will be brief and wholly different. My intention is simply to place on record the fact that the clause increases the membership of the European Parliament, and the United Kingdom component or it, so that the total membership will stand at 567.
    8.30 pm
    Unlike the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), I am happy to support the clause, but I should like to leave, just as a trace in the sand, a question mark over the assumption that we should always be increasing the membership of the European Parliament and of the Commission. I shall not say that such things are done thoughtlessly, but the rhetoric that accompanies them—phrases such as "increasing our influence"—implies that the additional Members in a larger Parliament will give us a more significant and indentifiable national interest than would otherwise be the case.
    In the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who is well versed in North American affairs, I observe that I do not consider that Congress loses any of its effectiveness by being a smaller entity than many European national Parliaments and smaller than the Parliament at Strasbourg. I say that as no more than a passing observation to my hon. Friend, but it is not an idle passing observation.
    The enlargement of the Community is in prospect and that will constantly call into question what size the Parliament should be. It seems to me that, unless we have a much clearer idea of what its finite functions will be and how they will be conducted, we shall be dribbling along accepting increases in membership because we can think of no more suitable way of conducting our affairs than to assume that more means better. I do not say that more
    258
    means worse, but I say that the idea of more has to be considered rather more objectively than has been the case hitherto.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: Of course it is necessary to give effect in domestic law to the Council's decision of 1 February, but I realise why the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland raised that issue on clause stand part. I entirely sympathise with him and I hope that he will not think me satirical when I say that that was his way of bringing up the subject of the absence of proportional representation in the system. His failure to bring his amendments into order meant that he had to raise the issue in that roundabout way.
    The Council's decisions could not be put into effect, and we could not increase the number of seats, without changing the 1978 Act that governs our representation. The clause and the Bill as a whole demonstrate how that should be done, in terms of distributing the extra seats between the four countries that make up the United Kingdom.
    The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland was teetering on the edge—indeed, I think that he teetered over it—of suggesting that it would be possible to drop the clause from the Bill and to meet the Council's requirement that all the countries in the Community should have adopted the appropriate number of additional seats that they had been awarded, without any of them being prevented from being able to fill those seats at the 1994 election.
    However, it is clear from the latter part of the Council's decision—I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a copy of it with him—that, if we do not include the clause, we shall not be able to take up the six extra seats, and nor will any of the other countries in Europe be able to take up theirs, unless we produce other legislation in double quick time. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would prefer us to produce other legislation that would award the seats differently within the United Kingdom and introduce a different method of voting. It is for the House to decide which it should choose.
    Mr. Beith: Why does the Minister say that that would have to be done in what he calls double quick time, given that such legislation would not require the same apparatus as is required by the Bill in its present form?
    Mr. Lloyd: I shall risk straying out of order if I talk about a form of voting different from that provided for in the Bill, but if we produced another Bill, introducing proportional representation, no doubt even more hon. Members would complain about the type of election being adopted. Such a measure would be no easier to get through the House than the present Bill, and there would have to be an enormous amount of consultation beforehand on the appropriate form of proportional representation.
    There is no easy alternative to the method that we have chosen. It is in line with our traditions and—I regret to say—it will not pre-empt the argument on future elections, but we shall have those arguments after the Council of Ministers has considered the De Gucht report. The Council has not yet done that, so there is no obligation upon us to interpolate the report into our system of electing European Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his candid admission, with which I do not

    259
    disagree, that there could be another way of doing things. It appears that the only argument is about time, yet he will recall that, when the House legislated in such a manner before, it agreed to introduce a form of proportional representation for Northern Ireland. Things were done with at least as much celerity in 1978 as would be required now, and it has to be said that it was rather more complicated to set up such an arrangement for the first time. Even under the timetable now proposed, the process is unlikely to be concluded before the end of the year at the earliest. It would be a remarkable consultation on the system of voting which could not be concluded in a much shorter period than that.
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman refers to the previous time that we dealt with such an arrangement, when we had at least twice as long to make the arrangements that we have now. Of course he is right to say that we could have adopted a different system of distributing the seats and of organising the elections. The form that the Government have chosen to present to the House in the Bill is the form that I think is most likely to command the most widespread support.
    The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would not agree with me. They believe in a different system, but on that matter they are in a minority.
    Mr. Rathbone: In answer to an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the House, or perhaps the Committee, would decide what the method of election would be. May I ask him to clarify at what point in the consideration of the Bill that decision will take place? Is it taking place at this very moment, or will it take place on clause 2, or on the schedule?
    Mr. Lloyd: I did not mean that the decision would be taken on the Bill. When I said that the House would return to the issue, I did not intend that to apply to the 1994 elections, but afterwards, when the Council had considered the De Gucht proposals, as it no doubt will. I am sure that the House will return to the subject, but not in the Bill, and not yet.
    I shall refer briefly to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said. He made a point that we shall have to bear in mind when we revisit such matters, especially when the Community expands. It is undoubtedly a characteristic of legislatures to accrete members. The House of Commons has done so over the years and it is inevitable that there should be pressures for legislatures to do so, especially with the Community assemblies, when new members are joining. However, as my right hon. Friend rightly said, in terms of cost, of management and of effectiveness, the question of how large legislatures—the European Assembly and, indeed, the House of Commons—should be, must be tackled at some point.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: I wonder whether clause I should stand part of the Bill. That is not because I believe that proportional representation is the answer. I believe that proportional representation would be an undemocratic disaster. But I wonder whether we should enlarge what is in essence not a legislature but a consultative assembly. I speak with some experience, because for five years I was an elected member of that
    260
    bickering body. I was grateful to be elected. The European Parliament is one of the best Government job creation schemes that has ever been devised for defeated Members of Parliament. So I do not quibble about the availability of seats when resting between general elections.
    However, the fact that I put all that behind me and preferred to return to the United Kingdom Parliament is an indication of the great importance that I attach to the House of Commons and the low importance that I attach to the EC Assembly, which meets in Strasbourg and Brussels and has its offices in Luxembourg. It is worth bearing that in mind. Life in the EC is such that there is simply not the demand among the ordinary people for the extra MEPs proposed in clause 1.
    The amount of correspondence that MEPs receive is but a tiny fraction of that received by Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, even though MEPs have constituencies of more than 500,000 people in Britain. Indeed, they are so large as to be completely amorphous. MEPs do not have any recognition among the vast majority of their constituents.
    It is also worth noting that, in the Strasbourg Assembly, the United Kingdom is the only member state in which the MEPs have a constituency and some recognisable connection with the people who elected them. In that sense, the United Kingdom representatives are unique. The contempt with which representatives from other member states regard the quaint notion that United Kingdom representatives have some connection with a group of people in the country from which they come is telling.
    All the other representatives are chosen by some form of proportional representation which involves the central bodies—the apparatchiks of the parties—choosing the representatives. There is no direct constituency involvement.
    The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) argued that clause I should not stand part of the Bill, because he wanted a circuitous route to the introduction of proportional representation to be adopted. I am hotly opposed to that.
    Mr. Beith: I intervene not so much on the issue of proportional representation as on the point about what the additional MEPs would do. Did not the hon. Gentleman find it odd when he was an MEP that the representation of the two British party groups was so distorted? On his point about the role of the United Kingdom MEPs, surely he recognises that there are two categories. There are those in England, Scotland and Wales, who, with the best will in the world, cannot be expected to identify with the electorate in their huge European constituencies in the same way as the hon. Gentleman does with the electorate in his smaller constituency. Then the three Northern Ireland MEPs are elected on a different system. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Northern Ireland Members are not representatives of the community there?
    Mr. Cryer: For those who are elected by the first-past-the-post system, there is a much clearer and more recognisable relationship with the electorate. I include the people of Northern Ireland in that. The amorphous system of choosing people is one of award of favours by the political parties.

    261
    After the election, apparently there is a whole lot of new faces in the Assembly. That is brought about not by changes in the electoral decisions, but by the political party to which the Members belong simply switching them on the lists to which they were appointed to exclude them from the Assembly.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question put, That the Question be now put—
    The House proceeded to a Division—
    Mr. Beith(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. The preceding debates came to an end after my constituency had been mentioned. I sought to take part in that debate, but I was prevented from doing so by the moving of the closure motion. There have been only three or four speeches so far in this debate and I still have not been permitted on clause stand part to make the point about the part of the Bill that relates to my constituency and which was raised in the preceding debate.
    I plead with you, Mr. Lofthouse, after all our experiences during the Maastricht debates, to recognise that it is only reasonable that hon. Members should have a fair opportunity to take part in the debate in Committee.
    The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I take the view that there has been a wide-ranging debate on clause stand part. The matter has been reasonably covered during the debate.
    Mr. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. It would have been out of order in the preceding debate to discuss matters relating to England, which I could not have raised even if I had been allowed to make a short speech.
    The First Deputy Chairman: I have explained my decision and that is where the matter stands.
    The House having divided: Ayes 238, Noes 41.

    Division No. 319]

    [8.44 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Burns, Simon

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Burt, Alistair

    Alexander, Richard

    Butcher, John

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Butler, Peter

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Amess, David

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Ashby, David

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Chapman, Sydney

    Atkins, Robert

    Clappison, James

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Baldry, Tony

    Colvin, Michael

    Bates, Michael

    Congdon, David

    Bellingham, Henry

    Conway, Derek

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Booth, Hartley

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Boswell, Tim

    Cormack, Patrick

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Couchman, James

    Bowis, John

    Cran, James

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

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

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Brazier, Julian

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bright, Graham

    Day, Stephen

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Devlin, Tim

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Dover, Den

    262

    Duncan, Alan

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Dunn, Bob

    Luff, Peter

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Eggar, Tim

    MacKay, Andrew

    Elletson, Harold

    Maclean, David

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Madel, David

    Evennett, David

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Faber, David

    Malone, Gerald

    Fabricant, Michael

    Mans, Keith

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Marland, Paul

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Marlow, Tony

    Forman, Nigel

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Mates, Michael

    Forth, Eric

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Merchant, Piers

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Milligan, Stephen

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Mills, Iain

    French, Douglas

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Gale, Roger

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Gallie, Phil

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Moss, Malcolm

    Garnier, Edward

    Needham, Richard

    Gill, Christopher

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Gorst, John

    Norris, Steve

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Page, Richard

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Paice, James

    Hague, William

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Pickles, Eric

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Harris, David

    Richards, Rod

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Riddick, Graham

    Hayes, Jerry

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Heald, Oliver

    Robathan, Andrew

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Hendry, Charles

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Hicks, Robert

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Horam, John

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Howell, Sir Ralph (North

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Norfolk)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Shersby, Michael

    Jack, Michael

    Sims, Roger

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Jessel, Toby

    Soames, Nicholas

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Spring, Richard

    Key, Robert

    Sproat, Iain

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Steen, Anthony

    Knapman, Roger

    Stephen, Michael

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Stewart, Allan

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Streeter, Gary

    Knox, Sir David

    Sweeney, Walter

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Sykes, John

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Thomason, Roy

    Legg, Barry

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Lidington, David

    Thurnham, Peter

    Lightbown, David

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

    263

    Trend, Michael

    Whittingdale, John

    Trotter, Neville

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Walden, George

    Willetts, David

    Waller, Gary

    Wilshire, David

    Ward, John

    Wood, Timothy

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Yeo, Tim

    Waterson, Nigel

    Watts, John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wells, Bowen

    Mr. James Arbuthnot and

    Whitney, Ray

    Mr. Irvine Patnick.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Mahon, Alice

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Barnes, Harry

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Beggs, Roy

    Morley, Elliot

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Mullin, Chris

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Callaghan, Jim

    Rendel, David

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Salmond, Alex

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Skinner, Dennis

    Cryer, Bob

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Spearing, Nigel

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Harvey, Nick

    Trimble, David

    Hood, Jimmy

    Welsh, Andrew

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Wilson, Brian

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Wise, Audrey

    Lewis, Terry

    Loyden, Eddie

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Mr. James Wallace and

    Maclennan, Robert

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

    Maginnis, Ken

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 245, Noes 31.

    Division No. 320]

    [8.55 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Butcher, John

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Butler, Peter

    Alexander, Richard

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Amess, David

    Carttiss, Michael

    Arbuthnot, James

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Clappison, James

    Ashby, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Atkins, Robert

    Coe, Sebastian

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Colvin, Michael

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Congdon, David

    Baldry, Tony

    Conway, Derek

    Bates, Michael

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Beggs, Roy

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Cormack, Patrick

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Couchman, James

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Cran, James

    Booth, Hartley

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

    Boswell, Tim

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bowis, John

    Day, Stephen

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Devlin, Tim

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Brazier, Julian

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bright, Graham

    Dover, Den

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Duncan, Alan

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Dunn, Bob

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Eggar, Tim

    Burns, Simon

    Elletson, Harold

    Burt, Alistair

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    264

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Malone, Gerald

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Mans, Keith

    Evennett, David

    Marland, Paul

    Faber, David

    Marlow, Tony

    Fabricant, Michael

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Merchant, Piers

    Forman, Nigel

    Milligan, Stephen

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Forth, Eric

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Moss, Malcolm

    French, Douglas

    Needham, Richard

    Gale, Roger

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Gallie, Phil

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Garnier, Edward

    Norris, Steve

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Gorst, John

    Page, Richard

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Paice, James

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Pickles, Eric

    Hague, William

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Harris, David

    Richards, Rod

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Riddick, Graham

    Hayes, Jerry

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Heald, Oliver

    Robathan, Andrew

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Hendry, Charles

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Hicks, Robert

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Horam, John

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N. Norfolk)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Jack, Michael

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Shersby, Michael

    Jessel, Toby

    Sims, Roger

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Key, Robert

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Spink, Dr Robert

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Spring, Richard

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Sproat, Iain

    Knapman, Roger

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Steen, Anthony

    Knox, Sir David

    Stephen, Michael

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Stewart, Allan

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Streeter, Gary

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Sweeney, Walter

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Sykes, John

    Legg, Barry

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Lidington, David

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Lightbown, David

    Thomason, Roy

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Luff, Peter

    Thurnham, Peter

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

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

    MacKay, Andrew

    Trend, Michael

    Maclean, David

    Trimble, David

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Trotter, Neville

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Madel, David

    Walden, George

    Maginnis, Ken

    Waller, Gary

    265

    Ward, John

    Willetts, David

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Wilshire, David

    Waterson, Nigel

    Wood, Timothy

    Watts, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Wells, Bowen

    Whitney, Ray

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Whittingdale, John

    Mr. Irvine Patrick and

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Mahon, Alice

    Barnes, Harry

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Rendel, David

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Salmond, Alex

    Callaghan, Jim

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Skinner, Dennis

    Cryer, Bob

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Galloway, George

    Tyler, Paul

    Gordon, Mildred

    Wallace, James

    Harvey, Nick

    Welsh, Andrew

    Hood, Jimmy

    Wray, Jimmy

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lewis, Terry

    Mr. Don Foster and

    Loyden, Eddie

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Beith: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. I wish to speak to that motion.
    The First Deputy Chairman: I am not prepared to accept that motion at this point. We move on to—
    Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I wonder whether you could draw my attention to the provision in "Erskine May" that restricts my right to move progress, so that I may be sure that you are not in some way confining that right to those on the Government Front Bench, who seem to be calling the shots.
    The First Deputy Chairman: The Standing Order gives the occupant of the Chair discretion, and I am exercising that discretion. We now come to clause 2.

Clause 2

  INITIAL DRAWING UP OF THE NEW CONSTITUENCIES
  The First Deputy Chairman: The first amendment is amendment No. 15, with which it will be convenient to consider amendments Nos. 18 and 22.
  Mr. Maclennan: Not moved.
  The First Deputy Chairman: In that case, we come to amendment No. 19, with which it will be convenient to consider amendments Nos. 20 and 26 to 30.
  Mr. Maclennan: Not moved.
  The First Deputy Chairman: We now come to amendment No. 23.
  The Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Greg Knight)rose—
  Hon. Members: No!
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. [Interruption.] Order. Will the House settle down?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. [Interruption.]
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I want to hear the point of order.
  Mr. Beith: I put it to you, Mr. Lofthouse, that, given that some 15 seconds ago you argued that you could not use your discretion to accept from me a motion to report progress, it would be unacceptable if you now accepted such a motion from the Government Front Bench.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Before I deal with that, may I remind the House that amendment No. 23 is an Opposition amendment? Is it not moved?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Hold it. I am the Chairman running this show at present. Hold it.
  Let me clarify this matter. Amendment No. 23 stood in the name of the official Opposition. Has it been moved?
  Mr. Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Before that amendment was reached, I sought to catch your eye.
  I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  The First Deputy Chairman: The question is, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The motion is debatable. Hon. Members who wish to do so will have the opportunity to debate it.
  Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Before we come to the motion—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The motion is that I report progress. As many of that opinion say "Aye"—
  Mr. Beith rose—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to speak on the motion?
  Mr. Beith: I wish to oppose the motion, because I do not understand the situation. I moved a motion to report progress about a minute or so ago. At that point, you said that, in your discretion, you did not think that it was reasonable to take such a motion at that stage. A matter of seconds later, the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), sought to move an identical motion, despite my having shown my concern by way of a point of order.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I point out that, since the right hon. Gentleman moved the motion, a number of clauses have been passed, mainly on the nod.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order.
  Mr. William Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Is it not the case that you put the motion that we report progress? There was a voice vote and the Ayes shouted, "Aye" and the Noes shouted, "No."
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Chair had not finished collecting the voices.
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) seems to be unaware of what happened in those few seconds: no clauses were passed, no amendments were passed, no amendments were withdrawn and no amendments were moved. No amendments were before the Committee during that period.
  That further underlines my point that, in the space of seconds after my moving a motion to report progress, nothing happened at all. Nothing happened to change the circumstances in which you, Mr. Lofthouse, should consider whether to accept a motion to report progress. Yet seconds later, your discretion was somehow influenced by the fact that—I am trying to find the right phrase. The circumstances in which you exercised your discretion seemed to you to have changed, even though procedurally nothing whatever had happened in the intervening period. It seems to us that what is at stake—you may be unaware of what has gone on—is a cosy deal between the Labour party and the Conservative party.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to question your judgment, because that is exactly what he is doing? [Interruption.]
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The House will settle down. I am listening carefully to what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is saying. I do not take it that he is questioning my authority at all.
  Mr. Beith: I sought in some way to separate my questions of advice about the circumstances in which the Chairman of the Committee can and cannot accept a motion to report progress by dealing with them by way of a point of order.
  I am now coming to my speech against the motion. In passing, it would be helpful if Back-Bench Members could be given a clearer understanding of what transpired in the seconds between my moving the motion and the Government Whip moving the motion which turned the situation—obviously the situation was turned, and I do not question that—from one in which it would have been wrong for you to accept the motion to one in which it was right for you to accept it. Obviously, you are well aware of the circumstances and you were being advised in some detail by the Clerk of the Committee as to what the change signified. Undoubtedly, he has given you extensive reasons for it.
  It would be helpful for the future if at some stage, you could respond by giving us some guidance on that point. However, that is not the substance of what I want to say in opposition to the motion.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that we should oppose the Government's motion to report progress. It is extremely fortunate that the Labour party did not move its amendment, because virtually no Opposition Members are here to speak to it.
  268
  Did the right hon. Member note the extraordinary exchange of desperate glances between those on the two Front Benches as they panicked and started to realise that their cosy arrangement was starting to go awry? Should our proceedings be dominated by such secret backstage deals between the Tory and Labour parties?
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is right. I, too, saw those exchange of glances. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) looked distinctly concerned about what was going on. You know nothing of this, Mr. Lofthouse. I am bringing to your attention matters with which you do not concern yourself.
  9.15 pm
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that I know nothing of any deals.
  Mr. Beith: I am seeking to underline that point. All the more reason, Mr. Lofthouse, why the House should understand what has happened. The Government have offered us no reason for their decision to move a motion that they would have resisted had my attempt to move the same motion a few seconds earlier been accepted. What a place this is. I sought to move a motion and a minute later, the Government, who would have voted against my motion if it had been put to the vote, moved the exact same motion themselves. I know why they did that.
  Mr. Wallace: I was just finishing my meal when I saw various details appear on the Annunciator. Can my right hon. Friend explain how the Chairman could refuse to accept his motion to report progress and, within one minute, accept from the Government the motion to report progress?
  Mr. Beith: My hon. Friend—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I might be able to assist the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the decision to accept a motion is a matter for the Chairman's discretion. Things altered somewhat between the moving of the motions. Two sets of amendments that were expected to be put were not moved. That is what changed between when the first and second motions to report progress were moved. The person in charge of the proceedings also has the right to move the motion, which he did. The other amendments were not moved, so I accepted that motion. I hope that that is helpful to the right hon. Gentleman and means that he will not have to speak for as long as he had anticipated.
  Mr. Kirkwood: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I am anxious to get this absolutely clear in my mind, because important precedents could be established concerning Committee Chairmen being under pressure from different parts of a Committee, at different stages of a Bill. It seems to me that you have just set a precedent, Mr. Lofthouse, because, after no time at all in terms of procedural progress made, you were prepared to accept a motion from the Government, when you were not willing to accept a motion—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have already explained that.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We must return to the motion before the Committee.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Am I not owed an apology from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), because the point that I raised with him was precisely the one that you have given as your reason for granting the second request that the House should report progress? He told me that I did not know what was going on.
  The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to speak to the motion before the Committee.
  Mr. Beith: You were helping my argument, Mr. Lofthouse, when you set out what you understood to be the circumstances that had changed, procedurally. I say that to help the hon. Member for Lancaster. Procedurally, nothing had happened. Nothing had been passed, nothing had been withdrawn.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Yes, it had.
  Mr. Beith: Nothing had been withdrawn. Some amendments were not moved, and, therefore, they were of no procedural consequence to the affairs of the Committee. In that sense, nothing had happened.
  Your explanation, Mr. Lofthouse, helps me to explain to the House why the Government moved the motion. They found that they could not honour their deal with the Labour party without putting a motion to move progress. The nature of the deal was confirmed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who said, "Well done" in a loud voice when the Government moved the motion.
  The deal was that all amendments would be disposed of tonight, up to the amendment which you, Mr. Lofthouse, invited the Labour Front Bench to move. The basis of that deal was how nice it would be for the Labour party to move their amendment early in the afternoon rather than late at night. Such are the understandings between the Conservative and Labour parties that motions are made for personal convenience and the timing of amendments, which is why we are being asked to make no further progress on the Bill tonight.
  You, Mr. Lofthouse, saw what happened. In exercising your role as Chairman with as much care as you could muster, you sought to remind Opposition Front-Bench Members that if they did not move their amendment quickly it would fall. The only thing that saved it from collapsing was the fact that the Government moved a motion to report progress. That is why I am so critical of the motion and it explains the difference in the attitude to the motion that I sought to put and that put by the Minister.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Liberal Democrats did not move their two groups of amendments?
  Mr. Beith: Yes, there are two reasons. First, we are not party to that deal. We see no reason why we should organise the affairs of the House to suit the Con-Lab pact
  270
  that runs this place. To fit in with their deal, they wanted us to speak on those amendments to ensure that the Committee would not start debating Labour's amendment when you, Mr. Lofthouse, invited the Labour Front Bench to move it. That was contrary to the plan agreed by the two parties.
  Mr. Riddick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Beith: No, I am answering the hon. Gentleman's question.
  When we did not move our amendment, Conservative and Labour Members were at sixes and sevens and did not know what to do.
  I now come to the crucial point. If you, Mr. Lofthouse, had accepted my motion to report progress and we had debated and then disposed of that motion, you might have had difficulty in inviting the Committee to accept another identical motion a few moments later, reversing the effect of the decision that you had already taken. That would not
  I see that the Government Whip is fidgeting on the corner of his seat again. Perhaps he should take the tablets so often recommended by his right hon. Friends. He clearly wants to move a closure motion before I have even started my speech, most of which has been taken up dealing with interventions and points of order raised by Conservative Members. He has already stopped me speaking in the first debate this evening after someone said that my constituency should be included in the amendments to clause 1 because, in his view, it formed part of Scotland. He then prevented me from dealing with that argument in the debate on clause stand part.
  A point that I wished to make on clause stand part concerned an issue on which I wanted to seek wider consultation. There was a case for saying that an understanding could have been reached enabling a seat to be created on both sides of the border around Berwick. However, that would have required an amendment in another place, so I could not develop that argument. I thought that it would be appropriate at that stage to seek leave to report progress to enable me to consult on the matter.
  However, I then discovered that behind all that was a deal to cover the whole matter up. It is a mini-deal within a maxi-deal. The maxi-deal is that Labour delivers the Bill for the Government. You, Mr. Lofthouse, have much experience of Committee proceedings on the Maastricht treaty Bill and served many long hours in the Chair during those debates. Labour Members were constantly trying to explain during those proceedings how vigorously they were opposing the Government on motions such as this.
  Mr. Don Dixon: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is an honourable man who always preaches the truth. Will he now admit that the truth about the shenanigans this evening has more to do with the vacant seat at Christchurch than with the additional seats in Europe? He may talk of deals, but I suggest that he casts his mind back only a couple of months to the time when, on eight occasions, the Liberals voted with the Government and got the Maastricht Bill through.
  Mr. Beith: You would probably rule me out of order, Mr. Lofthouse, if I started talking about the Christchurch by-election.
  Mr. Dixon: Answer my question.
  Mr. Beith: I am doing that. Having asked me a question, the hon. Gentleman might have the decency to listen to the answer. In any event, he must have missed many of our proceedings—
  Mr. Dixon: How about an answer?
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman pressed me to give him a truthful answer. I am seeking to do that. Will he just listen while I answer him? He put it to me that this is all about the Christchurch by-election, yet, throughout the earlier proceedings, we were accused—and the Minister made the same accusation—of debating matters—[Interruption.] We are concerned that the Government are using an unfair system of election to the European Parliament.
  We plead guilty to the accusation of wanting to change the system. But that is not what the motion is about. I am seeking to answer an intervention from as prominent a source as a Labour Front-Bench spokesman. It was a significant intervention, because I was at the time drawing a comparison between this motion and arguments against it in relation to this Bill and the way in which similar motions were dealt with when we debated the Maastricht Bill.
  The hon. Member for Jarrow said that we had voted with the Government. Yes, but we were in favour of getting the Maastricht Bill through. It was our policy to do that, which is why we voted for it. We voted for motions which ensured that it would get through. Apart from the hon. Member for Jarrow and those sitting below the Gangway, Labour Members were in favour of that Bill getting through, so they said, even though they were not prepared to support, or vote for, any procedural motions. It is clear that the mask, the disguise, has slipped. The hon. Member for Jarrow is a closet opponent of Maastricht on the Labour Front Bench.
  But that is not the issue before us tonight. The issue is whether the Government should be allowed to use a motion to report progress to stitch up a deal with the Labour party about the handling of the measure. Should hon. Members vote for the motion in the knowledge that that is so? I am explaining that it is so because I fear that there are hon. Members in many parts of the Committee who do not know what lies behind the motion.
  Mr. Salmond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the risk of creating two separate types of hon. Members? There are those who, when they have amendments down in their names, must turn up in time to move them. There are others, such as those on the Labour Front Bench, who, if they are not here to move their amendments, can depend on the occupants of the Government Front Bench to come to their rescue and get them out of difficulty.
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman raises a significant point—[Interruption.] I gather that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is now ready to move the amendment. I hope that the Committee is aware of that because, Mr. Lofthouse, when you looked around for him some time ago, he was not prepared to move the amendment. The Government are inviting us to vote for the motion because they want to rescue the Labour party. They want to get Labour Members off the hook of their embarrassment.
  Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. If the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is now
  272
  willing to move the amendment, do you think that the sitting should be suspended, as often happens with Committees, so that the two Front Benches can get together and concoct another deal?
  Mr. Beith: I am having difficulty in making—[Interruption]
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am having difficulty hearing the right hon. Gentleman. Will hon. Members please give the right hon. Gentleman a fair hearing?
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Beith: There is such zeal on both sides of the Committee and many little private discussions are taking place, like the one taking place between the Minister and the Clerk inside the Chamber. The Minister has taken the Clerk's seat—I think that the Minister wants to be the Clerk.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am in the Chair, and I am running the debate, not Ministers or Clerks. I make the decisions and I have responsibility for the Chair.
  Mr. Beith: Of course, Mr. Lofthouse. I think that, in response to that very proper assurance of your authority, the Minister has left the Clerk's chair and has ceased to give the impression that he was trying to influence your decision. I know that he could not do so. You act strictly within the rules of procedure. You act simply to implement rules which, in some ways, give many advantages to Ministers and, when used by Ministers, can advantage the Labour party. There is not a lot that you can do about that.
  We in the minority parties and Back Benchers often ask you to use your discretion to give a fair hearing, but you have to implement the rules of the House, which you do. Who am I to question that?
  My task is different. It is to persuade hon. Members that they should vote against the motion because it is wrong—
  Mr. Riddick rose—
  Mr. Beith: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I quite like giving way, but, unfortunately, hon. Members keep diverting me to speak on subjects of which you. Mr. Lofthouse, would disapprove, as they go wider than the terms of the motion.
  Mr. Riddick rose—
  Mr. Beith: I shall give way, reluctantly, to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Riddick: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that the reason the Liberal Democrats are so opposed to deals—as he puts it—is because the last time the Liberals made a deal, in the form of the Lib-Lab pact, it was a total disaster for them? Will he answer an earlier question? Why did the Liberals table amendments which they were not prepared to move?
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me. He has drawn me into speaking about the Lib-Lab pact, with which he compares the Con-Lab pact before us tonight. He told us that there is a deal between the other

  273
  two parties, which should be compared to the Lib-Lab pact. He approves of today's deal, but disapproved of the Lib-Lab pact. I should not start discussing that subject.
  Tonight, we must consider whether it is sensible for hon. Members to vote for a motion to report progress on the basis that would stitch up a deal. Another of my fears is that, every time I give way to another hon. Member, I strengthen the argument that might be used by the Minister—who keeps scurrying around the Government Whip—to move the closure motion in the middle of my speech, as he did in the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). Such a procedure is not conducive to sensible debate in the House.
  Mr. Allen: It may be that some hon. Members in the Chamber are trying to teach the Chair a lesson on not calling amendments on proportional representation. The Chair may wish to take into account in future the fact that such behaviour may be replicated. I hope that the Chair does not bend to such pressure. It is clear that some hon. Members are happy to disturb the debate purely because their amendments have not been selected.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Was that a point of order or an intervention?
  Mr. Beith: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, but should not have done so. I think that he is after your job, Mr. Lofthouse. I think that he is trying to argue the Chairman's case, when he has already stitched up a deal with the Government.
  There is another important aspect to discuss. A rumour was circulating earlier today that the Government did not want to reach clause 2 tonight because they had an amendment which they would have to table today and which would have been starred tomorrow.
  Mr. Allen: It is not a rumour.
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman, who knows all about what the Government are doing, says that it was not a rumour. He must know that it is the truth—now I have the evidence. What better source could I have than an hon. Member who is clearly very close to all this?
  The Government plan to move an amendment that they could not have moved if we had made too much progress tonight. They resiled from the plan, leaving it open for them to move the motion to report progress. It occurred to them that if the amendment were carried, we should have a Report stage, at which other aspects of the Bill would be open to question and debate.
  I assume that what we are to learn from this is that the Bill is defective and that any Government amendment will be made in another place. So far, we have not been told so, though we ought to have been. If we are to consider procedural motions, we ought to know the Government's intentions.
  The broad deal that this motion is intended to implement is, first, that the Labour party will not impede progress on the Bill and, secondly, the continued use of the present electoral system for the extra seats, so long as the Government have their amendments considered at times of day that suit.
  That being the case, the Government could not let you, Mr. Lofthouse, invite the Opposition Front Bench to move the amendment. When you started to do so, they were very worried. When you began to issue this helpful
  274
  invitation to Labour Front Benchers, the Minister started to jump up and down in an effort to move a motion that he would not have accepted when I moved it.
  The overall deal is that Labour will deliver the goods. What is the concession? What is the basis on which Labour Members are being asked to vote for this motion? What is the basis on which the hon. Member for Bradford, South is being told that he must troop through the Lobby with the Tories and on which the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis)—
  Mr. Cryer: Whatever circumstances the hon. Gentleman is conjecturing, I shall make up my own mind. I hope to have an opportunity to speak on the motion, in which case I shall express my view that we ought to vote against it. I shall certainly vote in that way.
  Mr. Beith: In my heart of hearts, I knew that it was so. I knew that the hon. Gentleman would not be pushed around by the Whips. And I should be surprised if the hon. Members for Worsley and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) were prepared to be treated in that way.
  Mr. Terry Lewis: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as always, I shall be in the Lobby in defence of democracy in this place. Before he goes too far along this route, let me tell him that it is not long since I watched him and his colleagues do very similar deals. The Labour Members on the Front Bench below the Gangway can say, hand on heart, that they do deals with nobody.
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point, and I did not seek to suggest otherwise. We did not have deals; we simply voted for what we believed to be right, as the hon. Gentleman is contemplating doing in respect of this motion. I am very pleased that he is prepared to oppose the motion, on the basis of some of the arguments that I have advanced. It is decent and honourable that there are still Members of Parliament—people with whom I may disagree fundamentally with regard to the issue in the Bill—who care about fair procedures, about how we conduct our business. On such issues, we can make common cause.
  Mr. Wallace: My hon. Friend will have noted the indication from the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) that Labour accepts that there has been a deal, just as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick)—a Conservative—did a few moments ago. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is always talking about open government. Why is he not honest enough to accept that there has been a deal between the two Front Benches?
  Mr. Beith: Nobody is now denying it. You, Mr. Lofthouse, might have been the last to be told about the deal, but you have now heard, from various corners of the Committee, plenty of evidence of it. The question is whether the deal, in the form of the motion to report progress, should be accepted.
  I have been seeking to address the argument that Labour Members should support the deal, which is: "Chaps, comrades"—I cannot find any comrades—"we shall get our amendment on at 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon if we let the Government have this Bill." That is a pretty shabby basis for voting for any motion, even one to report progress. It is certainly a shabby basis for

  275
  supporting every dot and tittle of the Bill, with all the faults that some Labour Members—conspicuous by their absence—know full well.
  There are quite a few Labour Members who would make common cause with us. Indeed, later in the year they may find that their party conference decides in favour of a different electoral system for the European elections.
  Perhaps there is another reason for the Government moving the motion to report progress. Is it possible that it is to give the Labour party time to consult its party conference before tomorrow? I cannot see how it can do that, but perhaps it wants to consult its national executive on whether Labour Members should vote for any of the amendments or for the schedule, an issue which we shall deal with tomorrow. Of course, we could have dealt with it tonight. My hon. Friends conspicuously co-operated in making it possible to reach Labour's amendment, clause 2 stand part and the schedule. We could still achieve that if we do not agree to the motion to report progress.
  Throughout the proceedings on the Maastricht Bill, the Government constantly came to us and said, "We must make progress on the Bill." Some nights we said, "No, there are important issues still to be considered so we will not vote for the 10 o'clock motion. Why should we sit after 10 o'clock, night after night, on a Bill that we could consider in a more orderly fashion?" Now, the Government Whip—who has recently been promoted up the hierarchy—says that we must report progress on this Bill, not to suit the Government, but to keep the Labour party happy.
  Conservative Members will shortly be invited to go through the Lobby in favour of a motion to report progress. We should remember all those occasions on the Maastricht Bill when considerable pressure was put on Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen)—my colleague on the Treasury Select Committee—to vote for very different sorts of motions.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: There will be a great deal of distaste throughout the Committee for the contempt that the right hon. Gentleman shows for the Government and Opposition Front Benches. One of the most conspicuous features of the past six months has been the courageous way in which the two Front Benches together fought the remainder of the House to get the Maastricht Bill through its stages.
  All of us who so dislike the adversarial element in politics and admire the consensus and conformism that have been the most outstanding tribute to the two Front Benches very much resent the vulgar contempt that he shows for those hon. Members who have so stalwartly stood against public opinion, denied the nation a referendum and, above all, have tried to make themselves respectable and agreeable, especially to the London chattering classes.
  I am sure that those who supported all that was responsible and respectable in the old Liberal party regard the right hon. Gentleman's rather impertinent remarks with nothing more than contempt.
  Mr. Beith: As Ministers so often say, "The hon. Gentleman makes his own point in his own way." He is right in one aspect, if not all, of what he says, which is that that was exactly the case on the referendum—
  Mr. Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. The Government Whip and the Opposition Whip have left the Chamber to consult. I wonder whether—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order for me.
  Mr. Beith: Oh, Mr. Lofthouse, how difficult my task becomes when extraneous activities flourish, when toings and froings—[Interruption.] The Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Jarrow has returned to the Chamber bursting with some new truth that he wants to impart—not to me; not to you, Mr. Lofthouse; not to the Committee; but to the Clerks. Perhaps he is offering to do the Minister's difficult job and move the closure—
  Mr. Dixon rose—
  Mr. Beith: I shall give way provided that the hon. Gentleman does not move a closure motion.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Dixon: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no intentions at all.
  Mr. Beith: I always believed that, from the moment that he became a Whip, the hon. Member for Jarrow had no intentions at all. It is clear to me from everything that he does in his activities as a Whip—I am sure that some of his hon. Friends, if they were here, would support me—that he has no intentions at all; he just has duties. He has the duty of compelling people to come into the House; the duty of keeping them out of the House, as now, when they are not wanted. He has no intentions; merely obligations.
  Mr. Dixon: The right hon. Gentleman asked me if I was going to move the closure. I said that I had no intention at all of moving the closure. That is fairly simple, and I should have thought that even he could understand that.
  Mr. Beith: I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he chose not to complete his sentence. Had he done so, I would have understood. That felicitous phrase, which seemed to me to describe so vividly the characteristics that make him such a well-known and recognised individual, summed it all up. But, of course, he meant to say something else—that he was not going to move the closure —and I accept that. He was distracting me, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is also trying to do, from what I was seeking to argue.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, North is now apologising. He says that he is, sorry that he got the Committee into this mess; he is sorry that he did a deal with the Government under which Labour would deliver the Bill so long as they got the procedural motion and could get his amendment on at 4 o'clock tomorrow.
  Mr. Allen: In case there is any misunderstanding, I was making it clear that I was sorry for the right hon. Gentleman, rather than for anything that had happened.
  Mr. Beith: I can do without the sympathy of the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that it would do me a lot of good.
  Mr. Oliver Heald rose—
  Mr. Beith: I do not know whether I should give way to so many interventions, because it might count against me at some later stage, and I am seeking to develop an argument. But I will give way this time.
  Mr. Heald: Did the right hon. Gentleman forget to move the amendment? Is that the reason why we are being treated now to this lengthy speech? If that is the case, is it right that he has lost his party six hours of debate?
  Mr. Beith: I do not think that we would have got six hours of debate. On the last clause stand part, we got only one hour. Of course we did not forget. The hon. Member could not have been in the Chamber at the time, or he would have seen my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) rise and say, "Not moved." That was the appropriate step to take when we did not wish the matter to come before the Committee. We thought that it would be a good idea to get on to Labour's amendment. Then we suddenly discovered that Labour did not want to get on to their own amendment.
  But all this is distracting me from the structure and order of my remarks, and from coming on to the arguments which are directed at Conservative Members as they are invited to vote for this motion. They are being told that this has to be done to keep the Labour party happy.
  So when hon. Members go back to their Conservative dinners, their buffet suppers and their women's committee lunches, they will be able to say that they did their bit for the Prime Minister and the Government. They will be asked what they did for their nation and their party, and they will reply that they looked after the Labour party, which was what they were sent here for. They will be asked why that was necessary.
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who is one of the most candid Members, will tell his ladies committee that he will explain it to them, although it will be difficult to understand because the proceedings of the House are sometimes strange. He will say that his friends the Whips, with whom he always seeks to work closely because they give such stalwart support to the Prime Minister, agreed with the Labour party that it would be expedient for their amendment to come on at 4 o'clock on Wednesday.
  The ladies committee will ask why it was important, and the hon. Gentleman will reply that he does not know, but the Whips told him that it was. Then the ladies will ask why it is that something that is important to the Labour party's organisation of its day-to-day business matters so much to the Prime Minister and other Front-Bench Ministers.
  Mr. Budgen: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will stop this impertinence. It must be clear to the whole Committee that Opposition Front Benchers have been the most loyal supporters of the Conservative Administration over the Maastricht treaty. It really is most impertinent of the right hon. Gentleman to be rude about it. A very small obligation is being paid now for loyal support over a long period.
  Mr. Beith: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's explanation would pass the auditors. I think he has got the balance sheet confused, which is unusual for him, because he is a member of our Treasury Select Committee.
  278
  The hon. Gentleman is fundamentally right—a small obligation is being repaid—but I think that the obligation arises in relation to this Bill, and that is why he and his hon. Friends are being asked to vote for this motion. He thinks it is an obligation in respect of the Maastricht Bill—that is the nub of the disagreement between us—but that should not affect the attitude he should take to this motion.
  The arguments are the same either way. I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong about Maastricht; I do not think that the Labour party was very good at getting the Maastricht Bill through. Labour Members were very good at defeating the referendum proposal and ensuring that the British people did not have a vote on the issue, but they were not so good on procedural motions. They are relying on that rather than on this motion. The reason I raise it for comparison is that they blocked all the procedural motions but did not vote for the Labour amendments. They did not vote on most of their amendments.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman would get back to the motion and leave Maastricht out of it.
  Mr. Beith: Let us agree about this motion. It is the repayment of a debt of obligation. The Government Whips are obligated to the Labour party for their great kindness. I believe that it is a kindness in getting the European Parliamentary Elections Bill through the House; the hon. Gentleman believes it is a kindness over the Maastricht Bill. Either way, the Government are obligated.
  Conservative Members will now have to go to their ladies committees, luncheon clubs and supper clubs, and, heaven forfend, possibly their Conservative clubs, where the argument may be even more robust than in the ladies' committee, and be expressed in more uncouth terms on occasion. They will have to say, as they gather around the bar of the Conservative club, "It is all right, fellow club members, we have been in there helping the Labour party out by moving a motion that the House do report progress."
  The Conservative club will not be like the ladies' committee; they will not say, "Oh, Mr. Budgen, why did you do it?" They will say, "Come off it." They may use expressions that I would not use at all, let alone in the Chamber. They will say, "Are you telling me that we subscribe in our club to put money into local Conservative funds, to send you to Westminster to prop up the Labour party? You are not telling us that, are you?" But that is what Conservative Members will have to tell them; they will have to explain that that is how the whole show is run. The hon. Gentleman can call it consensus, but that is how the whole place is run.
  "Explain it to us," they will say. They may use more robust language, but they will demand to he told by the luckless, hapless Conservative Members—who should think about that before they go through the Lobby. They will have to stand in the bar of the Conservative club and say, "John Major and the Government Whips told me it was absolutely vital that Labour's amendment came on at 4 o'clock on a Wednesday. For that I will do anything; I will vote for any motion that the Government put before me." That will not be accepted for one moment. I think that Conservative Members will have to refrain from going through the Lobby in support of the motion.

  279
  Let me give Conservative Members another reason. If I had moved the motion, and had advanced arguments very different from those that the Government would have advanced had they dared, the same Government Whip would have told Conservative Members to vote the other way. I am putting that on the record because, when they go to the Conservative ladies' luncheon, they will also have to explain that. They will ask, "Is it true, Mr. Budgen? Is it really true that, when you voted for this motion to help the Labour party, you voted the opposite way from the way in which you would have voted if it had been moved 30 seconds earlier?"
  The hon. Gentleman will have to say, "Yes, my dear ladies, I am afraid that it is true, because that is the way in which the politics of our country is run. We in the Conservative party have a debt of gratitude to the Labour party, and although we prefer to leave you in the mindset of constant anti-socialism, because that is how we keep the party going, you must recognise that in the real world of Westminster our obligations to the Labour party run deeper than some of our opposition to it." The Conservative ladies will find that hard to take; there may be tears in their eyes when they are confronted with the harsh truth.
  Mr. William Powell rose—
  Mr. Beith: In the middle of my argument, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman not suffering from tunnel vision? Surely, when our constituents ask us about such things, we are much more likely to hear the comment, "That Mr. Beith is a nice man. Why on earth was he talking all that nonsense?" The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman is advancing an argument for the most corrupt bargain possible. We have been denied the opportunity of debating the amendments that the Liberal Democrats did not move, and which we wished them to move, so that we could expose the falsity and preposterous nature of the politics that they wish to advance. Our constituents are not impressed by what the right hon. Gentleman says, because it is all nonsense.
  Mr. Beith: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman believes much of that; he certainly did not make it sound convincing. We are party to no bargain at all. We did not move a couple of our amendments, but the Minister had already made it abundantly clear beyond doubt that in no circumstances would he accept them. He was determined to ensure that our amendments were defeated, because he knows the form in which he wants the Bill to be enacted, and he has known it for ages, since before the Maastricht Bill even started. Honestly and candidly, he made that clear earlier this evening.
  The idea that our amendments would have been uplifted in the arms of Conservative Members who had suddenly come into the fold with us is absurd. Even Conservative Members who agree with our amendments are being a little cautious, although I acquit the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) of that charge. He intervened helpfully and purposefully to ask the Minister when the House would be given the opportunity to decide
  280
  what would be an appropriate election system for the European Parliament. The Minister's answer, basically, was, "Not on this Bill."
  Some day the House may be invited to decide, but what is before us now is a grubby deal to support the Labour party. Conservative Members now have the task of setting out from this place at the weekend and explaining to loyal Conservatives all over the country that they are here in order to help out the Labour party. That seems a wholly inappropriate reason for voting, and a wholly inappropriate way of treating the various resources and help that those loyal Conservatives have given.
  Perhaps I am presuming too much about the sense of loyalty of Conservatives all over the country. It may be much less prevalent than it used to be; they may be much more restive. The knowledge that there is a Con-Lab pact, which is the basis of the motion, will not help, and that knowledge will spread further and further.
  On top of some people's feeling that an even more unfair system for elections to the European Parliament is being foisted upon them, comes the discovery that the Labour party is conniving with the Conservatives to get the motion through, and that the Conservative Whips are asking their Members to support a motion in order to keep that deal going. It is a pretty shady way of proceeding, but it is the way that things have gone here tonight.
  Mr. Cryer: I should like to say a word or two about the motion to move progress. I imagine that the Whips have it in mind not to move the 10 o'clock motion. The curious thing is that the Whips have foolishly moved closures tonight. The Whip earlier moved the closure when a short speech was coming to an end, and when one other Member was to speak.
  The Government want to turn this legislature into some sort of sausage machine for subordinating Parliament to their wishes. That is why their motion to report progress is being debated. It has taken far longer than it would have if the Whips had sat on their hands and done nothing. The debate on the motion to report progress has taken longer than it would have taken to debate all the items before the Committee of the House tonight.
  Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I feel embarrassed about cutting across the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). However, once again in a speech of his, one must move, That the Question be now put. We have spent longer on the debate on the motion to report progress than we spent on clause I stand part. The Government did not advance any arguments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has spoken at great length and the hon. Member for Bradford, South has spoken briefly and concisely. I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
  The First Deputy Chairman: I am not accepting that motion.
  Mr. Kirkwood: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I spy strangers.
  It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report progress and asked leave to sit again.
  Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.
  Mr. Beith: No.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. If hon. Gentlemen will listen to what I have to say, instead of all jumping up and down at once, which makes it impossible for me to decide who genuinely wants to catch my eye, I will listen to them.
  Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard the Government Whip move the motion to report progress. I voted against the motion with my voice seeking a Division.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Whip was simply reporting to the House what had happened in Committee.
  Mr. Wallace: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand, although I will certainly stand corrected if I am wrong, that the Whip also sought leave to sit again. Will you perhaps tell us precisely what the terms were? If he sought leave to sit again, is it possible for the House to vote against the motion?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is a normal procedure at 10 o'clock.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled on that point of order.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.
  Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
  The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes 253.

  Division No. 321]

  [10.2 pm

  AYES

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Salmond, Alex

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Simpson, Alan

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Wallace, James

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Maclennan, Robert

  Maginnis, Ken

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Don Foster.

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Rendel, David

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Alexander, Richard

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Allen, Graham

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Alton, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Amess, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Ashby, David

  Bowden, Andrew

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bowis, John

  Atkins, Robert

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Bright, Graham

  Baldry, Tony

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Barnes, Harry

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Bates, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Beggs, Roy

  Budgen, Nicholas

  282

  Burns, Simon

  Hendry, Charles

  Burt, Alistair

  Hicks, Robert

  Butcher, John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Butler, Peter

  Home Robertson, John

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Horam, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Carrington, Matthew

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

  Carttiss, Michael

  Howell, Sir Ralph (North

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Norfolk)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Clappison, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jack, Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Coe, Sebastian

  Jessel, Toby

  Colvin, Michael

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Congdon, David

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Conway, Derek

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Couchman, James

  Key, Robert

  Cran, James

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Cryer, Bob

  Kirkhope, Timothy

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

  Knapman, Roger

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Day, Stephen

  Knox, Sir David

  Devlin, Tim

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dixon, Don

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Dover, Den

  Legg, Barry

  Duncan, Alan

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lewis, Terry

  Dunn, Bob

  Lidington, David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lightbown, David

  Eggar, Tim

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Elletson, Harold

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Luff, Peter

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Evennett, David

  Maclean, David

  Faber, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  McMaster, Gordon

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Madden, Max

  Forman, Nigel

  Madel, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mahon, Alice

  Forth, Eric

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Malone, Gerald

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Mans, Keith

  French, Douglas

  Marland, Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gallie, Phil

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Merchant, Piers

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Milligan, Stephen

  Garnier, Edward

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Gill, Christopher

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Moss, Malcolm

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gorst, John

  Norris, Steve

  Graham, Thomas

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Page, Richard

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Paice, James

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hague, William

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Rathbone, Tim

  Harris, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Harvey, Nick

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Richards, Rod

  Hayes, Jerry

  Riddick, Graham

  Heald, Oliver

  Robathan, Andrew

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  283

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Thomason, Roy

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Sackville, Tom

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

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Trotter, Neville

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shersby, Michael

  Walden, George

  Sims, Roger

  Waller, Gary

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ward, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spearing, Nigel

  Watts, John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wells, Bowen

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Whittingdale, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spring, Richard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sproat, Iain

  Willetts, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilshire, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Wood, Timothy

  Stephen, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Stewart, Allan

  Streeter, Gary

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mr. Irvine Patrick and Mr. Michael Brown.

  Sykes, John

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Local Government Finance
  10.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I beg to move,
  That the Special Grant Report (No. 8) (House of Commons Paper No. 724), which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
  The special grant report which is before the House for debate tonight concludes some unfinished business from this year's local government finance settlement.
  The report honours a commitment that the then Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), made in the revenue support grant debate last February to provide special financial assistance to certain local authorities. The package of assistance comprises two separate special grants. We expect that, taking the two grant schemes together, between £3 million and £4 million of Government support is likely to be provided during the next 12 months.
  The first of the two schemes is a continuation of the special grant in respect of displaced persons from the former republic of Yugoslavia introduced towards the end of the last financial year.
  The turmoil in what was once Yugoslavia tragically caused many thousands of people to flee their homes or to be driven from them. That led to the largest number of refugees and displaced persons in Europe since the end of the second world war. Many of those people made their way to this country during the first few months of the Bosnian conflict.
  As a result, local authorities in some areas faced the prospect of demands on local services disproportionate to their resources. For example, some 170 people had to be accommodated by Uttlesford district council following their arrival at Stansted airport. That is why the Government agreed to provide financial help to those authorities that were most affected.
  In some parts of the country local authorities are still having to cope with the problems associated with the refugees who arrived here last year. We are therefore extending last year's scheme of assistance into the current financial year.
  Similar considerations apply to the exceptional costs associated with refugee and asylum-seeking children who arrive in the United Kingdom unaccompanied by parents or guardians. The second grant scheme covered by the special grant report relates to that problem.
  The costs to local authorities of responding to the needs of unaccompanied refugee children are considerable. Authorities have a duty under the Children Act 1989 to care for and maintain such children unless they are privately fostered, in which case they have a duty to satisfy themselves that the welfare of the children is being satisfactorily safeguarded and promoted. The costs are highest immediately after the arrival of the children in this country.
  Mr. Max Madden: How many local authorities have applied for the grant and, of those, how many have had the grant application accepted and how many refused? Secondly, does the English language support element of the grant cover travel costs and fees for English tuition?
  Mr. Baldry: No one will be able to apply for the grant until the order is approved, so no local authority has applied for the grant this year. There are two grams, one for Yugoslays and the other for unaccompanied children. We expect that a number of authorities will apply for the grants. Whether the grant will be applied will depend on whether they meet or exceed the threshold.
  Next year, the pressures associated with unaccompanied children who have arrived in recent years should be fully reflected in standard spending assessments because detailed information from the 1991 census will, for the first time, feed through into the assessments. However, as this year's SSAs do not take account of those data, we accept that there is a case for special financial assistance towards the costs incurred in 1993–94 by the authorities that are subject to the heaviest financial burden.
  Generally, local authorities should be able to make provision within their budgets for the costs of dealing with refugees and asylum seekers. The mechanisms of central Government support for local authorities already take account of the sorts of spending pressures that tend to be associated with the presence of refugees.
  Most asylum seekers settle in London. The needs of the London boroughs are assessed as high—within SSAs—precisely because they face a range of unusual pressures such as refugee arrivals. For example, in London the children's personal social services element of SSAs is much higher than the national average. For 1993–94, the national average is £35 per head; the averarge per head for inner London is £131.
  We take the view—entirely reasonably, I believe—that generally it should be possible for local authorities to budget for the costs that refugees and asylum seekers impose from within the resources provided by SSAs. We believe that SSAs provide the best means of distributing resources to local authorities; they allow the authorities maximum discretion to set their spending priorities in the light of pressures from all residents, whether indigenous or not. We are conducting a review of SSAs and would welcome any constructive suggestions on the methodology that may relate to refugees.
  From time to time, however, situations can arise leading to a sudden influx of asylum seekers from a particular area, which may place on certain local authorities burdens that are outside their normal experience. The influx of asylum seekers from former Yugoslavia is an example—hence the Yugoslavian displaced persons grant last year and this year.
  It is only reasonable that authorities should have made some provision for contingencies within their budgets. That is why grant is to be targeted at authorities that incur expenditure above a threshold. In 1994–95, the SSAs for authorities with refugee children resident in their areas should provide sufficient resources. That is likely to mean that a further grant scheme will be unnecessary.
  Both grant schemes have been modelled on the Bellwin scheme. The principles are broadly the same. A spending threshold set for each local authority represents the amount for which the authority could reasonably be expected to budget as a contingency. Grant will be paid to meet 85 per cent. of the eligible expenditure above the threshold.
  We have, of course, consulted the local authority associations about the schemes, and have taken their comments into account. In particular, we have accepted their suggestion that authorities that incur spending under
  286
  both schemes should not be obliged to spend up to the level of their threshold twice in order to qualify for grant. To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), local authorities will have the first of several opportunities to claim grant within the next few weeks.
  It remains our view that the most appropriate means of distributing resources to local authorities is through their SSAs. SSAs permit local authorities to use their discretion in determining their own spending priorities within the resources available to them, and to weigh up the competing demands on their services from all local residents, whether indigenous or not. Special grants restrict that discretion.
  Nevertheless, we accept that there is a good case for making exceptions to this rule this year in view of the timelags that affect the SSA calculations. The two grant schemes incorporated in Special Grant Report (No. 8) should ensure that assistance is targeted at the local authorities that are most in need. I commend the report to the House.
  10.22 pm
  Mr. Doug Henderson: The House will recognise—even at this, a later hour than anticipated—that the movement of peoples seeking asylum across borders is not constant, but fluctuates depending on the world situation. The average number of refugees seeking asylum in this country was 3,736 per month during 1991, and that had changed to 1,796 between January and June 1992. I hope to prod the Minister on more recent figures later.
  As part of our meeting their international obligations, countries such as ours quite naturally want to be able to show concern for people who face political difficulties, and who seek asylum. That means that countries such as ours will on occasion want to give certain refugees temporary residence, and at others will want to give permanent asylum to those who seek to escape from troubles in their original land.
  Substantial costs are involved, including those in resettlement, social services, education—many of the refugees cannot speak much English—housing and counselling. Local authorities in which people locate after seeking asylum will probably be able to identify many other costs. Indeed, the order itemises a number of areas where authorities may claim grant.
  The crucial question is: who pays for those costs on society? Some people in the private sector may be able to make a contribution. Obviously, such contributions are welcomed. Clearly, the charitable sector makes an important contribution in meeting the needs of refugees and other people in a similar plight.
  Few hon. Members would argue that the largest burden falls on the public sector. It is a question whether the needs of refugees can best be met through central Government finance or local government finance. That is the question that is raised by the order before us tonight.
  If refugees settle throughout the country in an even pattern and at a predictable and even rate throughout the year, certainly it would be possible theoretically to reflect their needs in the way in which the standard spending assessment is calculated for local government annually, if the House accepts that the largest part of the burden must be met by local authorities.

  287
  I hope that the Minister recognises that that is not what happens, because the number of those seeking asylum is not constant or predictable, and the spread across different parts of the country is not even. Because of the lack of predictability, it is difficult for the SSA to reflect the needs of any community at a specific time. Therefore, it is right and proper that the Government will meet special needs which cannot be foreseen as they arise.
  In the case of the Vietnamese refugees who sought asylum recently, the Government's policy was to ensure that there was, as far as possible, a broad distribution throughout different parts of the country. However, in the case of those refugees from the territory previously known as Yugoslavia, the Government's policy—it is not challenged by the various agencies involved—is that there should be an attempt to cluster those who are seeking asylum in this country, perhaps for good reasons. They will know each other and will be able to stand together in building a new life in the United Kingdom.
  My purpose is not to argue about the rights and wrongs of how best to deal with the matter. I want to look at the impact of the lack of predictability on the necessary financial provision. Because of the unevenness and lack of predictability, the current SSA system does not cover the needs of the local authorities where the refugees are located.
  Even if we lay to one side all the arguments about what is right and wrong with the way in which the SSA is designed, the formula does not take account of the true costs of providing refugee services. The assumptions that are built into the SSA are not realistic. When the SSA is based on a high assumed tax base, many authorities do not qualify for the special grants, because of the threshold provisions. I can foresee a situation in which some refugees who have located in an authority where there is a higher tax base will be locating in an authority that will not qualify for special grant, and therefore will not be able to meet the needs of many of those who are seeking asylum.
  Does the Minister recognise that this system of assistance is based on unrealistic assumptions? It is unrealistic to believe that, in the current financial regime, local authorities have contingency funds that can be used and set aside to meet the needs of refugees.
  Most local authorities are already struggling to meet the needs of their ordinary population because of the financial regime under which they must operate. Many of the contingency reserves that those authorities have wisely built up over the years have had to be used to meet those needs.
  Where such contingency funds are available, the local population in Conservative-controlled boroughs in London, such as Barnet and Enfield, argue that those boroughs should use those funds to meet the needs that those residents have already identified. It does not make much sense then to argue that the special needs of refugees can be met from funds that should be kept in reserve, especially when those funds are already earmarked for local purposes. In any case, many authorities no longer have such funds.
  The Government argue that a threshold system must be introduced, so that part of the assumed cost of meeting the refugee need is built into local government finance, but, with their introduction of the special grant, the
  288
  Government also recognise that local government lacks the necessary resources to meet that need. The threshold system will not meet the needs of refugees, and boroughs under all political control will have to seek special help from the Government to meet the challenges they face in trying to meet those needs.
  Can the Minister confirm that, in the previous financial year, only three authorities received special grant? Can he also confirm that less than £90,000 in total was paid out to meet the needs of those who claimed that special grant? I accept that the Minister is unable to tell us how many authorities are likely to claim special grant this year, although his civil servants may have some idea.
  I am sure that the Minister can identify, however, those authorities that applied for the grant last year and were told that they did not qualify because they were assumed to have the resources to meet the need, or had prepared schemes that were not in line with the Government's thinking. I hope that the Minister can supply that information, which has already been requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden).
  Since November, responsibility for funding has largely passed to the British Refugee Council and the British Red Cross. Since then, only 240 people from the former Yugoslavia have settled here. As part of the Government's international obligations, however, they have already accepted that 1,000 people, plus up to 4,000 of their dependants, can settle here. Does the Minister believe that more than that 240 will come to our country? To what extent has that already happened?
  To allow a proper debate, can the Minister tell us what moneys have already been paid to the British Refugee Council? How much money does he expect to pay this year and in the future to that council to meet the needs of those refugees who have been accepted and are in need of assistance?
  The order relates to the period from April 1992 to November 1992. Can the Minister confirm that 6,000 people from the former Yugoslavia came to the United Kingdom between January 1992 and January 1993? How many of them have subsequently left the country or stated their intention to do so? How many refugees applied for asylum up to June this year? How many applications were rejected and how many cases are pending up to the end of June this year?
  Can the Minister estimate how much special grant will be distributed to local authorities during the period in which the order will take effect? He may be tempted to say that he will not know the size of the pool available until he knows the demand, but his civil servants would be unwise not to have made some calculations on that matter. It is better that the House realises now that difficulties lie ahead, rather that being told about problems later.
  As the Under-Secretary said in his opening remarks, the Government recognise that there is considerable unease at how the formula that flows from the standard spending assessment is calculated. They have already said that they are prepared to review the criteria. In that connection, will the Minister agree to meet representatives of the various local authority associations to consider a fairer and more effective system to deal with the distribution of grant in relation to special needs?
  There are many unknown factors, and I do not know to what extent the Minister can answer all the questions this evening. Does he accept that a monitoring system should be established so that Parliament can scrutinise what is

  289
  happening? We would then not have to debate this matter every year to try to examine what has happened in the past, what difficulties arose and what should be done in the future.
  There should be an automatic system of scrutiny. Parliament should know how many people are involved, their geographical distribution and location, how many applications have been received from local authorities and others, whether they have been accepted, and on what grounds. Parliament should know the Government's response to those applications and the cost to the Treasury. Can the Minister give a commitment that he will consider the possibility of providing an annual report to Parliament, so that those matters can be properly scrutinised?
  Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend is asking some extremely pertinent questions, and I fear that the Minister may be unable to supply answers, because there is an urgent need for the Government to co-ordinate refugee policy. We have two Ministers on the Front Bench, and the Department of Education is also directly involved.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that, as refugees will remain in this country for the foreseeable future, there is an urgent need for Government co-ordination led by a single Minister of a senior status, so that the information that he is rightly requesting can be supplied to Parliament annually, at least, and a Minister would be accountable for all aspects of refugee policy?
  Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I have received correspondence from the British Refugee Council, which has made a similar point. The different Departments desperately need to pull together on that important matter, and one Department should be clearly identified as a lead Department, so that decisions can be made more swiftly.
  The British Refugee Council makes the criticism that too many of the Government's decisions and initiatives on those matters are short-term, and that a much longer-term approach is needed. Refugees do not come to this country for six months and then suddenly disappear as a problem from the area that they locate. They have housing, education and social service needs, all of which develop as they begin to establish themselves in communities.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that, some three years ago, in 1990, when a group of unaccompanied Eritrean children arrived in this country, a delegation of Labour Members from London and other places went to the Department of Health to discuss their needs? We then went to see the Department of the Environment, the Department of Social Security and the Home Office. At that time, we were calling for a serious co-ordination of strategy to ensure that those children were properly looked after and given the necessary support. Three years later, that co-ordination has still not happened.
  Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which has been made to me and others by the various organisations that are trying to provide assistance for refugees. They wonder what difference there is between refugees originating from the former Yugoslavia and those originating from other areas, such as Eritrea and Somalia, and believe that there might be an equally strong case to be made on their behalf.
  290
  That is precisely the type of matter that could be disussed between the lead Department and the various local authority associations which are having to meet the needs of refugees generally.
  A leader of one such association has suggested that some Government contingency funds designated for refugees from the former Yugoslavia have already been earmarked to deal with problems concerned with refugees from elsewhere in the world who have settled here and for whom no special grants are available. That is another reason why it is difficult to deal with the issue through contingency funds.
  We need a long-term, properly co-ordinated approach. So long as Britain plays an important role in international situations, such as in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere, and accepts international obligations and demonstrates humanity, there will be a continuing need for funds to meet the needs of refugees.
  That need cannot satisfactorily be met through the standard spending assessment if the bulk of the burden is to be carried by local authorities. Too many of the issues involved lack predictability. That being so, the SSA system, even if all the anomalies were ironed out, is not the best way to cope with that type of need.
  I urge the Minister to be straight with the House and accept that his proposals, while better than nothing, are pathetically short-term. Having accepted the obligation of caring for refugees, which does this country no harm in international negotiations, we risk being accused of failing to make adequate provision for people whom we have identified as deserving.
  Will the Minister accept that, despite less than £90,000 by way of special grant, less than £12 per head, having been paid to local authorities last year to meet the needs of refugees, and despite the good work done by some charities and individuals, the main burden continues to fall on local authorities? It is time for a fair deal to be given to councils which must, and want to, help refugees. It is also time for a fair deal to be given to the refugees themselves.
  10.42 pm
  Mr. Michael Shersby: I warmly welcome the report and the terms in which the Minister explained its purposes. My local authority, the London borough of Hillingdon, will benefit from the grant referred to in the report. I anticipate that it will benefit by about £550,000 this year. That will be of enormous relief to my constituents in Uxbridge and to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), whose constituencies, like mine, are situated in the borough of Hillingdon.
  I agreed with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) about the standard spending assessment. It is difficult, if not impossible, for local authorities to meet from their contingency funds the high cost of caring for unaccompanied child refugees.
  We all know that local authorities are hard pressed. Every pound of expenditure has to be accounted for and there is no spare cash available to meet the substantial costs involved in such an exercise. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North spoke of the need for scrutiny. While I agree with him on that, I must say that the Public Accounts Committee takes a keen interest in the

  291
  way in which public funds are spent, and it would not surprise me if the Public Accounts Committee involved itself in such affairs in future.
  The grant available represents 85 per cent. of Hillingdon's relevant expenditure on unaccompanied child refugees who arrive, principally at Heathrow airport, from Eritrea, Uganda, Angola and elsewhere in Africa. In Hillingdon we do not have much of a problem with caring for people who come from former Yugoslavia; our problem mainly involves unaccompanied child refugees from Africa. For Hillingdon that expenditure amounted to £1 million last year.
  The expense is resented by many of my constituents, who find the cost reflected in their council tax bills. It is incurred by Hillingdon because Heathrow airport is located within its boundary and the local authority has a duty, under the Children Act 1989, to care for refugee children who are abandoned at the airport. I am talking about young people under the age of 18. A number of those who have been taken into the care of my local authority have been teenagers in their late teens, just under the age limit. We are not talking merely about tiny children.
  The cost to a borough such as mine of caring for anything between 35 and 50 youngsters is substantial. The money is spent on accommodation and maintenance and on promoting the welfare of children who are fostered within the district. It is expensive because sometimes when a child is fostered, he or she takes the place of another child from the immediate vicinity who might have been placed with those foster parents. There are also the costs of publicity and advertising for suitable foster parents. In addition, there is the not inconsiderable cost of interpretation services. It is not surprising that those costs are high when one considers that the young people involved frequently do not speak any English, but a variety of African languages—interpretation is essential.
  How do those youngsters arrive in a borough such as Hillingdon, and the furthest extremities of the county of Middlesex? We all know that they come to Heathrow airport because they are abandoned, usually on the passenger side of the terminal, but sometimes on the air side. They often arrive in the United Kingdom having boarded the aircraft at the point of departure in one of the African countries using false papers which have been supplied to them by an unknown agency. They use the papers to pass through emigration, board the aircraft and
  292
  make the passage to the United Kingdom. Those papers are frequently destroyed on the flight, when they are flushed down the lavatory. Having arrived at Heathrow, the young person waits until the aircraft which brought him or her to this country has departed for another destination.
  When the youngsters eventually present themselves before the immigration services, they are unable to speak our language and unable to say how they arrived or with what assistance. It is impossible to refuse them entry or care for them, and the local authority has to take them into care in accordance with the provisions of the Children Act.
  My constituents are generous and tolerant, but they ask me some difficult questions. The straightforward question that I hear from my constituents, whether they live in Harefield in the north or West Drayton in the south, is, why do we have to pay the costs of caring for the youngsters when it is a national problem? If national policy is that they should be cared for, surely the cost should be borne by the national Exchequer. That view is very understandable.
  Once such youngsters have arrived in this country, there is no realistic possibility of their being returned to the countries of origin, even if those countries are no longer at war. Even if they have child care facilities, it is virtually impossible, because of the provisions of this country's legislation on children, to return them. A child has only to object.
  This matter has exercised my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and myself for more than two years. It is partly as a result of our representations to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as well as to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), as successive Secretaries of State for the Environment, who have considered the matter with sympathy, that I am welcoming this step. We are confronted with a very difficult problem, which should be dealt with and paid for by the nation rather than by the people of one or two local authority areas.
  I welcome what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has said about a review of the rate support grant formula for future years. I am particularly glad to welcome the assistance that he has provided, thus demonstrating that we have a listening Government who are dealing with a very complex problem that requires the sympathy and understanding of all hon. Members.
  10.51 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: As I am the Member for a Scottish constituency, it is appropriate that I should first pay tribute to Mrs. Christine Witcutt, who was killed yesterday by sniper fire in Sarajevo. She was delivering clothes and medical supplies in that part of the former Yugoslavia. Mrs. Witcutt represented an organisation called Edinburgh Direct Aid. All hon. Members will want to express their deep sympathy for her family and to make it clear that alongside their great grief is their pride in what she was doing.
  I want to ask hon. Members to consider the omissions from this provision. This is a report of the Department of the Environment, issued under local government finance legislation relating to England. There is no reference to or provision for Scotland. We have been told by the Scottish Office that the Secretary of State for Scotland does not have power to make specific grants for this purpose and that if Scottish local authorities face additional expenditure for the resettlement of refugees and asylum seekers, this will be taken into account, in consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, in determing the level of aggregate external finance. Any hon. Member who believes such a thing is not fit to be let out on his own. There is no such specific power, although Scottish authorities will face similar additional expenditure in terms of provision for extra teachers and social workers.
  I pay tribute to the Scottish Refugee Council and to Scottish local authorities and Government Departments that provide for education, social work, social security, housing and health. I am not so unreasonable as to expect the Under-Secretary of State to answer my questions tonight. I am sure, however, that he will be able to forward my queries to the appropriate quarters and to direct attention to this anomaly, to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) will also no doubt refer.
  On page 7 of the report, paragraph 1(d) refers to
  "the cost of interpretation services, other than costs which have been funded through grant under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966."
  The problem is that section 11 does not apply to Scotland. Labour Members have frequently asked for it to apply, but that has been resisted by the Scottish Office. Therefore, the cost of interpretation services in Scotland does not qualify for additional grant.
  The Scottish Office has said that urban aid can be used as the equivalent of section 11 grants, but a recent parliamentary answer confirmed that no projects for refugees or asylum seekers have been funded under urban aid. Worse than that, a project submitted by the Scottish Refugee Council, fully supported by Strathclyde regional council and, I believe, the social services group within the Scottish Office, has been turned down by the administrative arm of the Scottish Office on the ground that it is not appropriate for urban aid.
  The lack of necessary powers leads to problems, especially when linked with some recent Government proposals. For example, the setting up of independent further education colleges, with a duty to provide further education in their areas, meant that when the Scottish Refugee Council wanted a 10-week English course for some refugees, Stevenson college charged it £6,250. Of course, the council does not have that sort of funds, so I
  294
  am pleased that the course has now been funded by the Scottish Office on a one-off basis, using the mechanism of a section 10 grant under the Social Work Acts. However, the council was told that it was definitely a one-off, last-chance grant and not to expect it again.
  The problems of refugees will not be solved by a 10-week course, so where will future funding come from? We are dealing with people who have been through appalling experiences and who will probably have health and social problems for a long time to come. Anyone who is realistic about the position in the former Yugoslavia cannot be anything other than pessimistic about the likelihood of further refugees coming to Britain—certainly if we have a decent Government who take their fair share of responsibility.
  There is an anomaly because the Scottish Office cannot pay the special grant provided for in the report because the Secretary of State does not have the necessary power to do so. Section I I, which is referred to in the report, is also not applicable to Scotland. The report refers to urban aid, but particular projects have been turned down on the ground that it is not appropriate to refugees.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to make these points, and I hope that the Minister will be able to redirect them to the relevant section of the Government. I believe that I have demonstrated that this order is being put forward in a way that will lead to anomalies as between the different countries of the United Kingdom.
  11 pm
  Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I do not want it to appear to be simply a love-in with the Minister on the Conservative side, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), I want to express my gratitude to him and to the Government for the measures enshrined in the report.
  I represent the whole of Uttlesford district council, which contains Stansted airport. With no disrespect to the efforts put in over a long period by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and the other hon. Members representing Hillingdon, I like to think that it was the circumstances that confronted Uttlesford district council when a planeload of refugees from the former Yugoslavia arrived one Sunday evening that helped to tip the scales in Government thinking about how this kind of situation was to be addressed.
  The arrival of 150 or more refugees in a small rural district council area was out of all proportion to the circumstances of that council and its ability to deal with them. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that it dealt with it extremely well and capably. He listened most patiently and sympathetically to the representations that the council subsequently made to him, and I was delighted when there was an indication of a positive reaction.
  It is all very well, I say to my hon. Friend—so that I do not appear to speak entirely in terms of fulsome praise —to refer to contingencies, as the Government have traditionally done, and to say that local authorities must be assumed to be capable of dealing with them, but some things are out of all proportion to any kind of preparation for contingencies that an authority can make.
  I concede that every local authority in the country can have different forms of contingency. If there is an airport within the boundaries, one may speculate on a certain type

  295
  of contingency that may flow from that. Other problems, such as a cliff falling away, may occur in a coastal constituency. All manner of disastrous unexpected events can occur. Obviously, therefore, prudent local authorities must be assumed to be making some provision; but there will from time to time be very unusual happenings that must have special attention.
  I therefore anticipate that it may be very difficult, in the ordinary mechanisms of dealing with local government finance, to cover all the sorts of situations that may arise, and not just in the field of immigration and refugees. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) put a whole variety of possibilities, in the form of questions, to my hon. Friend.
  Inevitably, however, the Government cannot—and a Minister from the Department of the Environment, away from the baleful glare of the Treasury, certainly cannot—make commitments to spend money in almost any circumstances that might arise. But I hope that, if unusual situations do arise, they will be looked at on their merits, and perhaps the House will be asked again to approve unusual measures of this kind to deal with them. I do not believe that they can necessarily be covered through the mechanisms of local government finance.
  Very unusual circumstances arose for Uttlesford district council in this case. It is grateful for the way in which the Government reacted, as am I. We have a very satisfactory result for the people I represent in the district of Uttlesford, and I thank the Minister for that.
  11.4 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On Saturday morning, a citizen of the former Yugoslavia came to see me—along with a representative of the British Refugee Council and an interpreter—to talk through his predicament. He has arrived here, has settled in my constituency and has refugee status; his wife has permission to come here. However, his sole remaining close relative—a young adult son, a second-year mechanics student—is not being allowed into the United Kingdom. The wife therefore remains at home in the former Yugoslavia, enduring daily threats, harassment and persecution.
  The only other person staying in the family home is the student son's cousin, an 18-year-old who is also unable to come to the United Kingdom. His family have been accommodated in Dewsbury; I shall write to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) probably tomorrow, to enlist her help with the other half of the extended family. No other members of the cousin's family are left in the former Yugoslavia; the other members of both parts of the family are here, or elsewhere in the world.
  Two families, then, are settled in two different parts of the United Kingdom. They are part of the small number referred to by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) who have been accepted into the United Kingdom—far fewer, so far, than the number that we were led to expect. They cannot yet be accorded the basic decency of being joined by their closest relatives, because technically they are not dependent—although the cultural and financial reality is that they are entirely dependent: they could rely on no one else if the rest of the family came here as refugees.
  296
  The first priority is for the Government to exercise a little humility in regard to what they are doing about refugees from the former Yugoslavia. I do not think that any hon. Member is likely to vote against the motion, because something is better than nothing; 85 per cent. of the cost that falls to local authorities in England and Wales is better than nothing.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: What about Scotland?
  Mr. Hughes: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He is speaking not just for himself, but for his Scottish colleagues. The distinction between the treatment of Scotland and that of England and Wales is unfair, both generally and specifically—for instance, in regard to section 11 grants. The hon. Gentleman makes his case well; perhaps one of his hon. Friends will add to it.
  Let me make a generic point. Although we are using the report to top up funds for British local authorities where refugees are settling, in many respects we are probably not yet dealing adequately with the fundamental problem. We must ensure that, when the moment of need arises, people can come into this country to be with their families. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is present. This case, along with others, will wing its way to his desk very quickly. I hope and expect that he will be generous; I do not expect the Government to be difficult about the matter. I trust that it will not be a question of special pleading, and that the basic merits of the case will facilitate the proceedings.
  The hon. Members for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) and for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) have referred to the haphazard way in which refugees settle, in the first few days, in the country to which they have fled. Most settle in constituencies, districts and boroughs that contain airports. Many come to urban areas—to the capital, and to cities such as that represented by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), where there is a settled immigrant community. Many, however, come to places where it has not been traditional for them to settle as a race, a people or an ethnic group. They come because that is the first place where somebody makes them an offer.
  I make no complaints about the number of refugees who have come to Southwark, because it is a moral duty, a theological duty and, some of us would say, a clearly Christian duty, for the rich world to accommodate refugees. But we have had a succession of refugees, from Somalia, from Eritrea and from Vietnam. Many of those people have come to Southwark not because there were hundreds of other people from their countries here before, but because it was the first available place where they could be housed.
  My local authority, Southwark, and all the other local authorities, are left to pick up some of the tab because the money from the Government will fall short. The report gives only, at best, 85 per cent. of the money. There may be an argument that the local authority should make a contribution. I do not necessarily dissent from that, but the issue is the fair spread of contributions, when the responsibility is an overall British responsibility. I do not want to be misunderstood; I make no complaint about the fact that we have our share of refugees. My argument is that we as a nation have a duty, which I hope that we shall continue to have, to accommodate refugees.

  297
  Compared with most European Community countries, we have been pretty mean in accommodating refugees from the former Yugoslavia. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department looks as if he disagrees, but the number of people who have come into this country recently as refugees, compared with the numbers going into Germany, Denmark and Luxembourg, for example, are small in relation to our population.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will bear in mind the fact that the large numbers of people who have gone to Germany from the war-torn zone of Yugoslavia have not done so as a result of any political decision made in Germany. The German Government have not decided to enable those people to enter; they have simply arrived across the frontier. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also bear in mind the fact that since September 1991 about 70,000 people from former Yugloslavia have come here in one capacity or another.
  Mr. Hughes: I do not disagree with either of the Minister's comments. I know what the figures are for the refugee entry that we have allowed, in terms of heads of families and their dependants. I know, too, that the rate has slowed down and that we have still not reached the target. I do not deny what the Minister has said—that, in terms of the number of people who are here because they cannot be where they want to be, the relative burden on us, as a rich country, is smaller than the burden on other countries.
  Mr. Corbyn: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact, but the report does not apply to the generality of refugees, but only to those from former Yugoslavia. Many of the problems that his constituency and mine gladly face—in the sense that we are happy to support people who are refugees—will get no recognition and no help from central Government.
  Mr. Hughes: I understand that. I know that the order relates only to the former Yugoslavia. One of my complaints is that the Government may be trying to present a compassionate face—in connection with the former Yugoslavia they may have some justification for doing so—when their general response over the years to the needs of local authorities dealing with refugees has not been especially generous or consistent. I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has been misled by the hon. Member for Islington, North, who arrived late. The report relates not to one grant but to two. One concerns refugees from former Yugoslavia, but the other concerns unaccompanied children, wherever they may come from throughout the world.
  Mr. Corbyn: What difference does that make? That proves my point.
  Mr. Hughes: I accept what the Minister says, but the assistance for refugees who are not unaccompanied children is specific to former Yugoslavia. I believe that the House is clear about that, and I do not want to raise a false issue. The report is specifically designed to deal with the problem of refugees from Yugoslavia, and to give local
  298
  authorities in England and Wales 85 per cent. of the funding to deal with certain categories of refugees that result from that problem.
  I have two specific points to make about the detail of the report. The first is about section 11 funding. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said that the provision was absent in Scotland. It is not as generous as it might appear. In many cases, section 11 funding has been reduced from 75 to 50 per cent. Therefore, the report assists in making up a considerably larger gap in meeting continuing needs in the education sector. They are important needs which local authorities and their schools and teachers, with the best will in the world, find it extremely difficult to meet.
  In schools such as some in my constituency, there are 28 mother tongues. Each time that a new category of student armies—say youngsters from Yugoslavia who speak Serbo-Croat or whatever—they have to be provided for. I hope that we shall equally be able to grant fund people such as the students to whom I referred at the beginning of my speech who will want to go to university, polytechnic or college to continue their education.
  My second point has been referred to by others. What the Minister said about the review of the system for allocating funding and assessing needs is important. The Government are doing a general review. The standard spending assessment mechanism needs to be far more accurate and honest in reflecting differential need, and far more responsive. I have always taken the view that the best judges of what is the best system, if they can agree—I believe that if they are asked to agree, they will—are the local authorities.
  I hope that, at the end of the review, the system for making sure that local authorities are compensated for dealing with particular burdens such as those that fall across all the sectors dealing with refugees is one that the local authorities propose and support. If we all knew that the report and others like it came to the House blessed in every detail by the local authority associations in England and Wales and by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the House would be much happier.
  11.16 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: I am obviously pleased that some money is being provided for refugees from ex-Yugoslavia and unaccompanied children. I shall speak about the shortcomings of the proposals, but I welcome the provision of some money.
  The proposals seem to be a minor, low-key response to what for many local authorities is a major problem. They have to cope with large numbers of refugees. It is a pity that the proposals coincide with other action by the Government which will be prejudicial to the interests of refugees. The cut in section 11 funding from 75 per cent. now to 57 per cent. in 1994–95, and eventually to 50 per cent., is particularly prejudicial. It is a pity that that is happening at the same time as the Government have accepted a private Member's Bill which I originated to widen the definition of section 11 funding and make more refugees eligible to receive the money. I hope that the Government will see that that money needs to be matched by a commitment to reverse the cuts.
  There seem to be several problems with the specific grant which is the subject of the order. The first problem is the time limitations. The Minister made it clear that he

  299
  saw the money as a one-off grant. He did not envisage the grant being made in future years, when he expected the SSA system to deal with funding. But that limitation is not the only problem.
  If one reads the report carefully, one finds that it covers only refugees from ex-Yugoslavia who arrived between I April 1992 and 6 November 1992, when the visa regime was introduced. One consequence will be that many of the Bosnian refugees whom we will accept through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees programme will not be eligible for funding because they will have arrived after the date on which the order ran out.
  It would be too much to expect a retroactive order, but, as has been pointed out, in the past two or three years some London boroughs have spent large amounts of money dealing with unaccompanied children, particularly those who arrived from Eritrea in 1990.
  It is strange that we still rely on a formula to distribute grant to local authorities to deal with refugees which was originally devised to deal with the effects of hurricanes, which is what the Bellwin formula was when it was first produced. The last time that it was used was in 1989 when large numbers of Kurdish refugees arrived in this country. I recall then being part of a local authority delegation to the Department of the Environment to discuss that issue.
  The issue now, as then, is that the decision whether to admit refugees or asylum seekers to this country is not for local authorities but for the Government or Government agencies. Local authorities have little, if any, control over how many people arrive in their areas at any one time. That depends on existing communities, whether the local authority is located near an airport or railway station and how sympathetic the local authority is.
  There is no doubt that which local authorities are likely to adopt a sympathetic attitude to new arrivals is spread by word of mouth, and those that are rightly sympathetic end up being financially penalised. My borough will have to spend more than £300,000 before it qualifies for any money whatever, and some London boroughs will have to spend approaching £500,000.
  Local authorities with tight budgets simply do not hold such contingency funds which are not earmarked. Their contingency budgets are set aside to deal with pay rises, interest rate changes and inflation during the year. They simply do not have such amounts of money sitting around not already earmarked.
  I am also concerned about the limitations on eligibility. I have already mentioned the time limits and who is eligible from the former Yugoslavia, but what will happen to other refugees? What will happen to local authorities, such as those in east London, where there have been significant arrivals in the past two or three years from Sri Lanka and Somalia? Exactly the same points on dependants apply to those people as to people coming from the former Yugoslavia. Both groups come from countries that have been affected by war and human rights abuses and exactly the same conditions of acceptance of refugees apply to them as to those from the former Yugoslavia.
  Why do we have to wait for a crisis before money is found? Why is there no coherent resettlement programme? Why do we have to rely so much on the voluntary sector, the Refugee Council, the refugee arrivals project and on
  300
  community groups? It is often the community groups that end up putting in a great deal of effort, work and resources to support new arrivals.
  It simply is not the case that standard spending assessments can make adequate allowance for such costs. The Minister really gave the game away when he talked about the 1991 census soon being available. That is already two years out of date. It can in no way cope with people who have arrived since. We all know what happens between censuses. The census used for standard spending assessments becomes more and more out of date and unreliable.
  To quote London average figures is no answer either. As everyone knows, refugees are not evenly distributed. Even within London, which attracts far more refugees than many other areas of the country, some London boroughs have far more refugees within their boundaries than others. SSAs are simply not sensitive enough to cope with differences between one local authority and its neighbour or with the changes that take place from one year to the next when large numbers of people arrive. We know that there are always anomalies in SSAs. The factors that affect SSAs in large measure are not the arrival of refugees—
  Mr. Corbyn: On the point about the attitudes of local authorities, is my hon. Friend aware that the whole system is a positive disincentive to local authorities at the point of arrival and a positive encouragement to them to send them on elsewhere? I am sure that he will be aware that in London a surprisingly small number of refugees are assisted by Westminster city council and a much larger number by councils surrounding the City of Westminster. He can draw his own conclusions from that.
  Mr. Gerrard: That is absolutely right, and that pattern is repeated across the country: refugees tend to be concentrated in certain areas, often depending on how sympathetic a local authority is.
  Local authorities are being put in the invidious position of having to cut services for other people to provide for refugees. The potential that that creates for resentment and for racism should not be underestimated. The services and items of expenditure that are listed as eligible are virtually all related to temporary services. No doubt it will be argued that SSAs will cover the rest. But how temporary is temporary? As many hon. Members have pointed out, refugees do not stay for six months and then go away.
  Local authorities that try to avoid, for example, the use of temporary accommodation, and whose policies are, wherever possible, to put people into permanent accommodation straight away, are the ones who suffer because they do not qualify for the grants that are proposed. In future, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill will force local authorities into using more temporary accommodation and that will entail much greater cost.
  Not all local authorities have to deal with refugees. There are good reasons—often to do with community—why refugees end up in certain local authority areas. We know that local authorities vary considerably in the extent to which they take their responsibilities seriously. At present, those which do take them seriously are penalised. The Government should be prepared to accept their responsibility, but the report does little other than to emphasise the inadequacy of what they are prepared to do.
  11.27 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I refer in particular to the plight of refugees from former Yugoslavia: first, because, when I visited both Croatia and Bosnia with the Select Committee on Defence back in February, I saw a little of the mayhem from which people are trying to escape; and, secondly, because I have in my constituency a small reception centre for some of the refugees from Bosnia who have been accepted by Britain. That reception centre is run by the Scottish Refugee Council at Cheylesmore lodge in North Berwick and I may say that people have rightly been made immensely welcome by my constituents. I pay tribute to all the voluntary agencies and to everyone else who has been involved.
  I am afraid that there is a slight contrast between the enthusiasm and efficiency of the Scottish Refugee Council in its work and the kind of support that has been forthcoming from central Government. I see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in his place. He may recall that I spoke to him and was in touch with his office. I ended up having to table a parliamentary question to ensure that the initial tranche of £75,000 actually got through to the Scottish Refugee Council to provide for the needs of those refugees.
  The situation was absurd. These people had arrived from Bosnia and there they were in a former local authority old people's home which had been refurbished using voluntary work over the weekend. The advice that came from the Home Office when the money did not come through was, "Oh dear. We are in the process of changing our accounting system. Can't they get a loan from the bank to tide them over for a bit?" The money came through, and so far, so good. I understand that the next tranche is due shortly and I hope that we will not have the same problem.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) made the point that the order does not apply to Scotland. I appreciate that not as many refugees come to Scotland as come to other parts of the United Kingdom, but we do have refugees. Certainly, there are the refugees in my constituency to whom I referred. Local authorities are providing back-up and incurring costs and they should be able to get the support that they require to cover those costs.
  I stress that the refugees in my constituency are extremely welcome. I am delighted that many of them are resettling in public sector housing in my constituency. However, it would be helpful if the local authority could get an additional capital allocation to compensate for the fact that some of the limited housing stock is being made available to them. Such matters should be taken into account and I fear that that is not happening at present. The same point could be made about education costs and other costs that arise.
  There is no way in which the contribution to local authorities in England is begrudged in any way, but the Government should put in place a system for Scotland. It is right that we are debating the order for a special grant for local authorities in England which are affected, but why do we not have something equivalent to support local authorities in Scotland?
  I visited the reception centre in North Berwick and was concerned to hear reports of difficulties involving dependants coming to join their families. This point was
  302
  raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I am worried to hear that these people are experiencing difficulties with genuine dependants—they may not be direct relations but they are dependants—who are apparently finding it difficult to join their families who have been evacuated to Scotland.
  I wish that we could do more to make it possible for those people to remain in their own country. However, as the United Nations is conspicuously failing to do that, it is right that we should give some of those people a safe haven here. We probably need more of them. Let us get our act together and ensure that there is proper back-up for local authorities, not only in England but in Scotland.
  11.32 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I apologise to the House for missing the Minister's speech and part of that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). I was detained outside on an extremely urgent matter and that is the reason why I missed those speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) has given me a full and accurate account of everything that was said. I am sure that the Minister will trust my hon. Friend to relay his words to me. Perhaps not, but we can all read Hansard tomorrow.
  My brief point—because I want to give the Minister sufficient time to reply—is that we live in a world in which a large number of people are forced to seek refuge in other countries. The experience of many of those people in their own countries is absolutely horrific. When they finally arrive at a place of safety—in this case, we are talking about this country—they obviously need help, support, consideration and recognition, but they also need respect.
  We should recognise that those who seek asylum here are not coming here to be supplicants for the rest of their lives. They have suffered a terrible defeat. They want to make a positive contribution to our society in education, health and many other areas. The enormous achievements of former refugees must also be recognised. I refer to those who fled from Nazi Germany in the 1930s and the enormous contribution that they have made in so many areas, as well as those from Chile, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq and many other places. We should recognise the positive achievements and not allow the debate to be dragged into the gutter by the xenophobia of some of the popular press in this country. It is important that we recognise that.
  There are many inadequacies in the Government's strategy for dealing with this matter. I have had experience of dealing with refugees from a large number of different places and circumstances. I recall the terrible experience of the unaccompanied Eritrean children who arrived here in 1990. There were various reasons why they were unaccompanied. There were understandable reasons why their documents were destroyed, why they sought refuge in this country and why their parents sent them here. Their parents felt that it was no longer safe to keep their children in that country and, because they could not get away, they put their children on planes to come here.
  I hope that the Government recognise that the attitude adopted by local authorities at that time was variable, to put it mildly. Some did a great deal to support those unaccompanied children, but they ended up with a large bill because they are demanding children who need help and support.

  303
  The problem with the order is that it applies solely to the former Yugoslavia and all unaccompanied children. I am glad that it applies to all such children, but I want to see it extended to provide greater guarantees for authorities and refugees. I do not believe that it is likely, as the Minister so grandly says, that future SSAs will bear in mind the needs of refugee communities. Up to now, they have not. Unless some change is made to the way in which SSAs are calculated, I do not see any likelihood of any future change.
  I have the utmost sympathy for all the refugees from the former Yugoslavia. I do not believe that our country has done enough for refugees from Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia or wherever. We must do far more and history will not look kindly on the attitude shown to those refugees who have sought asylum. Their situation is terrible and they deserve support. There are, however, refugees from Somalia, Zaire, Angola, Mozambique and many other places who have been subject to equally horrific experiences.
  Horror and disturbances do not occur where the BBC and Kate Adie happen to be; they occur where they happen—in many other places other than the former Yugoslavia. The Government scheme for the former Yugoslavia may be inadequate and limited—it does not apply to refugees in Scotland—but if they can introduce it for that country, the same should be introduced for people from other parts of the world.
  11.36 pm
  Mr. Baldry: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the debate.
  Everyone who has spoken has welcomed the report and the grants included in it. It has been a debate about questions and issues and I know that hon. Members have no intention of dividing the House on the order.
  The crux of the matter is whether some special grant should be introduced to deal with refugees. It is important to note that the pressures that refugees bring to bear on local services are not different in kind from the pressures that anyone with distinctive needs places on a local authority.
  The most appropriate means of central support for local government is through the distribution of revenue support grant, based on SSAs. In general, we believe that authorities should have sufficient resources to cover the costs incurred by asylum seekers and refugees.
  The kinds of pressure that refugees exert on local services are picked up in the SSA. Those refugees do not impose additional costs on local authorities because they are refugees; extra costs are incurred because many refugees, though not all, place extra demands on the housing, education and social services provided by those authorities.
  The need for such services in an area is already reflected in the SSA. The SSAs of those local authorities in which refugees tend to congregate, particularly in London, are generally higher than those of other authorities precisely because those authorities face the spending pressures that tend to be associated with the presence of refugees. As they are assimilated into the local population, the personal circumstances and characteristics of the refugees are
  304
  recorded in the various indicators used to calculate SSAs, so that the costs imposed by them are reflected in the resources available to a given area.
  Concern has been expressed about the threshold that local authorities must reach before they qualify for grant. It is important to remember that that threshold is, in effect, the equivalent of the product of a tuppenny rate, under the old system, and the equivalent of £5 for a band D equivalent under the council tax. It is not unreasonable to expect local authorities to be able to meet that sort of contingency, and rightly so.
  It is also important to appreciate that not all local authorities face the sort of pressures described tonight. For example, Birmingham estimates that this year its costs, under this grant scheme, will be £71,000, which is equivalent to only 0·008 per cent. of its total spending. It is not unreasonable to expect an authority in those circumstances to be able to meet that expenditure out of its contingency and reserve funds.
  The order relates to two grants. The first is for Yugoslav refugees and the second is for unaccompanied children. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) asked how much I thought we would be paying out in grants. As I made clear in my opening comments, it may be somewhere between £3 million and £4 million. I was asked whether I would meet local authority representatives.
  As I also made clear, we are perfectly prepared to consider any constructive suggestions about how the methodology of the standard spending assessments could be improved to accommodate refugees but, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, that methodology must be robust. We are undertaking a comprehensive review of the SSAs and I anticipate that, within the context of that review, the local authority associations, particularly those in London, will want to make their views known as to how the SSA formula could apply. We shall listen to those views positively.
  I was asked whether I would make available to the House an annual report on asylum seekers. I am prepared to provide details to the House on matters for which I am responsible as and when they are requested.
  I welcome the constructive comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst). I pay tribute to the constructive way in which their local authorities, and many other local authorities, have met the challenges with which they have been confronted. However, it is important to make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, who is concerned about unaccompanied children, that the number of unaccompanied children appears to be dropping. In April this year, the total was one from the Ivory Coast, one from Kenya, one from Lebanon, four from Somalia, one from Sri Lanka, one from Turkey and three from Zaire. So we must put the matter into context.
  The hon. Members for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) asked what happens in Scotland. It is fair to point out that the Scottish Office is in consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the question of refugees, and that COSLA has so far received no representations from member authorities about additional burdens being placed on them by the need to provide services for refugees.

  305
  I recognise that the hon. Member for East Lothian has a number of refugee families in his constituency. He described the circumstances relating to them, and I shall draw the attention of ministerial colleagues in the Scottish Office to the points that he raised.
  The order concerns two grants that have been devised because we recognise that special circumstances relate to the Yugoslav refugees and unaccompanied children. But the methodology of allocating money should enable local authorities to make adequate provision for refugees within their areas. I have no doubt that they can do that.
  Of those London authorities likely to qualify for grant for unaccompanied children this year, no authority that will not qualify comes within more than half of the threshold. So very few local authorities will have incurred significant expenditure this year on the two areas that we are considering. For example, the London borough of Barking estimates that it will spend only £15,500; Barnet estimates that it will spend £24,000; Kensington and Chelsea will receive grant; and the London borough of Merton estimates that it will spend £68,000.
  We are ensuring that those local authorities that are making significant contributions will be refunded—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKE.R put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business).
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Special Grant Report (No. 8) (House of Commons Paper No. 724), which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

  St. Bartholomew's and Royal London Hospitals
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
  11.44 pm
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The future of hospitals such as St. Bartholomew's raises questions about the very nature of civilisation. The doctors at the hospital are engaged in a war against disease, perhaps the noblest activity known to mankind. The Secretary of State and her acolytes, who plague the pestilential sewers of government, are engaged in a war against the doctors and their supporters, the patients and the public.
  Rarely in politics can there have been an issue which so cruelly defines the difference between right and wrong and where the victims are the most vulnerably poor among us, while the persecutors are so arrogantly powerful.
  Bart's was founded by a miracle in 1123, when the monk Raherer had a visitation from God. God has stood by the hospital. Amazingly, our greatest cathedral, St. Paul's, was denounced by the Secretary of State for praying to God to save the hospital. However, the Secretary of State, in turn, was denounced in excoriating terms by the Catholic priest who took the service which preceded this year's dinner at the medical college, at which I was the guest of honour. The Church of England and the Catholic Church may be divided on many things, but they are united in their ecumenical contempt for the Secretary of State.
  It is just possible that we are on the verge of another miracle, and that the Secretary of State will be prevented from closing Bart's. I have spoken to a number of barristers and judges about the chances of success of a judicial review of the Government's actions. They are agreed that there is a prima facie case of improper and unlawful conduct on the part of the Secretary of State, on the part of Admiral Staveley, the regional chairman, and on the part of Sir Tim Chessels, chairman of the London Implementation Group.
  Judicial review proceedings could be instigated by Bart's, by the community health council, by the City of London corporation, by Hackney, by Islington or by the Save Bart's Campaign, or by all of them together. They could also be instituted by the special trustees who administer the £100 million endowments to prevent those moneys, given by loving and grateful supporters of Bart's down the years, from being stolen by the Government. Perhaps the Minister will confirm tonight that, if Bart's closes—the Treasury wants that money—there would have to be legislation to make the theft of the endowments lawful.
  Last week, along with Jeffrey Blum, a victim of the Baltic Exchange bomb, and Bart's cardiac specialist Dr. Duncan Dymond, I met Admiral Staveley to protest about the proposal to close the accident and emergency department. Mr. Blum, a shipbroker from the City, told the admiral that he would be dead if the Secretary of State had had her way earlier and shut the accident and emergency department. Many people feel that the Secretary of State has betrayed the City of London and given succour to the IRA, for whom the higher the body count the better is the publicity.

  307
  The consultation process on the proposal to close the accident and emergency department brought forth incandescent rage from the people of Hackney and the City of London. The admiral asked a mere 100 individuals and institutions for their views in the consultation process, but to his amazement received about 41,000 responses, including from every major financial institution in the city, every major company, almost every set of chambers and every firm of accountants. Such is the admiral's contempt for the democratic process that he complains that those people in the City have been got at.
  No fewer than 99·95 per cent. of those who responded called for the retention of the accident and emergency department, but earlier this afternoon, at a meeting which I attended, the admiral, acting unlawfully on behalf of the Secretary of State, announced that he would recommend the closure of the department. Astonishingly, the admiral ignored the unanimous views of hon. Members, peers of the realm, local authorities, family health services authorities, general practitioners, community health councils, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Obstetricians and the local purchaser.
  What we have witnessed is not consultation, but precision Stalinism on the part of people so ignorant that this afternoon I found myself involuntarily gasping with disbelief at what they were saying.
  One must understand that the temporary reprieve given to the accident and emergency department pending the build-up of facilities elsewhere, including the Homerton —which is bound to take years—and the qualifications with which the closure decision is surrounded are essentially devices to satisfy the judges because the admiral expects to be taken to court. He knows that this is the second bogus consultation process on Bart's over which he has presided in the past year—the other involved the abolition of the trust. The courts have held that consultation is unlawful where decisions carried out are decided before the consultation process begins.
  The City of London corporation has recently been talking seriously of setting up a private accident and emergency department at Bart's, through the use of private bonds. Will the Minister tell us tonight whether the charges of private accident and emergency departments in NHS hospitals will be regulated by the Government? I see that the Minister looks shocked—perhaps he will tell us whether patients from Hackney and Islington who cannot afford the entry fee will be refused admission, as in America.
  A week ago, six distinguished old grey men in suits presented their paper plans for the future of London specialties. Their plans were, for the most part, designed to appease the Secretary of State. Like Neville Chamberlain, who had a little bit of paper to appease a great dictator, the six men were well intentioned, but foolish. The specialty review on cancer recommended that cancer services provided by Bart's should be moved to the Royal London site. Few recommendations in the history of medicine can have been as brazenly unjustified as that one.
  Consultants John Shepherd, the oncology gynaecologist, Maurice Slevin, head of chemotherapy for solid cancers, Professor Andrew Lister, who looks after chemotherapy for blood cancers, and Professor Eden, who
  308
  deals with children, made that clear to me when I discussed the review with them, line by line. They are four of the best specialists in Britain—indeed, the world. They work in a unit of international renown which is admitted by everyone in the medical world to be superior in clinical facilities and research to the small unit that exists at the Royal London.
  The data show that Barts gets better results of paediatric tumours than any other hospital in the country. Although the data are more difficult to interpret, the same is probably true of ovarian cancer. The head of the review team, Dr. Paine—a competent radiotherapist who is anxious to climb the greasy pole of administration—now intends to destroy the priceless asset.
  Dr. Paine's criticism that the cancer services are too dispersed is plain silly. As I was shown round every inch of them, I realised that what Bart's has is not only state-of-the-art medicine, but state-of-the-art management and organisation. It is a pity that Dr. Paine did not compare what exists at Bart's with what exists at the London.
  Dr. Paine becomes incomprehensible when he writes of a
  "less complete range of regional specialties"
  than is available at the London. Bart's deals with every kind of cancer, and has all the specialties in addition to cancer which any major hospital has. Ultimately, the cancer review comes down to the idiotic argument that, as Tomlinson says that Bart's should close and the Secretary of State is besotted by this lunatic idea, the services at Bart's will have to be moved to the London hospital in order to save them.
  The same false argument can be seen more graphically on page 7 of the executive summary of the neuroscience review prepared by Mr. Rab Hide. I was seven years old when I first realised the logical fallacy behind that sort of circular argument. Later, when I studied logic at university, I learned how to formalise the fallacy. My correspondence with Mr. Hide and his protestations of innocence on television only serve to suggest that he is guilty as charged of lack of independence.
  Worse, Mr. Hide has got his facts wrong about the financial position of Bart's. I assume that the London Implementation Group has deliberately misled him, as it was misleading Ministers a few months back.
  The cardiac review proposes shutting down another famous department of excellence at Bart's. It says that, as Bart's has the smallest unit, its services should be moved to the London. It is a pity that Professor Smith, who headed the review, got his database wrong. Despite the fact that Bart's has marginally fewer facilities than the London, it carries out more cardiac procedures—that is to say, it gives better value for money, and, I might add, better treatment.
  In 1991–92, Bart's carried out 1,249 diagnostic coronary angiograms, compared with 946 at the London. Professor Smith does not mention this. Bart's carried out 216 balloon dilatation procedures—angioplasty—compared with 140 at the London. Professor Smith does not mention this. Bart's carried out 442 pacemaker procedures and electrical investigations, compared with 247 at the London. Professor Smith does not mention this.
  When it comes to the grand total of angiograms and balloon and electrical procedures, including pacemakers, the figures are 1,907 for Bart's and 1,333 for the London. These figures are achieved with slightly fewer beds at Bart's. It is true that, in 1991–92, the London performed

  309
  789 open heart operations, compared with 627 at Bart's. Bart's has approval and funding for a third heart surgeon, but, because of the uncertainty created by the Secretary of State, no appointment can be made at the moment.
  Dr. Duncan Dymond has written to me, following my talk with him, about what he describes as "crass errors" in the cardiac review. I challenge the Minister to challenge Dr. Dymond. For example, the review's figures for coronary bypass operations are hopelessly wrong. Moreover, as regards quality, the review takes no account of the issue that matters most—a comparison of the condition of patients when they enter the hospital with their condition when they leave. Dr. Dymond has offered to debate these matters publicly with Professor Smith. Professor Smith should now put up or shut up.
  Professor Raine, head of the Bart's renal unit, told me yesterday that Professor Mallick, who headed the specialty review team, has not been able to give a single reason coming within his terms of reference for moving the Bart's unit to the London. Indeed, Professor Mallick, for the review team, admits that Bart's has better clinical facilities and a better academic record than the London.
  However, Professor Raine criticises the review team for failing to report that, whereas Bart's has provided satellite units for 15 years, and recently opened one at Wanstead, the London hospital, which is still living in the past, has none. Nor did the review team point out that, in Richard Wood, Bart's has the only professor of surgery in central London who is a renal transplant specialist. What–1 must ask Professor Mallick, through the Minister tonight—are the reasons for these curious omissions?
  Professor Raine, who is scornful of the access arguments in the review, added:
  "I am not what you'd call a Bart's man. I come from Oxford, so I can view these things dispassionately. Whilst I am prepared for change, and would be able to work with people from London, the case for moving facilities from the London to Bart's is much stronger than the case for moving facilities from Bart's to the London."
  Moreover, on quality, Professor Raine, in a letter to me, points out that Bart's is the only renal unit in central London for all dialyses to undergo urea kinetic modelling, which is the accepted standard provision for adequate dialysis and is recommended by the pending Renal Association quality of care guidelines.
  With regard to the children's review, Professor Eden tells me that the closure, in east London, of Bart's arid the Queen Elizabeth, hospital would produce a major beds shortfall of 120 to 140 in one of the most deprived areas of the country, where nearly one quarter of the population would be affected.
  However, all is not lost. The smirks are about to come off the faces of those at the London hospital who have been telling me recently that the Bart's Smithfield site will be cleared within two years. That was the Secretary of State's plan, but Sir Derek Boorman, who is to be chairman of the new merged trust, and Gerry Green, the new chief executive, realise that this is impossible without creating chaos in the national health service in the east end. I have discussed the future with Sir Derek.
  Even if the Secretary of State accepts the recommendations of the specialty reviews, and even if it is decided to close Bart's eventually, there will now be a medium-term strategy for five to eight years, during which some facilities will move from the London to Bart's and some from Bart's to the London. Effectively, Bart's has been reprieved until the end of the century, while the Department of Health
  310
  begs the Treasury for cash to invest in new facilities for the east end. Hundreds of millions of pounds could be involved, which this bankrupt Government simply do not have.
  A steering group from Bart's, the Royal London and the London Chest has been set up to negotiate the medium-term strategy for the merger. Some, like the Secretary of State, will see the strategy as a prelude to the closure of Bart's, but I suspect that she will be long forgotten before it has worked its way through. Others will see it as a breathing space during which Bart's can regroup. On this side of the House, we must pledge ourselves to ensuring that that is the case, and show that it is not only in films and novels that good can triumph over evil and strength can be built in adversity.
  Meanwhile, my message to Ministers tonight from Bart's, its patients and supporters is a time-honoured one —"We won't let you bastards grind us down."
  12 midnight
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): It is a pleasure to be here tonight to debate the future of Bart's with the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore).
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is faced with the fact that there are too many hospitals and too many acute beds to service the current population of London. There is an imbalance in the ratio for London compared with those for areas outside London. Her predecessors faced that problem and her successors will face it. Rhetoric will not make it go away, however amusing the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric might be.
  There is no reason why a proportionately larger amount of money should be spent per unit of population in London than is spent outside London. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should spend some time visiting hospitals outside London. He might then appreciate that there are excellent hospitals, and that people must be treated outside London. The strange diabolical motives that he attributed to my right hon. Friend simply made him sound ridiculous.
  A number of changes have been proposed, so I want to reassure the House that the overriding priority is the overall patient care for London and its impact on the surrounding areas. We have a responsibility not just for London, but for the whole of the national health service. It is a priority for all the relevant agencies, purchasers of health care, providers and, of course, the Government.
  As the hon. Gentleman well knows—he has become something of an expert—the Tomlinson report made some radical recommendations in response to the problems of health care in inner London, to which I have just referred. The recommendation for a shift in resources from acute hospitals to primary care will result in fewer hospital beds and a reduction in the number of sites where acute services are delivered. The problems of the relationship between acute beds and London's population will become more difficult as more and more facilities, in all sorts of specialties, are established outside London, especially just outside London and in the home counties.
  I shall deal with some of the specific concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman about the specialty reviews, but I want to put into context the recent press reports about possible changes.

  311
  The specialty review reports are independent advice to Ministers. The reports are not policy, and certainly will not alone determine the future pattern of services. The review reports will not determine the future pattern. The advice will be part of a complex jigsaw of elements which will together inform decisions about future service configuration. Other important elements are, for example, a review of special health authority research—due to be published later this month; hospital site appraisals, already under way; and the views of local purchasers and academic interests. The London Implementation Group will ensure that the implications of the review's recommendations, including the implications for other acute services and academic and teaching interests, are fully assessed.
  Proposals for change to the pattern of services will be developed mostly at local level and will be presented to Ministers in the autumn. Over the summer, the London Implementation Group will be working to take this process forward and will maintain the direction and momentum of the strategy set out in "Making London Better". Before any changes are considered, Ministers will need to be convinced that they offer real benefits to patients overall as well as value for money. There will be full public consultation on major proposals to close or relocate services.
  The Tomlinson report recognised that there was a longstanding need for rationalisation of services between the Royal London and Bart's and for progress towards the full integration of clinical undergraduate teaching. It recommended that the City and east London area would
  312
  be better served by a merged hospital bringing together the best of both institutions. It proposed that a single management unit be created to embrace St. Bart's and the Royal London and that, in the light of this, the Bart's trust proposal should not proceed as planned.
  In "Making London Better", the Government accepted that Bart's could not continue in its present form and outlined three options for the hospital: the closure of the Bart's Smithfield site; the management of Bart's, the Royal London hospital and the London chest hospital to merge to form a new combined trust; and Bart's to be retained as a much smaller specialist hospital, subject to the specialty reviews and purchasers accepting its costs.
  North East Thames regional health authority is carrying out an appraisal of these options, taking into account the views of purchasing health authorities and GPs with a view to making firm proposals by the autumn. The specialty review recommendations will be assessed as part of these appraisals.
  In addition, "Making London Better" accepted that other significant changes will be needed to provide a better pattern of services for the local population in the east of London. The people of Hackney and the surrounding area would be best served by the development of the Homerton hospital to meet their needs. Indeed, a further phase of development at the Homerton hospital is now getting under way, as the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch knows.
  As I have said, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to respond to his remarks.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve midnight.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Butte Mining plc
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the director of the Serious Fraud Office's investigations into the flotation of and share dealings in Butte Mining.

  The Attorney-General
  The SFO investigation relating to Butte Mining plc is not yet concluded. It is my practice not to give details about investigations which are still in progress.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Gerontology
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the breakdown of the £600,000 spent on basic aging research or gerontology.

  Mr. William Waldegrave
  The Medical Research Council—MRC—is the main Government agency for the promotion of medical and related research in the United Kingdom. The MRC do not recognise the figure to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but in 1991–92—the last financial year for which figures are available—the MRC's expenditure on projects relevant to aging and the elderly was £9·8 million.

  This research refers to work on cognitive performance, hearing, dementia, osteoporosis, Parkinson's, nutrition, cardiovascular, stroke and cancer research. Additional work is also carried out on understanding the processes underlying aging; and on molecular mechanisms in the clonal deletion of auto-reactive T cells by programmed cell death. Because much of this research is interlinked, the financial breakdown of this research would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Office of Public Service and Science
  Sir Rhodes Boyson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the total amount of expenditure on provision within the responsibility of the Office of Public Service and Science in(a) England, (b) Greater London and (c) the south-east, excluding Greater London, for each year from 1982–83 to 1992–93, estimated, distinguishing between current and capital expenditure, though excluding local authority credit approvals/capital allocations.

  Mr. David Davis
  I am able to provide the following information about the Department's expenditure on the administration of public service and science and on the science programme.(i) Expenditure on the Administration of Public Service and Science
  62
  The major part of the Office of Public Service and Science's offices and staff is located in London and the south-east, but the Occupational Health Service, which has its headquarters in Edinburgh, has a small regional network, and the Government Centre for Information Systems has offices in Norwich.
  Total expenditure by the Department and its predecessors on administration in the period 1982–83 to 1992–93 was as follows:

  £millions

  Year

  Current Expenditure

  Capital Expenditure

  Total

  1982–83

  53·0

  5·6

  58·6

  1983–84

  63·4

  1·9

  65·3

  1984–85

  76·1

  3·4

  79·5

  1985–86

  79·1

  4·3

  83·4

  1986–87

  75·5

  8·7

  84·2

  1987–88

  90·6

  10·6

  101·2

  1988–89

  98·0

  9·6

  107·6

  1989–90

  96·5

  7·3

  103·8

  1990–91

  104·3

  11·0

  115·3

  1991–92

  123·6

  9·1

  132·7

  1992–93

  134·0

  11·0

  145·0

  (ii) Expenditure on the Science Programme
  Information on capital and current expenditure from the science budget by the research councils, the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering is not available in the form requested prior to 1992–93.
  The expenditure figures for England are as follows:

  England

  £ millions

  Current Expenditure

  Capital Expenditure

  Total

  1982–83

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1983–84

  319·4

  68·4

  387·8

  1984–85

  340·4

  67·5

  407·9

  1985–86

  351·5

  78·3

  429·8

  1986–87

  364·9

  80·1

  445·0

  1987–88

  397·0

  82·7

  479·7

  1988–89

  434·3

  96·4

  530·7

  1989–90

  519·0

  115·5

  634·5

  1990–91

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  1554·0

  1121·6

  675·6

  n/a = not available.

  1 Estimated Breakdown.

  For 1992–93 the figures are as follows:

  £ millions

  England

  South East excluding Greater London

  Greater London

  Current

  Capital

  Current

  Capital

  Current

  Capital

  599·l

  124·3

  173·8

  36·3

  149·5

  19·8

WALES

  Rabies
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken at Welsh ports to prevent rabies entering Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  People who bring in unlicensed animals and those who allow their animals on deck in harbour will be committing an offence and may face imprisonment in addition to heavy fines. Local authorities have the chief role in enforcing these provisions, supported by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise officers, port health officers and the police.
  63
  Keen surveillance is maintained over vessels from abroad, both commercial shipping and small boats and yachts which are mainly privately owned. This surveillance is supported by the co-operation of harbour-masters, marina owners, yacht clubs and many other members of the public whose work or recreation is connected with ports or sailing.

  All-weather noticeboards are provided for use at harbours, ports and marinas, both in the United Kingdom and on the continent. These state, in appropriate languages, that the landing of animals is prohibited, emphasise the danger from illegally landed animals and the penalties for contraventions. A great deal of importance is attached to maintaining general rabies awareness and the present publicity campaign is targeted at the small boat owner.

  Rio Declaration
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he has taken to prepare an action plan to guide implementation of the Rio declaration.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government are committed to making a report to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development by the end of this year. The Welsh Office is closely involved in the compilation of this report, which will take full account of the Rio declaration.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the chairman of Welsh Water plc to discuss the fluoridation of drinking water supplies in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at the present time.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it a requirement that NHS hospital trust annual reports should list the salaries of the chief executive and all board members.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  NHS trusts are required to provide information on the emoluments of their board members, excluding pension costs, as part of their annual accounts and this information must include the emoluments of the chairman, the highest-paid member and the chief executive —if not the highest-paid member. They are also required to provide similar information in their annual reports in order to conform with the provisions of the Companies Act 1985, as amended. The information provided in the annual report should be consistent with that provided in the annual accounts and, if there is any less detail, the annual report must make it clear that the full set of accounts is publicly available upon request.

  Out-of-Town Developments
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many out-of-town large commercial developments were initially refused planning permission by the local authority, but were granted permission on appeal to the Welsh Office since 1979.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Comprehensive information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate 64
  cost, but 11 major retail developments have been approved on appeal against refusal of permission since the end of 1979.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales to whom each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department is responsible; whether the public bodies or their members in each case are subject to(a) surcharge, (b) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (c) scrutiny by the Audit Commission or National Audit Office, (d) the statutory provisions for open Government which apply to local authorities, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens' charters; and whether the chairpersons and members of the boards of each of these bodies are required to declare an interest.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office sponsors 17 executive non-departmental public bodies—NDPBs. Details are available in "Public Bodies" and in the Department's 1993 annual report. The functions and responsibilities of each NDPB are specified in its founding legislation or charter. The Secretary of State is responsible and accountable to Parliament for the resources provided for NDPBs, and the general framework within which they are required to operate. For most NDPBs, the chief executive is designated as the accounting officer and, together with the departmental accounting officer, is liable to appear before the Public Accounts Committee to account for the use of public funds.

  (a) and (d)I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 15 June Official Report, columns 544–45.

  (b) The NDPBs in Wales subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are:

  Sports Council for Wales

  Wales Tourist Board

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Housing for Wales

  Countryside Council for Wales

  Agricultural Wages Committee

  (c) Executive NDPBs in Wales are generally audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General: where the Comptroller and Auditor General is not himself responsible for auditing a particular body, he retains certain rights of inspection.

  (e) All NDPBs in Wales have or are developing performance indicators for their own internal management and to enable the Department to monitor their performance.

  (f) All NDPBs in Wales are expected to adopt the principles of the citizens charter in their dealings with the public.

  Members of NDPBs in Wales are expected to declare any potential conflict of interest.

  Welsh Office
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish the Government's response to the first report of the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 1992–93, House of Commons Paper 259, on the "Work of the Welsh Office".
  65
  Mr. Redwood
  I am pleased to announce that the response to the Welsh Affairs Committee report on the work of the Welsh Office has been published today as Command Paper 2276. Copies are available in the Vote Office.

  Mapping
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any proposals to ensure that the whole of Wales is mapped on a scale of 1:2,500; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: No. The Ordnance Survey is responsible for the official surveying and topographic mapping of Great Britain. Following the advice of a review committee, the Government require Ordnance Survey to survey and map all conurbations at a scale of 1:1,250, all small towns and cultivated rural areas at a scale of 1:2,500 and all mountain and moorland areas at a scale of 1:10,000. This requirement covers Wales.

  Housing Capital Receipts
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was held by local authorities in Wales, as at 31 March 1992, in respect of housing capital receipts reserved for debt redemption.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As at 31 March 1992, local authorities were required to set aside specified proportions of the capital receipts which they acquire for the repayment of debt, to meet payments on credit arrangements, such as finance leases, or in lieu of capital expenditure. Authorities are also required to make minimum provision from their revenue resources to meet credit liabilities. Such capital charges may be met in part by the interest gained on capital receipts, but the individual sources of such provision are not distinguished in the information collected centrally. In addition to the requirements for the application of capital receipts and revenue resources to meet credit liabilities, authorities may choose to apply the unspecified portions of their receipts which are available for new capital expenditure as well as revenue allocations to this end. At 31 March 1992, the outstanding housing loan debt for which provision would be required stood at £1,800,000,000. The scheduled amount of housing capital receipts assigned to meet credit liabilities stood at £180,000,000 at that date but, in addition, part of the £28,300,000 of unreserved housing receipts could also be applied to such use by authorities.

SCOTLAND

  School Information
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about school information to be made available for parents under the parents charter.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Having carefully considered the responses made to the consultation paper "Better Information for Parents", my right hon. Friend is today laying regulations before Parliament which provide for the collection and publication of school information covering: attendance and truancy rates; examination 66
  results and awards; school leaver destinations; and school costs. A circular which explains in detail the provisions contained in the regulations is also being issued today.

  We received more than 300 responses during the consultation period. I am very grateful to all those who responded for their helpful and constructive suggestions. Providing information to parents about the schools their children attend is a central element in the parents charter and something this Government consider to be of the utmost importance. As a result of our consultations, we have clarified and revised the earlier provisions in a number of respects. In particular, the regulations now require that:
  school handbooks are to be issued by 15 December in each year;
  regional and national average figures by category will include education authority schools and grant-aided schools but not special schools for which results are to be given separately;
  attendance and absence rates for pupils in stage S6 need not distinguish between authorised and unauthorised absence;
  examination results for SCE are to be shown as percentages of of the number of pupils on each individual school's roll at the start of their S4 year—and a measure of the staying-on-rate to stage S5 is now also to be given; and
  awards for national certificates and other SCOTVEC awards are to be shown by stage.

  We have also taken all possible steps to minimise the workload on schools which will result from the provision of this information. For example, calculations on examination results will be carried out as far as possible directly by the Scottish Office Education Department and discussions have already taken place between the Department, the Scottish Examination Board and the Scottish Vocational Education Council to this end. The basic information on school leaver destinations will also be collected by the careers service.

  Councillors (Mileage Rates)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the methodology used to determine the rates of mileage expenses paid to councillors in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 24 June 1993]: The motor mileage rates are based on the average price at the pump for unleaded petrol over a 12-month period as applied to the schedule of annual running costs produced by the Automobile Association which covers tyres, oil, servicing and repairs.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the current rates of mileage expenses paid to councillors in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 24 June 1993]: The rates of mileage expenses were reviewed with effect from 1 January 1993. A similar annual uprating exercise will be carried out towards the end of this year.

  Secondary School Reorganisation
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date he expects to publish the Scottish Office Education Department's responses to comments on the Howie committee's recommendations for upper secondary school reorganisation.
  67
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: Decisions have not yet been taken in response to comments on the Howie committee's recommendations for upper secondary reform. I am unable, therefore, to give the date of an announcement.

  Coastal Pollution
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the current cleanliness, safety and freedom from pollution of beaches and coastal waters.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: The water quality survey of Scotland 1990 which my Department published in March 1992 assesses the cleanliness and freedom from pollution of Scottish coastal waters. The survey demonstrates that a high proportion of Scottish waters are of satisfactory quality. River purification boards monitor water quality at many beaches and I produce annually a report on monitoring of 23 bathing waters identified for the purposes of EC directive 76/160/EEC. That report is in the House of Commons Library and for 1992 showed that 15 beaches achieved the directive's water quality standards.

  Individual local authorities take responsibility for the cleanliness and safety of beaches in their area. However, Keep Scotland Beautiful has assessed the standards achieved at some of the most popular beaches including the nine beaches in Scotland that successfully obtained a seaside award this year.

  NHS Property Sales
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the companies and individuals who have purchased NHS property to the value of £250,000 or more over the past five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: The information, for the period from 1 April 1988 to date, is set out in the table.

  Greenock Medical Aid (Properties) Ltd.

  Beazer Homes Ltd.

  Morrison Developments

  Wimpey Homes Holdings Ltd.

  Homehurst Ltd.

  Cresta Property Investment Ltd.

  Messrs W. B. B. Gammell and P. J. A. Leggate

  Leven Glen Ltd.

  Hotel Saiyo International Ltd.

  Central Regional Council

  Balfour Beattie Ltd.

  Uppermill Farms Ltd.

  E. W. Ferrari

  Jarlaw Securities Ltd.

  Quantum Claims Compensation Specialists Ltd.

  Balgownie Development Co, Ltd.

  68

  Balfour Beattie Ltd.

  Windex Ltd.

  Whatling Homes

  Mactaggart and Mickel Ltd.

  West of Scotland Housing Association

  Charing Cross Housing Association

  Tay Homes

  Cathcart Housing Association

  Miller Homes

  E. K. Wallace and Sons Ltd.

  Takare

  Associated Nursing Services (PLC)

  East Kilbride Development Corporation

  Glasgow Development Agency

  Central Guraduwara Singh Sabha Association

  Tulloch Homes Ltd.

  Wilson Homes (Stonehouse) Ltd.

  Lanarkshire Development Agency

  McLean Homes

  Hugh McMartin and Partners

  John D. Dourley

  Barry D. Trentham Ltd.

  Farquhar Developments Ltd.

  Napier University

  Applecross Developments

  AMA (New Town) Ltd.

  McAlpine Laing Investments

  Bryant Homes

  Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise

  Sunnyhill Developments

  Refugees and Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what central Government funds are available in Scotland for specific grants to aid the resettlement of refugees and asylum seekers.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: My right hon. Friend does not have the power to pay specific grants for this purpose. If Scottish local authorities faced additional expenditure commitments as a result of resettling refugees and asylum seekers this would be taken into account, in consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, in the determination of the level of aggregate external finance.

  Water Supplies
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average amount of water used daily per household in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: A recent study in Scotland indicated that the average domestic consumption for each household was 368 litres per day.

  Public Places (Disabled Access)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve access for people with disabilities to museums, galleries, theatres, libraries and sports arenas.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: It is for the management of each organisation to consider how its buildings and, in the case of museums, galleries and libraries, its collections can be made accessible to disabled people. The Government have close links with a range of statutory, voluntary and private sector bodies which are active in encouraging such organisations to increase access for disabled members of the public.

  The Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations 1990 require access for disabled people to the ground floor of all buildings other than dwellings and buildings used for storage purposes. These provisions, which were first introduced in 1986, apply to all new buildings and to alterations and extensions to existing buildings. Proposed amendments to the current regulations were the subject of public consultation. They would require access for disabled people to the upper floors of all buildings except dwellings and storage buildings. These amendments should come into force in Scotland in the new year and would apply to all new buildings and to alterations and extensions to existing buildings.

  As far as sports stadia are concerned, ground managements are equally responsible for ensuring adequate access. I particularly welcome the provisions for the disabled being made at those stadia currently being redeveloped in terms of Taylor report requirements.

  Coastal Planning
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends to take to implement the Government's response—Cm 2011—to the Environment Committee's second report of 1991–92. "Coastal Zone Protection and Planning in Scotland"; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 2 July 1993]: The House of Commons Select Committee on the environment report on coastal zone protection and planning examined coastal issues as they relate to England and Wales only. In their response, the Government accepted that the issues raised have a relevance to the United Kingdom as a whole and should be addressed according to the circumstances in different parts of the United Kingdom.

  The Scottish Office is considering how best to take forward the Government's proposals in relation to Scotland and as a first step has commissioned a review of Scottish coastal issues.
  70
  The Scottish Office is represented on the interdepart-mental group which is responsible for the continued development of coastal policy on a United Kingdom—wide basis.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was given to Scottish further education colleges in 1992–93 to prepare them for incorporation; and what provision was made in the conditions of grant for bonuses to senior staff.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 July 1993]: Grants totalling £2·3 million were made to further education colleges in 1992–93 to meet costs associated with the incorporation process. It was for college councils to determine to what use the grants were put within their statutory powers as set out in the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq (Sanctions)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the effects of the imposition of the United Nations sanctions on disease and infant mortality in Iraq.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in close touch with President Clinton about policy towards Iraq. We and the United States agree that Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 provide the best scheme for financing the United Nation's humanitarian operations in Iraq. Iraq has refused to accept the scheme.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Royal Parks Agency
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what sums are being spent out of public funds by the Royal Parks Agency on the building and equiping of the agency's new stables for constabulary and working horses in Richmond and Hyde parks, on purchase of horses and equipment, on the police riding manege at Richmond and on maintaining public buildings in Richmond park.

  Mr. Sproat
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Royal Parks agency under its chief executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given and I shall place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Letter from David Welch to Mr. Harry Green way, dated 2 July 1993:

  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for National Heritage has asked me to reply to your Written Parliamentary Question below.

  What sums are being spent out of public funds by the Royal Parks Agency upon the building and equiping of the Agency's new stables for constabulary and working horses in Richmond and Hyde Parks, upon purchase of horses and equipment, upon the police riding manège at Richmond and upon maintaining public buildings in Richmond Park?
  71
  No new stables were built at Richmond Park. The existing derelict stables and yard were renovated and equipped at a cost of £63,242. New stables at Hyde Park were built and equipped at a cost of £38,342.

  There have been 4 or 5 patrol horses for the last 40 years or so in Richmond Park, with the Metropolitan Police providing mounted officers at Hyde Park until 1 April 1993. There is now a total of 10 patrol and 2 shire horses in Hyde and Richmond Parks, the additional horses being purchased and equipped for £49,000.

  The police riding manêge at Richmond Park cost £15,000 and maintaining the public buildings (stables) in future is estimated at £3,000 per annum.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if he will list the former Members of this House who have been appointed by his Department to quasi autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will list in each case the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment, and the party which the former hon. Member represented;

  (2) if he will list the names of individuals who (a) are spouses of hon. Members, (b) are members of the House of Lords, (c) are spouses of members of the House of Lords and (d) have been party candidates for Parliament, indicating for which party, who have been appointed by his Department to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations giving, in each case, the title of the post, any salary payable, and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage does not currently hold the information requested centrally and this could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  National Lottery
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy, in evaluating tenders from bidders for a clause 5 national lottery licence, not to exclude consortia which include an organisation, whether from the United Kingdom or overseas, which is engaged in existing gambling activity.

  Mr. Sproat
  The responsibility for evaluating tenders and awarding the licence will lie with the director general of the national lottery.

TRANSPORT

  Night Flights
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has reached conclusions following the consultations on night restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  On 28 January this year I published proposals for night restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. These followed a wide-ranging review of how we might best maintain the policy of continuing to protect local communities from excessive exposure to aircraft noise at night.

  Our existing policy has brought very considerable benefits to local communities by controlling movements of most jet aircraft at night. At the same time industry has made great strides in phasing out older noisier aircraft. There has been a substantial reduction in the number of
  72
  people affected by daytime aircraft noise above the recognised disturbance threshold. This trend will continue, and I have separately laid regulations before the House which will ensure that the noisier, chapter 2 jets will be phased out by 2002. These regulations are in line with international agreements which we have worked hard to deliver.

  The central element of our consultation paper was a new system to maintain the protection offered to residents around Heathrow and Gatwick and extend similar protection to those around Stansted. Additional features were to move away from restricting numbers of movements to a system of quotas that would further encourage the use of quieter aircraft. Each aircraft type would be assigned a quota count (QC) for take-off or landing in line with certificated noise performance. The noisiest aircraft (QC8 and QC16) would not be allowed to be scheduled at night. We also proposed that there should be a QCO category for all aircraft with certificated noise levels less than 90 EPNdB to provide a further incentive to airlines to accelerate changes in their fleets and scheduling in favour of the quietest aircraft. Our proposals also include harmonisation of the night restrictions period and other measures to make the system fairer all round.

  Responses to the consultation have clearly demonstrated the importance local people attach to night restrictions. At the same time, it is clear that they have benefited from the introduction of quieter aircraft. Industry respondents for their part broadly accepted much of what was proposed although they argued that the threshold for QC0 could have been set higher. Some airlines also stressed the need for modest growth in quota to meet anticipated increases in demand over the next five years. However, leaving the movement of QC0 aircraft unrestricted raised concerns among local people that there could in theory be a major and uncheckable expansion in night flights.

  I have concluded that local concerns would best be met by extending the quota system with a new QC½ band to cover larger aircraft below 90 EPNdB. Although the aviation industry will lose some of the benefits of the previous QC0 proposal, they will still be able to use the flexibility of the quota system in scheduling their movements. At the same time local people will have the assurance that the quota will cover all relevant aircraft movements, with a reduction in the types that are currently exempt. This provides an additional measure of protection and meets local concerns about the perceived threat of uncontrolled growth.

  I have given careful consideration to whether I should increase the proposed quotas in order to accommodate the introduction of the QC½ category. On balance I concluded that the relatively small number of such movements at Heathrow could be accommodated within my previous proposal but that enhancement of the quotas would be appropriate at Gatwick and Stansted, because of the larger number of QC½ movements particularly at the latter where there is a significant number of mail and empty positioning flights.

  I have put a full statement on the new quotas in the House Library.

  I pay particular tribute to the commitment of BAA plc in establishing noise and track-keeping systems at the three airports. These systems will complement our new arrangements providing further monitoring—further protection for local people. They will also provide a comprehensive basis for the reviews that I am asking the

  73
  aircraft noise monitoring advisory committee (ANMAC) to carry out on current noise limits by night and day and the aircraft noise classification system. The noise and track-keeping systems also give industry a ready means to check on its own performance.

  In my decisions I have sought to maintain the essential balance between the aviation industry and local people. The aviation industry makes an important contribution to the economy and it is essential to preserve employment and business opportunities not only for the 100,000 people who work in the industry but also for the wider contribution it makes to the local and national economy. It will be tough on industry and is a challenge to them to maintain progress at introducing quieter aircraft. It is just as important to ensure that local people should be able to enjoy a good night's sleep.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage BR and the relevant private sector interests to seek help from the European investment bank for the upgrading of the west coast main line.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not normally appropriate for BR to borrow from the European investment bank (EIB), as it can borrow more cheaply from the Government.

  I have recently announced a scoping study to examine how the private sector can be involved in upgrading the west coast main line. The source of finance for the private sector is a matter for any eventual private sector partner in the upgrading project. But the benefits of EIB funding are widely appreciated, and the WCML would almost certainly be an eligible project.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to whom each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department of Transport is responsible; whether the public bodies or their members in each case are subject to(a) surcharge, (b) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (c) scrutiny by the Audit Commission or National Audit Office, (d) the statutory provisions for open government which apply to local authorities, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens' charters; and whether the chairpersons and members of the boards of each of these bodies are required to declare an interest.

  Mr. Norris
  Details of the four executive non-departmental public bodies in which the Department of Transport has an interest are listed in "Public Bodies 1992", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The functions and responsibilities of the three General Lighthouse Authorities are specified in their founding legislation. My right hon. Friend is responsible for the operation of the General Lighthouse Fund which funds the authorities. The Traffic Director for London is appointed by my right hon. Friend and is responsible to him. The answers to the other points raised are:

  (a) None of the bodies is subject to surcharge. (The concept of surcharge as used in the Local Government Finance Act 1982 applies only to local authorities.)

  (b) The bodies subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner are:

  Trinity House

  Northern Lighthouse Board

  74

  Traffic Director for London

  (c) Information on audit arrangements is set out in Public Bodies 1992.

  (d) No. The provisions of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 apply only to those local authorities specified in the Act.

  (e) Performance indicators have been set for the Traffic Director for London and a system of indicators for the lighthouse authorities is under discussion.

  (f) All bodies are being encouraged to follow the principles of the Citizen's Charter.

  No requirements regarding declarations of interest have been imposed by my right hon. Friend on members of the three lighthouse authorities, the majority of whom he does not appoint. The Traffic Director for London does not have a board but he is required by the terms of his appointment to be alert to the possibility of any conflicts of interest and to consult my right hon. Friend in any case of doubt.

  South Rock Light
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether fishing boats in Northern Ireland are required to pay light dues to the Commissioner of Irish Lights; who operates the South Rock light on the most easterly point of Ireland; what navigation aids the South Rock light provides to fishing boats sailing to Portavogie harbour; and if he will make a statement about the future of the South Rock light.

  Mr. Norris
  The Commissioners of Irish Lights are funded from the General Lighthouse Fund established by Section 1 of the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act 1898. The fund's principal income is from light dues levied on shipping using ports in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Fishing vessels using United Kingdom ports are liable for light dues. In the Republic of Ireland light dues are determined by the Irish Government, who have not extended light dues to fishing vessels using ports in the Republic. The South Rock lightfloat is operated by the Commissioners of Irish Lights. The lightfloat is moored 3´6 miles from Portavogie and is used by all craft for the purposes of marking landfalls, marking coastal passages and as a turning mark for vessels navigating on the north-east coast of Ireland. It clearly marks the dangerous waters to the west and is important for vessels entering or leaving Portavogie. There are no plans to make any changes to the South Rock lightfloat.

  Rail Services (Clapham to Willesden)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has reached from his study concerning the practicality of introducing a frequent urban passenger service on the newly electrified railway line between Clapham and Willesden junctions; what would be the estimated cost of re-establishing the intermediate stations at(a) Wormwood Scrubs, (b) Shepherds Bush, (c) West Brompton, (d) Kings Road, Chelsea and (e) York Road, Battersea.

  Mr. Norris
  The study's main conclusions were that the West London line provides the opportunity to introduce a new inner London rail service at relatively low capital cost, and that the project might be suitable for a joint venture initiative. Analysis of potential usage was inevitably subject to a wide margin of error, but suggested that, while not justified in financial terms, the project's estimated
  75
  benefits/costs ratio would be about 1·8, excluding station investment. Detailed estimates of costs for individual stations were not made.

  Local Authority Transport Companies
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from employees of local authority public transport companies about the security and comparability of their pension arrangements should their companies pass into private sector ownership.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received representations from PTA company employees, the TGWU and ALBUM (the Association of Local Authority Bus Undertaking Managers). I know that this is an important issue and I will take account of the proposals in respect of pensions in each case at the time consent to the sale arrangements is sought under section 75 of the Transport Act 1985.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to allow those local authorities which currently do not have an arrangement with his Department to enable their public transport company employees to remain in the local government superannuation scheme after transfer to the private sector to make such an arrangement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The guidelines on future membership of public pension schemes, such as the LGSS, were set out in a policy statement of July 1991. I am sending a copy to the hon. Member. We have no plans to extend the arrangements referred to.

  Channel Tunnel (Rail Freight)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, further to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, columns 403–4, what is the Government's policy on the desirability of early construction of rail freight terminals to take advantage of the opening of the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  Our authorisation of BR investment exceeding £400 million in preparation for channel tunnel freight services is indicative of the importance we attach to this new market. Terminal facilities are under development and BR expects to be able to meet forecast demand when the tunnel opens.

  Roll on/Roll off Vessels
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the outcome of recent negotiations within the International Maritime Organisation on the safety of life at sea convention in regard to the risks posed by roll on/roll off ships and ferries; and what was the United Kingdom's position on the policy matters discussed.

  Mr. Norris
  Despite some support, the United Kingdom's proposal to amend the convention that would have applied the SOLAS 90 standard to existing ferries within a reasonable timescale did not receive the requisite number of votes at the Maritime Safety Committee. The United Kingdom's position was to obtain similar safety standard for all ferries. This continued to be our objective at the meeting held recently with our European neighbours, which had a more positive outcome.

  Motorways (Charges)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans currently exist to put tolls on the motorway network.

  Mr. Key
  Draft orders were published last month for the construction of the Birmingham northern relief road. This will be this country's first privately built, operated and tolled overland motorway. The Green Paper, "Paying for Better Motorways", was published on 26 May in order to stimulate a public debate on the principle of introducing direct charging on the existing motorway network in Great Britain.

  Noise and Pollution
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce measures to reduce the noise and pollution resulting from projected levels of road traffic.

  Mr. Key
  Increasingly tight noise standards have been introduced for all types of vehicle. Since 1980 the noise from the heaviest lorries has been virtually halved. And tighter limits are now being negotiated in the European Community. These new standards will include for the first time standards for tyre noise.

  The annual MOT and HGV and PSV tests include an inspection of the exhaust system. Vehicles can also be subjected to roadside checks. We hope to increase the level of these checks by collaboration between police, DoT inspectors and local authority environmental health officers.

  We assess the impact of noise on residential property among other factors which influence the alignment of new roads. And the spread of noise is minimised by the use of cuttings, earth mounds and noise barriers. Quieter road surfaces are being developed.

  Compensation is offered to householders where property values are diminished due to new road schemes. We are conducting research on whether the level at which this compensation is triggered is the right one.

  Tighter controls on the amounts of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and the oxides of nitrogen which can be emitted by petrol and diesel engined cars have been agreed in the European Community. These mean that new petrol-engined cars are now fitted with catalytic converters, reducing by about 75 per cent. emissions of the pollutants mentioned above.

  A further directive has just been adopted which will bring emissions from light duty goods vehicles into line with those for passenger cars. It will apply to light vans first registered on or after 1 October 1994. The EC Council of Ministers is now discussing a draft directive for stricter limits on emissions from cars leading up to the year 2000.

  In 1991, the Council agreed new tighter, emission standards for diesel engined lorries and buses, to be implemented in two stages. From 1 October 1993, new vehicles will have to meet a substantially tighter limit on NOx emissions. There is also to be a limit for the first time on particulate emissions. From 1 October 1996 the NOx limit will be reduced to about half its present value, and the particulate limit will have a level of stringency similar to that to be applied in the United States from 1994. Limits for the year 2000 will soon be discussed within the EC.
  77
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which system of motorway charging he proposes to introduce; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Green Paper "Paying for Better Motorways" is a consultation document. The Government have taken decisions neither on the principle of introducing direct charging on existing motorways nor on the method of doing so, other than to rule out conventional tolling with toll plazas and barriers.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of introducing motorway tolls; what consideration he has given to ways of meeting these costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Green Paper, "Paying for Better Motorways" (Cm 2200) describes a number of possible systems of direct charging. Their costs of introduction would vary and would be influenced by the detailed design chosen. It is not possible at this stage to estimate reliably the cost of introducing motorway charges.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the amount of money which could be raised by introducing tolls on the motorway network.

  Mr. Key
  We estimate that an electronic toll of around 1½p per mile for cars and light goods vehicles and an average of around 4½p per mile for other vehicles would generate revenue of some £700 million a year. A permit priced at, say, £50 a year for cars up and to £500 a year for the heaviest goods vehicles would raise some £500 million a year.

  Traffic Calming
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many members of his staff are employed currently(a) full-time and (b) part-time solely to promote traffic calming (i) in Marsham street and (ii) in each of his Department's regional offices.

  Mr. Key
  Traffic calming is a very important area of work in the Department because of the significant safety and environmental benefits it can bring. A substantial amount of effort is devoted to carrying out research and practical studies and to developing regulations, guidance and advice to help local authorities implement successful and cost-effective schemes on their roads. No staff spend all their time on this work, as it overlaps with the wider subjects of traffic management and road safety.

  Quangos (Appointments)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the former Members of this House who have been appointed since 1988 by his Department to quasi autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will list in each case the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment and the party which the former hon. Member represented;

  (2) if he will list the names of individuals who (a) are spouses of hon. Members, (b) are members of the House of Lords, (c) are spouses of members of the House of Lords and (d) have been party candidates for Parliament, indicating for which party, who have been appointed by
  78
  his Department since 1988 to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations giving, in each case, the title of the post, any salary payable, and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Norris
  Detailed information on past and present appointees to non-departmental public bodies—formerly known as quasi autonomous non-governmental organisations—is not held in the Department and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, from such limited information as is available on present members of NDPBs, there is no evidence that any individual falls within the categories listed at(a), (b) or (c). As regards (d), it is known that two serving members of the Disabled Persons Advisory Committee have been party candidates for Parliament. These are Sir John Hannam, MP and a former Labour Member of Parliament, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones. Both were reappointed as members of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee in December 1992 for a three year period to December 1995. Committee members are not paid a salary, but the Department meets their travel and subsistence costs.

  Rail Users' Consultative Committees
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how often the franchising director will be required to attend the rail users' consultative committees hearings to answer questions.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have made it clear that the franchising director will be expected to liaise with the rail users' consultative committees and we will be covering this in the Secretary of State's published objectives for him. I expect that the franchising director will attend meetings of both the central and regional committees from time to time as part of this liaison.

ENVIRONMENT

  Dangerous Activities (Convention)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will sign the Council of Europe convention on civil liability for damage resulting from activities dangerous to the environment.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government have no plans to do so.

  Carbon
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the cost to the economy of the measures announced to date for achieving a saving of 10 million tonnes of carbon per annum.

  Mr. Yeo
  Most of the measures announced to date as part of the United Kingdom's CO2 programme are aimed at improving the efficiency of energy use in the economy, with a net benefit to the economy.

  Savings are also expected to be achieved through an increase in the objective for renewable energy. This is part of the Government's continuing strategy to promote the development of new sources of energy to the point at which they become economic and can compete in the market place.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to amend the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 to impose a maximum permitted concentration of cryptosporidium oocyst contamination in drinking water; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 already require that for water supplies to be wholesome they must not contain any organism at a concentration which is detrimental to public health.

  Waterways Ombudsman
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to announce the new ombudsman to deal with issues in relation to the British waterways network.

  Mr. Yeo
  This is principally a matter for the chairman of the British Waterways Board, but I understand that British Waterways hopes to make an announcement within the next month.

  Peatlands
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what safeguard he has proposed for the preservation of lowland peatlands.

  Mr. Yeo
  A working group on peat extraction is preparing advice for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Government's strategy for peatlands will be announced after receiving their advice and considering all the relevant information. Meanwhile, the future of peatlands has been secured by: their notification as sites of special scientific interest; purchase; the arrangements between English Nature and Fison's and the co-operation of the members of the Peat Producers Association, whose members have agreed not to make any planning applications to work existing or proposed peatlands SSSIs without the prior agreement of the appropriate nature conservation agency.

  Coastal Policy
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the purpose of the interdepartmental group on coastal policy; what issues it will consider; when its formation was announced; when it has met; and if he will list the names of those persons present on each occasion and the Departments they represent.

  Mr. Yeo
  The inter-departmental group on coastal policy was formed in 1991, prior to the start of the inquiry into coastal zone protection and planning undertaken by the Environment Select Committee. It is composed of officials from all relevant Government departments including Treasury, DoT, DTI MAFF, MoD, DNH, Home Office, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Ireland, Crown Estate and other representatives. Its existence was announced in the Government's response to the inquiry in July 1992.

  Key issues being considered by the group include the control of development below the low water mark, coastal management planning and links to implementation of the EC habitats directive.
  80
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to publish minutes of the meetings of the interdepartmental group on coastal policy; what recommendations have been made; and what response he has issued following the meetings of the group.

  Mr. Yeo
  The results of the work of the inter-departmental group on coastal policy will be published in discussion papers later this summer. There are no plans to publish minutes of the meetings of this group.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) of 29 April,Official Report, column 470, on the waste management licensing timetable, what representations he has received about a new timetable.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have received a joint representation on behalf of the Institute of Wastes Management, the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors, and the local authority associations concerned with waste regulation. I shall meet them on 15 July to discuss the matter. I have also had correspondence from a number of individual waste regulation authorities; and I have met representatives of UK Waste Management Ltd.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reconsider proposed waste management licensing to avoid sites accepting very small quantities of hazardous waste and civic amenity sites having to pay higher rates.

  Mr. Yeo
  The charging scheme's financial objective is to ensure full recovery of waste regulation authorities' relevant costs on the inspection and monitoring of licensed sites. The Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980 define as "special" waste which is so dangerous or difficult to treat, keep or dispose of that special provision is required for dealing with it. The higher rates of subsistence charge proposed for sites authorised by their licence to accept special waste were intended to reflect the higher level of inspection and monitoring required of such sites. As such, they would be necessary to ensure fulfilment of the scheme's financial objective. In response to consultation on the charging scheme, we have received a number of representations about the treatment or keeping of certain special wastes destined for recovery, notably the contents of waste car batteries. We shall consider these representations before making the final scheme.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will implement the proposed new legislation for waste management licensing.

  Mr. Yeo
  As the then Minister for the Environment and Countryside announced on 29 April at column 470, the introduction of waste management licensing has had to be postponed pending further consideration of the impact of European Community measures dealing with waste management. On 18 May at column 101, the then Minister gave further details of the particular technical problems we need to solve. We are working to solve these problems as quickly as possible. As soon as I am in a position to give a revised date for the implementation of licensing, I shall do so.

  Limehouse Link Road
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a breakdown of the costs of the funfair which formed part of the Limehouse link road celebrations on 16 May including any rent waived; how much revenue was raised from funfair ride charges; and how much was raised for the community fund by(a) the funfair and (b) the sponsored walk through the Limehouse link tunnel.

  Sir George Young
  The London Docklands development corporation gave free use of a site for the funfair. The Isle of Dogs community trust was responsible for the sponsored walk and I have no information about the money raised. The costs of, and revenue earned by, the funfair are matters for its operator, as is any contribution made to the community fund.

  Waste Framework Directive
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to the European Councils waste framework directive 91/156/EEC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The EC framework directive on waste (91/156/EEC) came into force on 1 April this year. Much of it is already implemented in the United Kingdom through the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, and those parts of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which have already been brought into operation. The Government are considering what further measures are needed to implement the remaining provisions of the directive. Some of these will be included in the proposed regulations to bring into force the new waste management licensing provisions in part II of the Environmental Protection Act.

  Aggregates
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government are taking to actively increase the use of recycled and waste materials as aggregates.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government are committed to making greater use of waste and recycled materials in construction. An extensive research programme is in hand to support this. Research has identified the availability of these materials and on how to increase usage. A current project is examining steps to encourage greater recycling of demolition materials. We are also participating in an EC priority waste streams project on recycling building and demolition wastes. The revised Minerals Planning Guidance Note 6 on aggregates, which is currently in draft, will also set out policies to increase the use of recycled and waste materials. Final guidance is expected later this year.

  Ozone-depleting Substances
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department takes to ensure enforcement of section 33(1)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the disposal of waste ozone-depleting substances by releasing them to the atmosphere.
  82
  Mr. Yeo
  The disposal of waste ozone-depleting substances by releasing them to the atmosphere is an offence under section 33(1)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Enforcement of this section is principally a matter for waste regulation authorities. Further guidance on the effect of section 33 will be issued when section 33 is brought into force in its entirety.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions and convictions there have been so far under section 33(1)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the disposal of waste ozone-depleting substances by releasing them to the atmosphere.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information on the substances involved in particular cases is not held centrally.

  London Docklands (Exhibition Centre)
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account was taken in the decision to develop a new exhibition centre in London docklands of the effect on other major exhibition centres within 150 miles of London.

  Sir George Young
  The London Docklands development corporation will wish to decide whether to continue its promotion of a new exhibition centre in the light of a market-testing exercise now being undertaken.

  Air Pollution
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to expand the air pollution detection network; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department will be issuing a consultation document in the summer on the extension of national air quality monitoring by the further integration of local authority and central Government funded monitoring.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to enhance his Department's sponsorship of the construction industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Following an initiative taken by my predecessor, a review of my Department's sponsorship function of the construction industry has been completed. The review looked at the current strengths and achievements of the Department's construction policy directorate and how these could be developed to meet the present and future needs of the industry. I will announce the conclusions of the review on 7 July and copies of the final report will be available in the Libraries of the House from 11 am on that day.

  Forestry
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account he took of purchasing policies in the United Kingdom regarding the specification of certain species of timber on environmental grounds when he signed the "United Nations Principles on Forestry" at the Earth summit in 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 1 July 1993]: Purchasing policy was not addressed specifically in the discussions on

  83
  the principles on forestry, the main objective of which is to ensure that the world's forests are managed sustainably. Nevertheless, we believe that it is important that consumers should be able to distinguish between timber from sustainable and unsustainable sources. We are therefore supporting the development of standards for forest management and timber labelling schemes.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in selling the Building Management Businesses.

  Mr. Curry
  [pursuant to his answer, 24 June 1993, col. 247]: I am pleased to be able to announce the exchange of contracts for the sale of the PSA building management business BM Scotland. The business has been sold to Serco.

  This sale will benefit taxpayers, staff and customers. The next step is for staff to choose individually whether to transfer to the privatised business. The future of the business now lies in the private sector and I hope many staff will choose to transfer with it. Completion of the sale is expected at the end of August.

  Serco will pay the Government £3·5 million for the business. The Government will, in addition, meet the costs of redundancies, should they be necessary, up to an agreed figure in the first five years following completion of the sale. The redundancy entitlement of transferring staff will be guaranteed by the Government for five years after the sale. Further details cannot be released until all the sales have been completed.

  Serco is a leading company in the facilities management field. I am confident that the combination of its commercial skills with the strengths of the BM Scotland work force will give the business a sound future in the private sector.

  I hope to make further announcements soon about the sales of the other two BM businesses.

  Buckingham Palace
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment has been made of the number of additional Royal Parks Constabulary police officers that will have to be deployed and the number of officers that will have to be redeployed consequent upon the opening of Buckingham palace to the public; and what assessment he has made of the cost implications.

  Mr. Sproat
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its chief executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given and I shall place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. D. Welch to Andrew Mackinlay, dated 30 June 1993:

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage has asked me to reply to your Written Parliamentary Question asking:

  what assessment has been made of the number of additional Royal Parks Constabulary police officers that will have to be deployed and the number of officers that will have to be redeployed consequent upon the opening of Buckingham Palace to the public; and what assessment he has made of the cost implications.
  84
  The Royal Parks have been in close contact with Buckingham Palace about their arrangements for opening to the public. The Royal Parks Constabulary already police St. James's Park and we do not envisage that any additional manpower will be required.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Haiti
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation in Haiti.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We support the efforts of the Organisation of American States and the United Nations to bring about a political settlement. We supported the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 841 on 16 June and are implementing legislation to give it effect in the United Kingdom and dependent terrorities. We welcome the convening of talks between President Aristide and the coup leaders and hope they may lead to a lasting settlement.

  Nepal
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent disturbances in Nepal.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Following controversy following the death in a road accident of Madam Bhandari, the secretary general of the Unified Marxist Leninist Party, protest action by this party and other left-wing factions led to violent disturbances in Kathmandu and the surrounding area on 25 June. These became increasingly serious, and resulted in an official death toll of 10 in the following few days. The situation is now relatively calm.

  We regret the violence and loss of life. We hope that all parties involved will now resolve any differences peacefully and in the spirit of the parliamentary traditions Nepal has adopted.

  Lord Owen
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the basis on which the salary and allowances of Lord Owen as a peace envoy relating to former Yugoslavia is fixed and on the United Kingdom's contribution.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Lord Owen's remuneration and other terms of service are the responsibility of the presidency of the European Community—currently Belgium—and the international conference on the former Yugoslavia—ICFY.

  The United Kingdom contributes 7·19 per cent. to the total ICFY budget, which includes Lord Owen's remuneration and all other costs directly related to the Conference. The United Kingdom's contribution for the period 1 March to 31 August 1993 was $194,850.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to oppose the lifting of the arms embargo against any participants in the Bosnian civil war until an effective and lasting settlement to the crisis is in place and operating.
  85
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The arms embargo was imposed on the former Yugoslavia under United Nations Security Council resolution 713 on 25 September 1991, and is applied equally to all republics. There has been considerable recent debate in international fora on the lifting of the arms embargo for the Bosnian Muslims. We have repeatedly made it clear that this option is not ruled out, but we believe that in present circumstances this would do nothing to assist the achievement of a peace settlement—indeed it could make it less likely and threaten the vital humanitarian relief efforts.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds exist from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Serbia to pay monthly sums to Serbian families who agree to accommodate refugees and displaced persons; what is the total of such monthly payments; what guarantees have been given to UNHCR about how long such funds will be available; and what comparable data he has on funds available on a similar basis in(a) Croatia, (b) Slovenia and (c) Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The UNHCR is paying cash grants to host families in Croatia, Slovenia and Macedonia. The UNHCR's 1993 programme envisages payments of US$ 27 million, US$ 5,055,000 and US$ 2,115,600 respectively. Full implementation of the programme will depend on the availability of funds: so far only a small proportion of the sums envisaged has been paid. The cash grant scheme does not operate in Serbia or Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports his Department has received of activities in the village of Gladovici in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the past 12 months; and if he will list the source of such reports and the action which has been taken as a result.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have seen a report from the UNPROFOR press office in Zagreb concerning the bombing of Gladovici and Osatica on 13 March. There is evidence to suggest that the aircraft were operated by the Bosnian Serbs. Since the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 816 enforcing the no-fly zone over Bosnia, there have been no reports of further combat raids.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information Her Majesty's Government have received to confirm that no arms have been included in supplies to Gorazde distributed from NATO transport planes; if Her Majesty's Government have been apprised of the loading and inspection procedure for such missions; and what complaints have been made regarding supplies to Gorazde.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are established loading and inspection procedures for NATO aircraft leaving Rheinmain in Germany on humanitarian air drop missions. Monitors from all three sides of the Bosnian conflict are present when the aircraft are being loaded to check that they contain only aid supplies. We are aware of allegations to suggest that ammunition has been transported, but have seen no evidence to substantiate this.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from what source Her 86
  Majesty's Government first received information regard-ing the bombing of Gladovici on 13 March; on what information a view was taken as to where the aircraft involved took off and landed; what further information has since come to light; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information concerning the bombing of Gladovici was first received from United Nations personnel, and published in an UNPROFOR press release of 16 March 1993. The aircraft were observed flying across the River Drina into Serbia, which would be consistent with the use of Serbian air space to lose altitude prior to landing. No further information has since come to light.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times Her Majesty's Government or her representatives have met President Slobodan Milosevic since January 1991; and what was the purpose of each meeting.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our representatives have met President Milosevic and his staff on numerous occasions since January 1991, most recently on 18 June 1993 when Her Majesty's chargéd'affaires in Belgrade delivered a letter from the Prime Minister to President Milosevic expressing his concern at the arrest and detention of opposition leader Mr. Draskovic, and requesting his immediate release. The main purpose of our representa-tions has been to press President Milosevic to co-operate fully with the efforts of the international community to achieve lasting and equitable settlements to the conflicts of the former Yugoslavia, particularly in Bosnia, and in the Krajina and Kosovo, based on the principles established by the London conference.

  Tibet
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions Her Majesty's Government have taken to secure the release and safety of those arrested in the recent demonstrations in Lhasa.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We and our EC partners have urged the Chinese authorities at a high level in Peking to release all those detained in Lhasa and to allow EC diplomats in Peking early access to them meanwhile. The EC has also issued a public statement reiterating these points. We continue to press the Chinese authorities to guarantee full respect for human rights throughout China, including Tibet, in keeping with their obligations under the United Nations charter.

  Entry Clearance Applications (Sana'a)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the level of consular staff in Sana'a to cope with applications for entry clearance to the United Kingdom from Sana'a and Djibouti.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Entry clearance staffing in posts overseas, including Sana'a is determined by the volume and nature of the demand. The lack of resident career representation in Djibouti inevitably imposes constraints on the service available there. If the hon. Member is aware of any particular problems, I would be glad to have them looked into.

  Tunisia
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the torture and imprisonment of women in Tunisia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have raised human rights issues on several occasions with the Tunisian Government who are well aware of our concerns.

  Burma
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government and the EC towards Burma (i) overall and (ii) in respect of trade sanctions and arms embargoes.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We and our Community partners have closely co-ordinated policies on Burma. We take every opportunity, bilaterally and as the Community, to urge the Burmese authorities to respect their human rights obligations and the results of the democratic elections in May 1990.

  There has been an EC embargo on arms sales to Burma since July 1991. We have also severed defence links. Wider trade sanctions against Burma do not command the necessary international support.

  British Council
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of operations by the British Council in the Nordic countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The council's long-standing oper-ations in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark have helped to creat the current extensive network of bilateral contacts.

  Recently, in order to release resources—human and financial—the council has reduced its staffing and overheads in the area while maintaining programmes as far as possible.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to whom each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department is responsible; whether the public bodies or their members in each case are subject to(a) surcharge, (b) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (c) scrutiny by the Audit Commission or National Audit Office, (d) the statutory provisions for open Government which apply to local authorities, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charters; and whether the chairpersons and members of the boards of each of these bodies are required to declare an interest.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The non-departmental public bodies—(NDPBs)—sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  The answers to points (a) to (f) are as follows:

  (a) No.

  (b) The British Council.

  88

  (c) Yes, where the non-departmental public bodies has a budget.

  (d) Not applicable.

  (e) Yes. Financial management and polices of non-departmental public bodies are subject to review every five years.

  (f) All non-departmental public bodies are subject to the citizen's charter. Chairpersons and members of boards are required to declare an interest.

  The Crown Agents and Commonwealth Development Corporation are public corporations of a trading nature, rather than executive non-departmental public bodies. Their classification in the publication "Public Bodies" will be corrected in the 1993 edition.

  Colombia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the EC report on the human rights situation in Colombia.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have seen no such report.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what legislation and which agency covers the prudential annual supervision of(a) company and (b) bank accounts in the case of companies and banks registered in Hong Kong; and in what form and to which representative assembly such agencies report.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Requirements on the incorporation, management and winding up of companies are set out in the companies ordinance, administered by the Registrar of Companies. The banking supervision department of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority is responsible for the prudential supervision of banks in Hong Kong in accordance with the provisions of the banking ordinance. Members of Hong Kong's Legislative Council may ask questions and conduct investigations on any matter of concern to them in respect of regulation of banks or companies.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what agency is responsible for the supervision of the tax affairs of(a) residents of Hong Kong, (b) companies registered in Hong Kong and (c) banks registered in Hong Kong; and in what form and to which representative assembly such agencies report.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Inland Revenue Department of the Hong Kong Government is responsible for the collection of tax on Hong Kong residents, and on companies and banks registered in Hong Kong. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue reports to the Financial Secretary who is a member of Hong Kong's Legislative Council.

  North Korea
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on North Korea's recent suspension of its intention to withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Hurd
  We welcome this announcement and the news that the North Korean and United States Governments have agreed to continue their discussions. We hope that these will lead to a permanent solution of the
  89
  problem of North Korea's nuclear intentions. We urge North Korea to folow this positive step by reaffirming its commitment to the non-proliferation treaty and complying fully with its safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  We also call on North Korea to reaffirm its commitment to the north/south bilateral nuclear agreement with the Republic of Korea.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Anti-abortionists
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what preparations he is making to control the entry into the United Kingdom and the activities in the United Kingdom of American anti-abortionists visiting the United Kingdom in September and to protect clinical staff and women seeking legal abortions from intimidation and harassment.

  Offences currently recorded as homicide in which the relationship between the suspect and victim was domestic and where a shot gun was used—England and Wales

  Year

  Police Force Area

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Bedfordshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Cheshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  8

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Durham

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Essex

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Hampshire

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Hertfordshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  Kent

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London, City of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police District

  1

  —

  2

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Norfolk

  4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Surrey

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  West Yorkshire

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  90
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Citizens of the United States of America are subject to immigration control and must qualify to enter under the terms of the immigration rules. My right hon. and learned Friend may direct exclusion if a person's presence would not be conducive to the public good. Considerations will be given to any evidence which may justify the exclusion of individuals identified as members of the group intending to visit the United Kingdom in September.

  Enforcement of the Public Order Act 1986 as it relates to behaviour which may cause harassment or fear of violence is the responsibility of chief officers of police.

  Firearms
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 June 1992,Official Report, columns 411–14, if he will update the table for homicides involving shotguns in domestic incidents.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is given in the table.
  91

  Year

  Police Force Area

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  16

  23

  15

  12

  11

  17

  11

  Information for 1992 is not yet available.

  Notes:

  1. Offences currently recorded as homicide as at 14 September 1992.

  2.The term "domestic" includes the following relationships of victim to suspect: daughter; parent; spouse; cohabitant or former spouse or cohabitant; other family; lover or former lover including spouse's lover or lover's spouse or other associate.

  Wolds Prison
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Wolds prison severe incident of 28 and 29 June was reported to him; and what and who was involved in 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.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated July 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about an incident at Wolds remand prison on 28 and 29 June.

  The incident occurred late on 28 June. The Controller at Wolds was informed at home in the early hours of 29 June, and she in turn informed the appropriate official at Prison Service Headquarters. A report on the incident was faxed to the offices of the Home Secretary and the Minister of State soon after the start of business that morning.

  Police are investigating the incident, in which two prisoners allegedly assaulted three Group 4 staff and one prisoner started a fire within a unit which resulted in smoke and water damage.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to whom each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department is responsible; whether the public bodies or their members in each case are subject to(a) surcharge, (b) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (c) scrutiny by the Audit Commission or National Audit Office, (d) the statutory provisions for open government which apply to local authorities, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charters; and whether the chairpersons and members of the boards of each of these bodies are required to declare an interest.

  Mr. Howard
  The executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Home Office are as follows:

  Alcohol Education and Research Council*

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Community Development Foundation*

  Fire Service Examination Board

  Fire Service Research and Training Trust*

  Gaming Board

  Horserace Betting Levy Board

  Horserace Totalisator Board

  Office of the Data Protection Registrar

  Police Complaints Authority

  Police Promotion Examinations Board

  * Indicates a charity

  92
  In addition, the Home Office sponsors the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which performs some executive functions.

  The readily available information on these bodies is as follows:—

  Responsibility

  Chairmen and members are appointed by the Home Secretary and are ultimately responsible through him to Parliament.

  Surcharge

  NDPB members are not subject to 'surcharge'. However, in the case of those NDPBs which are charities Trustees have potential financial liabilities under the Charities Act 1992.

  Investigation by Parliamentary Commissioner
  The Commission for Racial Equality, the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the Office of the Data Protection Registrar are listed in schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, as amended, as among those bodies subject to investigation by the PCA.

  Scrutiny by the Audit Commission or National Audit Office
  The Audit Commission has responsibility only for local government. The following bodies are subject to NAO scrutiny either by statute or by agreement:

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

  Community Development Foundation

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Gaming Board

  Office of the Data Protection Registrar

  Police Complaints Authority

  Statutory provisions for open Government which apply to local authorities
  NDPBs are subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. They are not subject to legislation which specifically applies to local authorities.

  Performance Indicators
  NDPBs are encouraged, wherever appropriate, to develop performance indicators and associated targets and to publish these.

  Citizens Charter
  The Home Office is encouraging those NDPBs which offer a service to the public to adopt the principles set out in the citizens charter and to publicise how these are being reflected in their working arrangements.
  93
  Declaration of Interests
  There are no statutory requirements for members or chairpersons to declare an interest. Nevertheless, in those bodies where a potential conflict of interest might arise, arrangements have been made to ensure propriety.

  Pet Animals
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the hon. M ember for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) of 19 November 1992,Official Report, column 295, if he has now completed consideration of the legislative changes required to enable the United Kingdom to be a party to the Council of Europe convention on pet animals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Consideration of the legislative changes required in order to comply with the convention is continuing.

  Criminal Justice
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the report of the Royal Commission on criminal justice.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government welcome the royal commission's wide-ranging report which was published today. I and my right hon. and learned Friends, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General, are grateful to Viscount Runciman and his colleagues for their endeavours, and I congratulate them on completing their work on time.

  The report deals with difficult questions of great long-term importance, and it will no doubt provoke much public debate and discussion. The Government do not propose that there should now be a formal consultation period, but we will welcome any early observations on the report's proposals, before reaching our own conclusions.

  Although the royal commission's terms of reference extended only England and Wales, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has indicated his intention to consider the implications of the report for the criminal justice system of Scotland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to say that, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General, he similarly wishes to consider the implications of the report in the context of Northern Ireland.

  Sheehy Inquiry
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department hwo many free copies of the report of the Sheehy inquiry have been made available to the police federations of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Two each.

  Triads
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take to make membership of triad organisations illegal.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. It is not an offence in this country to belong to any association, with the exception of certain 94
  proscribed terrorist organisations. If members of triads or other organisations are individually guilty of specific offences or of conspiracy, the police and the courts can take action against them in the same way as against anyone else.

  Police Forces (Pay)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will appoint a committee of inquiry into the structure, pay and conditions of service of the non-Home Office police forces as a complement to the Sheehy report, on the same basis as the Wright report 1979, Cmnd. 7623.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This would be a matter for the Secretaries of State with responsibility for such police forces.

EDUCATION

  Student Awards
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what saving there would have been in the latest year for which information is available if all students in receipt of a mandatory award had been paid at the level for living at the parental home.

  Mr. Boswell
  In 1991–92, the latest year for which provisional data are available, the effect of restricting all mandatory award holders to the existing maintenance grant rate for living at the parental home would—taken in isolation—have resulted in savings of some £270 million in England and Wales.

  Grant-maintained Schools Centre Ltd.
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will place in the Library a copy of the report from his chief accountancy adviser following his visit to the Grant-maintained Schools Centre Ltd. in February.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No. This is an internal document concerning a company with a trading activity and is commercial in confidence. It has, however, been sent to the Public Accounts Committee in response to a request from the Committee.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many copies have been printed of the revised edition of the booklet, "How to Become a Grant-Maintained School", published in June; what was the cost of(a) the design and (b) the production; when he proposes to make a further revision to take account of the provisions of the Education Bill; and how many copies he expects to distribute during the summer holiday period.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A total of 60,000 copies of the fourth edition of this booklet have been printed so far, at a cost of £4,611 for design, £9,950 for printing and £2,957 for other production costs. Distribution is predominantly in response to requests for copies of the booklet, which over the past year have averaged almost 15,000 a month. A fifth edition will be published shortly before the provisions in the present Education Bill on acquiring grant-maintained status are brought into effect.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education to whom each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department of Education is responsible; whether the public bodies or their members in each case are subject to(a) surcharge, (b) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (c)

  Name of NDPB

  Surcharge

  Investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner

  Scrutiny by Audit Commission or National Audit Office

  Statutory provisions for open government applied to local authorities

  Performance indicators

  Citizens' Charters

  Requirement to declare an interest

  Business and Technology Education Council

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  1—

  Yes

  Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  1—

  Yes

  Centre for Information on Language Teaching

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  1—

  No

  Council for the Accreditation of Teachers Education

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  1—

  No

  Education Assets Board

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  1—

  Yes

  Further Education Funding Council (England)

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  1—

  Yes

  Further Education Unit

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  1—

  Yes

  Higher Education Funding Council(England)

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  1—

  Yes

  National Council for Education Technology

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  1—

  No

  National Curriculum Council

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  1—

  No

  National Youth Agency

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  1—

  Yes

  Schools Examination and Assessment Council

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  1—

  Yes

  Teaching as a Career Unit

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  1—

  No

  University Commissioners

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  1—

  No

  Not yet formally adopted.

  Student Unions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consultations he had with(a) vice-chancellors and (b) the National Union of Students before his statement of 1 July on students' unions.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend's announcement of the Government's proposals for the reform of student unions followed an extended period of consultation with universities, colleges and students. This included discussions with vice-chancellors, both individually and collectively, and the NUS.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to alter the way in which education standard spending assessments reflect social and ethnic factors; and if he will make a statement.
  96
  scrutiny by the Audit Commission or National Audit Office, (d) the statutory provisions for open Government which apply to local authorities, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens' charters; and whether the chairpersons and members of the boards of each of these bodies are required to declare an interest.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In consultation with the local authority associations, we are currently reviewing in the light of the 1991 census data the ways in which the education elements of standard spending assessments reflect the different social and ethnic characteristics of local authorities. The review is not yet complete. Before reaching decisions on the outcome, we shall take into account all the available relevant evidence.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the former members of this House who have been appointed since 1988 by his Department to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will list, in each case, the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment, and the party which each represented as an hon. Member.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is given as follows.
  97

  Name of member

  NDPB and post held

  Salary

  Duration of appointment

  Political party

  Mr. N. Bennett

  Further Education Funding Council (England) Member of the Council

  £4,000 pa honorarium

  3 years

  Conservative

  Mr. M. Fallon

  Higher Education Funding Council (England) Member of the Council

  £4,000 pa honorarium

  2·5 years

  Conservative

  School Leavers
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the expected number of school leavers who will join the labour market in each region in England in July/August.

  Mr. Boswell
  Information on intended destinations of school leavers is no longer collected by the Department. However, the estimated results from the 1992 schools examination survey indicated that 147,000 school leavers in England intended to enter employment, including youth training. The estimated figures for the individual regions are as follows:

  Thousands

  Northern

  13·74

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  19·24

  North Western

  23·80

  East Midland

  12·68

  West Midland

  19·29

  East Anglia

  3·93

  Greater London

  13·87

  Other South East

  28·26

  South Western

  11·79

  ENGLAND

  146·59

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Development Assistance
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official development assistance was provided by the United Kingdom in 1992 as a percentage of gross national product.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  United Kingdom's official development assistance in 1992 amounted to 0·31 per cent. of GNP. This more than maintains Britain's average performance over recent years of 0·30 per cent.

  The ratio includes Britain's official development assistance to developing countries. It does not include assistance to countries in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, which are not included on the Development Assistance Committee list of developing countries, or contributions to the global environment facility and the Montreal protocol multilateral fund.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Trinidad Terms
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government intend to press for the full implementation of the Trinidad terms.

  Mr. Nelson
  The United Kingdom has an excellent record of helping those developing countries with debt problems. It was a direct result of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's initiative for the poorest and most indebted countries following International Monetary Fund-sponsored programmes of reform, that the Paris club of major creditor Governments began implementing the Trinidad terms in December 1991. The recent announcement by the United States Administration of its intention to join the international consensus in implementing debt reduction on Trinidad terms is very welcome.

  But the Government are aware that for some of the most desperate cases the terms as currently applied will not be enough. We are, therefore, taking every opportunity to pursue improvements to the terms with our creditor country colleagues.

  Specifically, we would like to see the degree of concessionality increased to a range of 50 to 80 per cent. on a case-by-case basis for those countries that need it. We would also like to see quicker action on the stock of debt for those countries that already have a proven track record of reform with the IMF. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be raising this issue at the forthcoming Tokyo summit.

  Corporate Taxation (Shipping)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the corporate tax rates and systems of the members of the European Community as they apply specifically to the shipping industry.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Corporate tax systems operating in European Community member states are complex and diverse, and comparisons are notoriously difficult. Lists of all the numerous tax provisions applying to shipping industries in each country are not readily available. Information available on national corporate tax rates on profits of shipping companies in EC countries is as follows:

  Tax rates1 (Per cent.)

  Belgium

  39

  Denmark

  534

  France

  33⅓

  Germany

  236

  Greece

  30

  99

  Tax rates1 (Per cent.)

  Ireland

  410

  Italy

  36

  Luxembourg

  533

  Netherlands

  535

  Portugal

  36

  Spain

  35

  United Kingdom mainstream rate

  33

  United Kingdom small company rate

  25

  1 Companies may also be subject to local income or profits taxes (eg 16·2 per cent. in Italy and averages of 20 per cent. in Germany and 10 per cent. in Luxembourg).

  2 Undistributed profits taxed at 50 per cent.

  3 Ships subject to annual tonnage tax.

  4 Rate applicable to "qualifying shipping activities"; non-qualifying activities taxed at 40 per cent.

  5 Denotes classical system—profits taxed once in hands of company and again in hands of shareholder.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on preparations for the control of drug trafficking at frontiers by 1995.

  Sir John Cope
  Control of drug trafficking at frontiers is the primary responsibility of HM Customs and Excise. Customs' anti-smuggling controls are founded on selective, targeted checks, based on detailed risk assessment, intelligence and the use of indicators. These controls are regularly monitored and evaluated so as to maintain, and wherever possible enhance, their effectiveness, and to allow for refinement in response to changes in the threat posed to the United Kingdom.

  Taxation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many actions special office 2 of the Inland Revenue has brought for non-payment or avoidance of tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The special offices settle their investigations cases by recovery of tax lost, and where appropriate interest and penalties due under the Taxes Acts. Special office 2 settled 83 cases in the year ended 5 April 1993 and it has 176 cases under inquiry at present.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what grades of officers of the Inland Revenue are allowed to make settlement agreements in cases of possible tax avoidance; and if he will place the written guidance to officers covering such matters in the Library.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The agreements in these cases would normally be to settle appeals, which inspectors or other proper officers of the Crown may do under section 54 of the Taxes Management Act, 1970. The grade level of the inspector or other officer responsible would depend on the size and difficulty of the case and could vary from pay bands A to C—formerly principal inspector/grade 5 and below. The officer responsible for handling the case would also deal with any contract agreement with the taxpayer for the payment of unassessed tax, where settlement was reached in this way. There is no written guidance to officers specifically on agreements covering cases of possible tax avoidance, but technical advice is given by head office specialists on many areas of avoidance.
  100
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what internal procedures are in force to decide whether to undertake prosecutions for tax non-payment or avoid-ance; what grade of officer would normally decide such matters; and if he will place the written guidance to officers covering such matters in the Library.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue take proceedings in examples of all categories of serious tax fraud provided there is evidence to the standard of proof required by the criminal courts. Investigation of cases for possible criminal proceedings is the responsibility of officers in parts of the special compliance office. After legal advice from the office of the solicitor of Inland Revenue, in accounts fraud cases decisions to proceed are taken at under secretary level and in other cases at pay band A—formerly principal inspector/grade 5—level. I am arranging for a copy of the board's current order covering such matters to be placed in the Library.

  Inland Revenue (Performance Reviews)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what performance review procedures are in force for special investigation offices of the Inland Revenue; what factors are taken into account in such reviews, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  For staff in the special investigation offices the same procedures apply as in the rest of the Inland Revenue: individual performance is reviewed regularly against objectives set out in the agreement made between job holder and immediate line manager at the beginning of the year. A formal assessment is made at the end of the year. The performance of each special investigation office is regularly reviewed by senior officers from the headquarters of the special compliance office by means of analysis of management information, visits and discussions and scrutiny and quality assessment of casework.

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much Mr. Ernest Stern is to be paid as vice-president of the European bank for reconstruction and development; whether United Kingdom income tax is payable on this salary; and what assessment he has made of the implications of the level of the salary for the vice-president of the European bank for reconstruction and development for the salaries of other senior managers in international institutions.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: Mr. Stern has not been appointed as vice-president of the EBRD.

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 29 June,Official Report, column 455, how many full-time equivalent staff were employed by the Inland Revenue on tax evasion investigations in each year since 1988–89.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: Approximate numbers of staff units were as follows:—

  101

  Year

  Number

  1988–89

  2,900

  1989–90

  3,100

  1990–91

  3,200

  1991–92

  3,400

  1992–93

  3,500

  Council Tax
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints about council tax valuation bandings in the Chelmsford parliamentary constituency have been resolved since 1 April.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: Valuation lists for council tax are maintained in billing authority areas and not by parliamentary constituencies. As at 30 June 1993, 100 proposals seeking alterations to council tax bands have been resolved in the area covered by Chelmsford borough council. With regard to the arrangements for dealing with proposals to alter council tax valuations I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning on Tuesday 29 June, Official Report, column 416.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints have been received about valuations for council tax purposes in the Chelmsford parliamentary constituency since 1 April.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: Valuation lists for council tax are maintained in billing authority areas and not by parliamentary constituencies. As at 30 June 1993, 1,600 proposals seeking alterations to council tax bands have been received in the area covered by Chelmsford borough council. With regard to the arrangement dealing with proposals to alter council tax valuations, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning on Tuesday 29 June, Official Report, column 416.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appeals against banding for the council tax in the area of Waveney district have been determined to date; how many are still awaiting determination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: As at 30 June 1993, 58 proposals seeking alterations to council tax bandings have been resolved in the area covered to Waveney district council and there are 1,112 proposals awaiting determination. With regard to the arrangements for dealing with proposals to alter council tax valuations, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning on Tuesday 29 June, Official Report, column 416.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appeals against valuation for the uniform business rate in the area of Waveney district have been determined since its inception; how many are still awaiting determination; and if he will make a statement.
  102
  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: As at 30 June 1993, 1,117 appeals against assessments in the non-domestic rating list for the area covered by Waveney district council have been resolved. There are 654 awaiting determination.

  Capital Allowances
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the direct effect on revenue in the year 1992–93 had the clauses in chapter II, part II of the Finance (No. 2) Bill of 1993 been brought into effect from the beginning of the 1992–93 tax year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: If the Finance Bill proposals for the taxation of foreign exchange gains and losses had been introduced from April 1992, corporation tax receipts in 1992–93 would not have been affected because mainstream corporation tax is not due for payment until nine months after the end of the accounting period. Accruals of tax would have started to be affected but many of the accounting periods first affected are not yet finished. Also, the tax change may itself have affected the levels of borrowing.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much corporation tax has been repaid in each year since 1986–87 by industry, classified as in table 9.3 of Inland Revenue statistics 1992.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: Information on total repayments of corporation tax was given in my reply to the hon. Member on 28 June, Official Report, column 372. I regret that further information by industry is not available.

  Non-domicile Tax Status
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to discover how many individuals benefit from non-domicile tax status; and how much revenue has been lost to the Exchequer through the availability of this status.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: The answer to the first part of the question could be calculated only at disproportionate cost. Information is not available under the present law to answer the second part of the question.

  Mr. Asil Nadir
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations the holder of his office received from right hon. and hon. Members concerning the conduct of Inland Revenue special office 2's investigation into the affairs of Mr. Asil Nadir.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: I am not aware that any such representations have been received.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria he applied when deciding whether to approve British Nuclear Fuels plc corporate plans from 1985 onwards.
  103
  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 5 July,Official Report, column 36.

  Japan
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representation he has received regarding access for British exports to the Japanese market.

  Mr. Needham
  In recent years, great strides have been made by Japan in opening her markets, but problems persist in a few areas. The Department is in regular contact with the exporters concerned. Like our EC partners, United Kingdom Ministers and officials take every opportunity to impress on Japan the need for unrestricted access to her markets.

  Aid, Rochdale
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the aid given by his Department to firms in the borough of Rochdale.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In the three years ending 30 March 1993, the following sums were paid to firms in the borough of Rochdale:

  £

  Regional Selective Assistance:

  (This represents 103 payments made to about 55 projects).

  3,090,055

  Support for Products Under Research (SPUR):

  One Offer of

  21,187

  Payment made on 5 November 1992 of

  18,009

  Enterprise Initiative Consultancies:

  Number of Initiatives= 132

  —

  Number of Companies Assisted = 108

  —

  Cost of DTI

  523,366

  Company Law Reform
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a list of the members of each of the DTI working groups examining the scope for company law reform.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The following is a list of the external members of the working groups formed to date:

  Financial Assistance for the Purchase of a Company's Own Shares:

  Ms Rosemary Cairns, Mr. Clive Edrupt, Mrs. Wendy Gadd, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mr. William Knight, Mr. Neil Matthewson, Mr. Ronald Paterson, Mr. Stuart Russell.

  Private Companies

  Mr. Robin Bell, Mr. Richard Brown, Ms Rosemary Cairns, Mrs. Judith Freedman, Mr. Jeremy Pope, Mr. Derek Scott, Mr. Christopher Swinson, Mr. Piers Wolf.

  Group Law

  Ms Rosemary Cairns, Ms Harriet Creamer, Mr. Michael Garner, Mr. Michael Levitton, Mr. Stuart Murray, Professor Daniel Prentice, Miss Isobel Sharpe, Mr. Kevin Sweeney, Ms Pauline Wallace.

  Registration of Company Charges

  Mr. Trevor Aldridge QC, Mr. Peter Graham, Mr. Michael Hall, Mr. Bruce Patrick, Mr. Michael Ryden.

  Company Voluntary Arrangements

  Miss Mary Arden QC, Mr. W. G. Bradford, Professor I. Fletcher, Mr. I. Fletcher, Mr. Mark Goldstein, Mr. Mark Homan, Mr. J. Pollard, Mr. H. Rajak.
  104
  I intend to consult widely on proposals for reform enabling everybody concerned to have a full opportunity to comment.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money each country in the European Community has received from the European regional development fund in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The amount of European regional development fund grant received by each member state of the European Community in the years 1987 to 1991 is given in the table. Figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  million ecu, current prices

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Belgium

  23

  30

  41

  44

  46

  Denmark

  17

  10

  15

  19

  11

  Germany

  73

  97

  164

  89

  95

  Greece

  294

  313

  418

  543

  537

  Spain

  345

  544

  980

  1,407

  1,489

  France

  311

  436

  284

  331

  323

  Ireland

  135

  137

  191

  250

  412

  Italy

  564

  597

  787

  910

  711

  Luxembourg

  4

  7

  1

  0

  18

  Netherlands

  20

  13

  29

  33

  35

  Portugal

  223

  331

  397

  452

  971

  United Kingdom

  527

  578

  612

  465

  530

  Total

  2,536

  3,093

  3,919

  4,543

  5,178

  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which regions in the United Kingdom currently benefit from the European regional development fund.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  All regions designated for objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) of the European structural funds are eligible for the European regional development fund. Northern Ireland is designated for objective 1. The areas designated for objective 2 were listed in the Official Journal of the European Communities No. L 112 of 25 April 1989 and No. C 177 of 18 July 1990, and those designated for objective 5(b) in No. L 198 of 12 July 1989.

  In addition Gibraltar and parts of London, Kent and Stoke-on-Trent benefit from the European regional development fund under article 10 of Council regulation (EEC) 4254/88.

  Insurance (Commission Disclosure)
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about commission disclosure in general insurance business; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has received no recent representations specifically on the subject of commission disclosure in general insurance business. The Insurance Brokers Registration Council has a code of conduct, and the Association of British Insurers a code of practice, both of which require commission disclosure in general insurance business by independent intermediaries on request.

  Sellafield (Incidents)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent incidents have been reported from the British Nuclear Fuels reprocessing plant.

  Mr. Eggar
  Details of all incidents at British Nuclear Fuels plc's reprocessing plant at Sellafield are recorded in site logs and published in widely circulated weekly site newsletters. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) to a question from the then Member for Sherwood on 30 April 1987, Official Report, columns 203–4.

  Coal Privatisation
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what Government assistance will be available to support management and employee teams bidding for the privatisation of British Coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  Government support for management and employee teams bidding for the privatisation of British Coal will be at a maximum rate of 50 per cent. of the eligible costs of employing consultants and or advisers. Support for any team will not exceed £200,000.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on issues discussed and decisions taken at the meeting of the European Community's Foreign Affairs Council on 2 July.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I attended a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 2 and 3 July. Subject to a reservation by the Irish Republic, which at present remains outstanding, the Council reached conclusions on the regulations on the future of the European structural funds. The Council also heard a report by the Commission on the state of play in the GATT Uruguay round.

  Subject to the Irish reservation, the outcome on the structural funds was as follows. It is fully satisfactory for the United Kingdom.

  1. The Objective 1 regions, which receive the highest grants, will include Northern Ireland, Merseyside and the whole of the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area, including the Argyll, Bute and West Moray areas, which the European Commission had proposed to omit.

  2. The clear priority of the European Social Fund will remain Objective 3, training for the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed and young people. Expenditure on this will be at least four times greater than expenditure on Objective 4, for training people affected by industrial change, particularly those threatened with unemployment. Moreover the majority of expenditure on Objective 4 will be for people employed in small and medium-sized enterprises.

  3. The introduction of future Community Initiatives, which will be limited to 9 per cent. of the total of the Funds, will be subject to control by a new management committee of Member States. Maritime border areas will also be eligible for assistance.

  4. There will be new simplified procedures for the administration of the Funds, balanced by a new requirement for cost-benefit appraisal and for streng-thened monitoring and evaluation to improve value for money. Assistance will henceforth be allocated where appraisal shows commensurate benefits.

  106
  The total size of the funds, up to 1999, had already been settled by the Edinburgh European Council. If the Irish reservation is withdrawn it should be possible for the Council to adopt the reguations definitively at its meeting on 19 and 20 July. But several matters remain to be settled before the new arrangements can be implemented, with effect from 1 January 1994:

  1. No firm decisions have yet been taken on the financial allocations to any region.

  2. The maps of Objective 2 and 5(b) areas have to be drawn. This will be done by a new procedure based on national proposals and taking due account of national priorities. This represents a major improvement on the present system. The Government intends to launch this procedure in the United Kingdom as soon as the regulations have been adopted definitively.

  3. The United Kingdom's and other Member States' plans for the future use of the Funds will have to be drawn up and approved.

  4. The Council is to discuss the future content of the Community Initiatives during the Autumn.

  The Commission's report on the Uruguay round covered in particular progress in the current quadrilateral talks between the Community, the United States, Canada and Japan. The Council fully supported the Commission's efforts to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion by the end of the year.

  Council of Energy Ministers
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on issues discussed and decisions taken at the meeting of the European Community's Council of Energy Ministers on 25 June.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Council considered several major issues and received reports from the Commission on other matters of interest. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council reached political agreement on the ALTENER programme for the promotion of renewable energy sources and the SAVE directive, an energy efficiency measure. Formal adoption will take place at an early date.

  The Commission also reported on progress in implementing the Community's nuclear safety assistance programmes to the countries of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The Council called for the urgent implementation of practical measures to improve safety at nuclear plants in the region.

  Progress was made on the Commission's proposals for a new coal state aids decisions to replace the existing one which expires at the end of this year. The United Kingdom emphasised the importance of moving towards economic viability in the light of international market prices for coal and the Council agreed on the need for the Community's coal industry to make progress in that direction through reduction of production costs and capacities in order to achieve degression of aids.

  Under the heading of the internal energy market, the Council discussed the proposed directives on liberalisation of the gas and electricity markets. The Commission outlined new ideas on access to networks in response to the invitation by the Council on 30 November to modify its proposals. The Council agreed that discussions should continue while the opinion of the European Council is awaited. The Commission also gave a preview of the second report on the internal energy market. The Council discussed the hydrocarbons licensing directive and agreed

  107
  that outstanding issues should be resolved with the intention of achieving a common position under the Belgian presidency.

  The Council also considered the progress of negotiations on the European energy charter.

  The Commission reported on forthcoming proposals for a directive on the energy efficiency requirements for household refrigerators and freezers and for guidelines on trans-European energy networks. The Presidency reported on discussions in ECOFIN on the proposed CO2/energy tax.

  Warren Spring Laboratory
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to relocating Warren Spring Laboratory to share facilities with the Building Research Establishment at Garston.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 29 June 1993]: None.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what conditions of service will be offered to Warren Spring Laboratory staff who are transferred to the Atomic Energy Authority.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 29 June 1993]: The staff will become employees of the Atomic Energy Authority. The Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply to this transfer. This means that those staff who transfer to AEA will take with them their current DTI terms and conditions.

  Training
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many non-United Kingdom owned companies and subsidiaries of non-United Kingdom owned companies are providing training services in the United Kingdom.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply. This information is not available.

EMPLOYMENT

  Market Testing
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much the market-testing programme has cost his Department since November 1992.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Employment Department group's market-testing programme is being developed within existing resources.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment to whom each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department is responsible; whether the public bodies or their members in each case are subject to(a) surcharge, (b) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (c) scrutiny by the Audit Commission or National Audit Office, (d) the statutory provisions for open Government which apply to local authorities, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens' charters; and whether the chairpersons and members of the boards of each of these bodies are required to declare an interest.
  108
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The following executive non-departmental public bodies are sponsored by this Department:

  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

  Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members

  Construction Industry Training Board

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Health and Safety Commission

  Health and Safety Executive

  National Council for Vocational Qualifications

  Remploy Ltd.

  Wages Councils

  Women's National Commission

  With the exception of the special arrangements which exist in relation to the Health and Safety Commission and Executive, all are responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  The Health and Safety Commission is responsible to my right hon. Friend and other Secretaries of State which have a relevant interest, and the Health and Safety Executive is responsible to the Commission.

  (a) These bodies and their members are not subject to surcharge;

  (b) The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, Commisioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members, Equal Opportunities Commission, Health and Safety Commission and Health and Safety Executive are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner as they come within the ambit of schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, as amended;

  (c) the bodies either subject their accounts to full audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General, head of the National Audit Office, or, in the case of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and Remploy Ltd., provide him with access to their books and records;

  (d) none of these bodies is subject to any statutory provisions for open government which apply to local authorities;

  (e) performance indicators are agreed as part of the normal departmental planning process; and

  (f) citizens charter provisions are agreed where appropriate.

  No register of interests is kept by the Department.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about objective 4 of the European social fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: The Department has consulted those organisations involved in the management of projects supported by the European social fund—ESF—in the United Kingdom about the reform of the European structural funds, including the proposed new objective 4. Most respondents shared the Government's view that the European social fund should continue to be concentrated on assisting the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed and young people. The reform of the European structural funds was discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council on 2 July where, subject to an Irish reservation on the overall package, it was agreed that training for the unemployed should remain the priority for expenditure under the ESF.
  109
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any proposals to secure the future funding of voluntary organisations following the proposed reduction in the European social fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]; Across the European Community resources allocated to the European structural funds, including the European social fund—ESF—are set to increase by 40 per cent. over the period 1993–99. Training and employment measures supported by the ESF are selected on an open and competitive basis to ensure value for money.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the absolute number and percentage of the labour force unemployed for(a) under three months, (b) over three months, (c) over six months, (d) over 12 months, (e) over two years, (f) over three years and (g) over four years in each OECD and European Community country since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: The available information can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Unemployment data, on the International Labour Organisation basis, for particular durations are published by the statistical office of the European Communities—EUROSTAT—in its annual "Labour Force Survey Results" copies of which are available in the Library.

  Name

  Title of post

  Salary

  Duration

  Party

  Lord Mackay of Ardbreknish (John Jackson Mackay)

  Chairman1, Sea Fish Industry Authority

  £28,780 p.a.

  3 years from 1 October 1990

  Conservative (Argyle and Bute, 1983–87)

  Sir Peter Mills

  Chairman,South West Regional Panel (following reorganisation in 1992 became Chairman of new South West Panel)

  None

  3 years from 1 August 1988 3 years from 1 August 1991 (resigned June 1993)

  Conservative (Torrington, 1964–74, Devon, West, 1974–83, Torridge and West Devon, 1983–87)

  Andrew Stewart

  Chairman2, Agricultural Training Board

  £15,600 p.a.

  3 years from 1 October 1992

  Conservative (Sherwood, 1983–92)

  David Myles, CBE

  Member2, Potato Marketing Board

  —3

  3 years from 1 January 1988 3 years from 1 January 1991

  Conservative (Banff, 1979–83)

  1 Appointed jointly with Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  2 Appointed jointly with Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales.

  3 As set by Potato Marketing Board.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers have a dispute or contested claim for set-aside for the most recently available period.

  Mr. Jack
  A total of 28 claims under the five and one year set-aside schemes for the 1991–92 period are currently subject to dispute. Claims for land set-aside under the new arable area payments scheme are still being processed.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Powers of Entry
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers her officials have, and are contemplating, to enter farmland without prior notification.

  Mr. Jack
  As far as the integrated administration and control system is concerned, the Control System Regulations 1993—SI 1993/1317—provide authorised persons with powers of entry at all reasonable hours for the purpose of carrying out control measures required to meet EC obligations. In using these powers, we shall have regard to the requirements of the EC regulation, which are designed to combat fraud, but will try to minimise unnecessary inconvenience to farmers.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the former Members of this House who have been appointed since 1988 by her Department to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if she will list, in each case, the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment, and the party which each represented as an hon. Member.

  Mr. Jack
  Of the new appointments made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food since 1988 and listed in "Public Bodies 1992", our records show that four are former members of the House of Commons. The details requested by the hon. Member are as follows:

  Equine and Bovine Tests
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action her Department is taking to ensure that the Czech and Polish authorities meet the costs before 1 August of the owners and farmers who have suffered as a consequence of the import of animals testing sero-positive to equine viral arteritis and foot and mouth disease.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My officials have met representatives of the Czech and Polish veterinary authorities on a number of occasions and there have also been exchanges of correspondence between them in respect
  111
  of the importation of foot and mouth disease—FMD—seropositive animals from the Czech republic and from Poland.

  The Czech authorities accept that the animals concerned must have been vaccinated against FMD and have agreed to accept the return of any of the affected animals. My officials have made clear to the Czech authorities on a number of occasions our view that they should ensure a fair and satisfactory outcome to the problem.

  With the help of the Polish authorities, my officials are continuing to investigate how cattle vaccinated against FMD came to be exported from Poland with certification claiming that the animals had never been vaccinated.

  It cannot be concluded from the evidence available so far that the stallion imported last September from Poland is necessarily the primary source of the current outbreak of equine viral arteritis. Nevertheless, my officials have now written to the Polish veterinary authorities informing them of the possible link with the imported stallion and seeking information about the disease status of the stud of origin in Poland at the time the stallion was imported.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the same veterinary certification procedures have been applicable to farmed livestock originating from Poland as for horses.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The certification procedures are basically the same, with official certification being required for horses and farmed livestock imported from third countries. However, the detailed animal health conditions applicable to such imports are different.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to whom each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department is responsible; whether the public bodies or their members in each case are subject to(a) surcharge, (b) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (c) scrutiny by the Audit Commission or National Audit Office, (d) the statutory provisions for open government which apply to local authorities, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charters; and whether the chairpersons and members of the boards of each of these bodies are required to declare an interest.

  Mr. Jack
  Of the executive NDPBs listed in "Public Bodies" 1992 as coming under the aegis of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the regional flood defence committees now report to the National Rivers Authority and have not, therefore, been covered in this reply. Of the remainder, all are responsible to my right hon. Friend the Minister with the exception of the Agricultural Wages Board—AWB—and agricultural wages committees—AWC—which were set up to be statutorily independent. The AWB reports its proceedings each year to the Minister for inclusion in her annual report to Parliament on agricultural wages: the AWCs function in accordance with the rules of procedure set out in statutory regulations. None of the bodies or their members is subject to surcharge and only the agricultural wages committees and the Agricultural Training Board can be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner. There is no relationship between the NDPBs and the Audit Commission. All the bodies save the AWB and AWCs are 112
  subject to scrutiny either statutorily or by agreement by NAO. NDPBs are not subject to statutory provisions for open government which apply to local authorities. All the bodies, with the exception of the AWB and AWCs, produce performance indicators. All public servants are subject to the citizens charter and NDPBs are being encouraged to adopt charter principles. Appointments of chairpersons and members of boards are made in accordance with the NDPB guide for departments to avoid any conflict of interests.

  Food Premises
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the statistical information on the inspection of food premises for 1992 as required by the EC Commission under directive 89/397 is available.

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom figures for inspection of food premises during 1992 have been forwarded to the EC Commission as required by directive 89/397. They are based on returns received from local authorities. A copy of these statistics has been placed in the Library of the House together with extracts covering England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively. Returns from individual authorities are available for inspection at my Department; copies can be provided for a small charge to cover expenses.

  Equine Viral Arteritis
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 15 June,Official Report, column 482, what steps she is taking to stop the spread of equine viral arteritis by casual contact including aerial transmission; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  [pursuant to the reply, 25 June 1993, c. 327–28]: I am pleased to announce that the outstanding quality points identified by the Veterinary Products Committee at its meeting on 24 June in respect of an application for an inactivated equine viral arteritis vaccine, have since been resolved and an animal test certificate now granted. The first batch of the product is currently undergoing final testing before clearance for use.

  The animal test trial design is based on the current geographical spread of the disease and the known epidemiology of the infection. The vaccine will therefore be made available through veterinary surgeons on application to the certificate holder, for use in stallions in England, and in mares in those counties of England where there is a recognised risk of infection. Premises where vaccine is to be used will be notified to the licensing authority.

DEFENCE

  Overseas Defence Costs
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution was received in the latest available year from the Governments of the Channel islands, the Isle of Man and Bermuda to the cost of defence.

  Mr. Hanley
  No contributions to the cost of defence have been received from the Government of Bermuda in
  113
  recent years. As to the contributions made by the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office on 2 July, Official Report, column 635.

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the market-testing programme has cost his Department since November 1992.

  Mr. Aitken
  The market-testing programme is largely the responsibility of the management areas concerned: some staff are dedicated to market testing but most carry out this function as part of their normal duties The information requested could not, therefore, be identified in each area without incurring disproportionate cost. However, the cost of the central market testing service, which offers advice and assistance to managers, is about £475,000.

  Menwith Hill Station
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost to his Department for policing the interior of Menwith Hill station.

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

  Rosyth Dockyard
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names and dates of commissioning of those warships for which the refit contract is to be allocated to Rosyth dockyard in the years up until 2005; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) on 29 June,Official Report, column 492.

  Rosyth and Devonport Dockyards
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he proposes to introduce primary legislation for full privatisation of Rosyth and Devonport dockyards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  No decisions have been taken on arrangements to succeed the present term contracts for the operation of the royal dockyards.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to whom each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department is responsible: whether the public bodies or their members in each case are subject to(a) surcharge, (b) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (c) scrutiny by the Audit Commission or National Audit Office, (d) the statutory provisions for open government which apply to local authorities, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charters; and whether the chairpersons and members of the boards of each of these bodies are required to declare an interest.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested about the executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by my Department is as follows:114

  (a) None is subject to surcharge;

  (b) None is within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration;

  (c) Except for the Services Sound and Vision Corporation—SSVC—accounts for all bodies are subject to audit by the National Audit Office. An external auditor does however audit the accounts of the SSVC and the Comptroller and Auditor General has access to the SSVC's books and records;

  (d) None is subject to the statutory provisions for open government applicable to local authorities;

  (e) Performance indicators have not been adopted within the service museums, but they are being addressed and it is intended to introduce indicators in the near future. Both the SSVC and the Oil and Pipeline Agency have performance indicators;

  (f) The principles of ensuring an accountable, responsive and quality service to the public, directly or indirectly, apply to all publicly funded organisations.

  Appointees, except for those as trustees of the service museums are required to declare any personal interest.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  University College, Swansea
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will publish the report by Sir Michael Davies into complaints relating to University college, Swansea.

  Mr. Newton
  Sir Michael Davies's report to the visitor of the university of Wales on matters relating to the University college of Swansea has been forwarded formally to the college. Copies have also been made available to those who made submissions to his inquiry either as individuals or as representatives. I do not proposes to arrange for the report actually to be published.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the names, occupations and current employers of those who currently hold positions in each public body to which he makes appointments; if he will make a statement on the considerations taken into account when making such appointments; and if he will list details of the posts and salaries or allowances payable which have changed since the publication of "Public Bodies 1992".

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 25 June 1993]: As Lord President, I am responsible for the appointment of the panel of experts from which members are drawn to sit on registered homes tribunals. The information requested in respect of the 51 members is not held centrally and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. Panel members are selected primarily on the basis of their experience in social work, medicine or nursing. Since the publication of "Public Bodies 1992", the daily allowance payable to a member sitting on a tribunal has been increased from £138 to £141.

HEALTH

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions she or her representatives have had regarding reumuneration of national health service employees.
  115
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Settlements have recently been reached for pay increases for some 90 per cent. of the national health service work force.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trained social workers are currently employed by local authority social services departments.

  Mr. Bowis
  From the latest information available—"Local Authority Social Services Statistics: Staff of Local Authority Social Services Departments 30 September 1991: England"—there are some 25,500 whole-time equivalent field social work posts in local authorities—an increase of 36 per cent. over the 10 years to 1991—with about 90 per cent. professionally qualified.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures for national health service waiting lists.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Provisional figures for the quarter ending 31 March are available in the Library. These show that the patients charter guarantee is being met and there are no patients waiting longer than two years for treatment in any region. In addition, no patient has to wait longer than 18 months for hip, knee or cataract surgery.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing waiting times for patients in the South Western region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Provisional figures for March 1993 show that, over the last two years, South Western regional health authority has reduced the number of patients waiting over a year from 14,500 to only 295.

  NHS Performance Indicators
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health is she will make a statement on the publication of comparative performance indicators in the national health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I attach considerable importance to developing the use of comparative performance indicators in the national health service. They are a valuable tool in enabling standards in all areas to rise to the levels of the best. A considerable amount of comparative performance information is already available and the task now is to ensure that it is spread and used more widely to inform choices about health care. To that end, I am pleased to say that the first hospital league tables will be published in June 1994.

  Free Dental Treatment
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her current plans for the future of free dental treatment for pregnant women and nursing mothers.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of free dental treatment for pregnant women and nursing mothers.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's review of the remuneration of general dental practitioners suggested 116
  that pregnant and nursing women should no longer be automatically exempt from dental charges. We have consulted widely on his report and shall announce our proposals in due course.

  GP Lists
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average number of patients on each family doctor's list(a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At 1 October 1979, the average number of patients on family doctors' lists in England was 2,286; the figure for 1 October 1992 is 1,922.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for the further development of the general practitioner fund-holding initiative.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Fund holding is an acknowledged success and clearly delivers benefits to patients. We want to see these benefits extended as far as possible. Almost 3,000 general practitioners joined the scheme this year, taking the total to over 6,000. Around 3,000 more are preparing to join next year. We are also looking at ways to encourage more smaller inner-city and rural practices to join the scheme.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration she is giving to extending fund holding to smaller general practices.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have always encouraged small practices to group together to join the scheme. Seventy such groups have already done so and around 150 more are preparing to join from April 1994.

  Terrence Higgins Trust
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has carried out an investment appraisal into the funds donated by her Department to the Terrence Higgins Trust.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health carried out a full financial appraisal of the Terrence Higgins Trust in 1988. The trust's financial position continues to be carefully monitored each year in connection with its section 64 grant award.

  Ambulances (Paramedics)
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress towards placing a paramedic on each front-line ambulance.

  Mr. Sackville
  In December last year, I announced that the paramedic target was to be brought forward by one year to the end of 1995. I am pleased to say that ambulance services and health authorities have responded positively and they are well on the way to achieving the required target.

  Post-operative Care
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce charges for post-operative care in the national health service.
  117
  Mr. Sackville
  There are no such plans.

  Specialist Medical Training
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the specialist medical training review contained in the Calman committee report.

  Mr. Sackville
  The working group chaired by the Chief Medical Officer was established last year at my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's request to consider specialist medical training in the light of the EC medical directives. The group has produced a report containing comprehensive recommendations with the twin aims of meeting the requirements of European Community law while ensuring that standards of specialist training are maintained and, indeed, improved. The period of consultation on the report concluded last week and comments from an extensive range of interested parties will be considered before a decision on implementation is reached.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made to improve the health and social functioning of mentally ill people in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Bowis
  In line with the three strategies set out in "The Health of the Nation", we have taken a number of steps towards improving information and understanding; developing comprehensive local services; and continuing the development of good practice. This includes funding the first national survey of psychiatric illness; issuing the "Mental Illness Key Area Handbook"; distributing good practice guidance on the care programme approach and establishing a mental health task force.

  We will be producing a report on activity in the mental illness key area of "The Health of the Nation" in the autumn. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will consider the need for further measures to deal with mental illness within the community care programme with particular reference to schizophrenia.

  Mr. Bowis
  We introduced the care programme approach in April 1991 to provide better co-ordinated care in the community for people with a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia. The inclusion of mental illness as one of the five key areas in the Government's strategy for health. "The Health of the Nation" has given impetus to the work being done by health and local authorities to improve community mental health services. "The Health of the Nation" sets a broad and demanding target of improving the health and social welfare of people with serious mental illness such as schizophrenia and builds on the care programme approach.

  A departmental review team has been at work since January examining current provisions in the Mental Health Act 1983 for the care in the community of people with serious mental illness. It is considering the need for the introduction of a new power and whether changes in the law are necessary. The review team will report its findings to the Secretary of State in the summer.

  Limited List Prescribing
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a further statement on the limited list proposals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We expect the Advisory Committee on National Health Service Drugs to complete its review of drugs in the categories of the extended selected list scheme by the end of the year, and for regulations to bring these changes into effect to be laid before Parliament.

  HIV
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with the George House Trust in Manchester regarding the spread of HIV in the north-west; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The George House Trust has corresponded with the Department of Health about section 64 grant aid and the use and allocation of earmarked AIDS moneys made available by health and local authorities. The Department's view is that local organisations such as the George House Trust should negotiate funding agreements with health and local authorities.

  Infant and Perinatal Mortality
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest information about the rates of infant and perinatal mortality in the north-western region.

  Mr. Sackville
  For the north-western region, the 1992 infant mortality rate was 7·7 per 1,000 live births and the perinatal mortality rate was 8·5 per 1,000 total births. These are the latest figures in what represents a continuing downward trend.

  It should be noted that on 1 October 1992 the legal definition of a stillbirth was altered from a baby born dead after 28 completed weeks' gestation or more to one born dead after 24 completed weeks' gestation or more.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest information about the rates of infant and perinatal mortality in the Mersey region.

  Mr. Sackville
  In Mersey region, the 1992 infant mortality rate was 5·7 per 1,000 live births, compared to the 1991 rate of 6·7, and the perinatal mortality rate was 6·6 per 1,000 total births, compared to the 1991 rate of 7·1.

  It should be noted that on 1 October 1992 the legal definition of a stillbirth was altered from a baby born dead after 28 completed weeks' gestation or more to one born dead after 24 completed weeks' gestation or more.

  Project 2000
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money will be available in 1993–94 to fund the Project 2000 initiative for nurses; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  An extra £114 million is available to fund Project 2000 in 1993–94 in addition to the existing resources for nurse training and education.

  NHS Management Costs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the capital and revenue cost of the national health service management executive and each regional health authority in each of the last five years; and what are the projected costs for the next two years.

  Table 1

  NHSME expenditure

  Year

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93 (estimated)

  1993–94 (allocation)

  Running costs (£)

  29,933,505

  29,402,541

  42,883,317

  32,939,954

  Capital (£)

  339,000

  483,712

  511,745

  6,415

  Note: Figures are not adjusted for inflation and exlcude accommodation and related costs.

  Expenditure on headquarters administration by regional health authorities for the financial years 1987–88 to 1990–91 is shown in table 2.

  Figures derived from RHAs' 1991–92 annual accounts are shown in table 3. The 1991–92 figures are not comparable with those for the earlier years and should be interpreted with caution. Simple comparison between authorities is misleading because RHAs devolved their non-core functions at varying times and bore different costs on their regional budgets.

  Relevant capital costs are not readily available.

  Table 2

  Regional Health authorities expenditure on headquarters administration £000

  RHA

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Northern

  6,146

  6,236

  7,475

  9,329

  Yorkshire

  8,675

  8,962

  10,706

  13,158

  Trent

  11,963

  12,648

  11,498

  11,797

  East Anglian

  6,220

  7,309

  8,140

  11,487

  N. W. Thames

  5,919

  7,361

  9,119

  12,110

  N. E. Thames

  10,237

  11,130

  13,065

  15,335

  S. E. Thames

  10,733

  12,347

  15,044

  16,516

  S. W. Thames

  10,388

  11,103

  13,720

  15,234

  Wessex

  4,436

  4,891

  6,244

  8,578

  Oxford

  3,334

  3,639

  4,704

  6,266

  South Western

  5,296

  6,180

  8,000

  10,556

  West Midlands

  13,318

  13,946

  18,019

  27,353

  Mersey

  4,020

  4,440

  6,044

  6,336

  North Western

  13,149

  12,805

  12,356

  13,634

  Source: annual accounts of regional health authorities. (Figures not adjusted for inflation).

  Table 3

  Regional health authorities: Expenditure on administration, purchasing and other expenses 1991–92

  Regional health authority

  £ thousand

  Northern

  18,715

  Yorkshire

  164,532

  Trent

  18,169

  East Anglian

  8,003

  North West Thames

  19,582

  North East Thames

  31,872

  South East Thames

  16,519

  South West Thames

  13,133

  Wessex

  19,974

  Oxford

  26,741

  South Western

  15,546

  West Midlands

  22,338

  Mersey

  23,961

  North Western

  12,952

  120
  Mr. Sackville
  Expenditure figures for the national health service management executive (NHSME) are shown in table 1. The distribution of functions between the NHSME and other parts of the Department of Health is evolving from year to year and figures cannot, therefore, be directly compared from one year to the next. Figures are not available prior to 1990–91, nor for future years —allocations have not been made beyond 1993–94.

  1 See Note 3 to the tables.

  Notes:

  1. Headquarters administration covers the total current—revenue—expenditure on the pay and accommodation costs of staff of all disciplines, including general and senior managers, and their support staff employed at regional health authority—RHA—headquarters levels.

  2. The figures for the years prior to 1991–92 vary between regional health authorities, as regions were managed in an integrated way and the balance of management between regional health authorities and their respective district health authorities—DHAs—differed between regions. The figures were also influenced by other factors including differences in the geographic size of regions, in the numbers of district health authorities they included and in the extent to which regional health authorities directly managed operational services.

  3. Following the implementation of the national health service reforms, the role of regional health authorities is changing and this has a major impact on the figures for 1991–92. There are significant variations in the extent to which regional health authorities have retained or devolved management, support and operational services functions and in the extent to which their costs are borne or recharged to users. Some regional health authorities are directly involved in the purchaser function while the figures for others include additional significant costs—notably the payments of funds for nursing and other staff training to health providers.

  Dementia
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of carers looking after younger people with dementia have access to special services.

  Mr. Bowis
  The needs of carers will be assessed under the new community care arrangements at the same time as those of the dementia sufferers whom they look after.

  The detailed information requested is not available centrally.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the equivalent at current prices of the prescription charge in force on 18 October 1964.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is £1·05.

  Joint Prostheses
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the major joint prostheses that have been approved by her Department for use by surgeons within the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department does not have a scheme for the approval of individual joint prostheses.
  121
  The medical devices directorate within the Department, operates a voluntary manufacturer registration scheme. This scheme identifies manufacturers whose facilities and practices enable them to manufacture to a consistent standard of quality and who are able to give declarations of compliance with safety and performance standards. All major manufacturers of joint prostheses are registered under this scheme. The national health service is advised to buy these devices only from registered sources.

  Eye Tests
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of people over the age of 60, 65 and 70 years are eligible for an NHS eye examination.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally as not all the categories of exemption can be broken down into age bands.

  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) the average cost of a visit to a hospital ophthalmic out-patient department and (b) the current fee payable to an optometrist and an ophthalmic medical practitioner for an NHS eye examination.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1991–92, the average total cost per ophthalmology out-patient attendance was approximately £39.

  The current national health service sight test fees payable to optometrists and ophthalmic medical prac-titioners are £12·75 and £10·15 respectively.

  Nurses (Pregnancies)
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses who have left NHS employment as a result of pregnancy since 1987 have subsequently returned to NHS employment.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trained nurses have left employment with the NHS in each of the last six years as a result of pregnancy.

  Mr. Sackville
  The table shows the available information.

  Persons leaving the NHS who have departed for reasons of maternity

  Year ending 31 March

  19881

  19891

  Management and Tutorial Grades

  30

  20

  Registered Nurses and Health Visitors

  1,110

  1,150

  Enrolled Nurses

  780

  600

  Midwives

  220

  190

  Student Nurses

  150

  110

  Student Midwives

  20

  30

  Other Nursing Staff

  670

  680

  Total Nursing and Midwifery

  3,010

  2,800

  Year ending 31 March

  19901

  19911

  Senior Nursing Grades

  10

  20

  Health Visitors (to G)

  40

  40

  Midwives

  160

  110

  Scales C to G (excluding Midwives and Health Visitors)

  1,300

  810

  122

  Year ending 31 March

  19901

  19911

  Scales A and B

  410

  300

  Student Midwives

  20

  10

  Other Nursing Staff

  80

  60

  Total Nursing and Midwifery

  2,030

  1,350

  1 All figures have been rounded to the nearest ten.

  Notes:

  1. The data necessary to identify leavers due to pregnancy were not collected centrally after 1991.

  2. The format of the data collection was changed between 1989 and 1990, consequently the listing of staff groups for 1990 and 1991 differ from those given for 1988 and 1989.

  3. For year ending 31 March 1988 and 1989 information was not available from II data suppliers (regional health authority headquarters (RHA HQ), district health authorities (DHAs) and the London ambulance service (LAS)). Information for 1991 excludes 27 data suppliers (RHA HQs, DHAs and LAS) who either did not supply data or data were unusable.

  4. Some 60 per cent. (1988), 59 per cent. (1989), 57 per cent. (1990) and 58 per cent. (1991) of all nursing and midwifery leavers to the national health service were recorded as "Voluntary Resignation". Source of data: KM46 return 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Chiropractors
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce legislation for the regulation of chiropractors.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no such plans. We understand, however, that the chiropractic profession is looking to secure the support of an hon. Member to introduce a private Member's Bill during the next Session.

  Supraregional Centres
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make available a summary of the funding levels of activity agreed for 1993–94 with centres designated to provide supraregional services, following her announcement of 23 December 1992, press release H92/467.

  Mr. Sackville
  A summary of this information has been placed in the Library as an addendum to the document "Supra regional services 1993–94: announcement by the Secretary of State for Health".

  Medical Negligence Claims
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 8 June,Official Report, columns 236–37, if she will give the membership and remit of the joint Department of Health/national health service working group on medical negligence claims in the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  The terms of reference of the joint departmental/national health service working group on the financial arrangements for clinical negligence are:"To consider the issues, opportunity and risks involved in setting up a mutual insurance scheme under Section 21 of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990. To prepare a specification for a tender document inviting proposals by open tender process for the management of such a scheme and to consider the merits of each proposal and recommend a management company.
  To consider, in parallel with work on the scheme, any other arrangements in the area of clinical negligence, risk management and claims management which may be required."

  The working group is composed of officials from the Department and representatives from regional health

  123
  authorities, NHS trust bodies and independent NHS trusts; NHS representatives provide a wide range of practical experience in the legal, financial and risk aspects of clinical negligence.

  BST Milk
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been conducted on the likely effects of bovine somatotropin milk on diabetics; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are not aware of any research specifically on this subject.

  All cows' milk contains IGF-1, an insulin-like growth factor. Administering artificially produced bovine somatotropin to dairy cows results in marginally increased levels of IGF-1 in their milk.

  Prescribed items with a net ingredient cost of less than (a) 40 pence, (b) 60 pence, (c) 80 pence and (d). £1·00 dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors in England in 1992.

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  Net Ingredient Cost less than (pence)

  40

  60

  80

  100

  Number of items dispensed (thousands)

  32,690

  49,753

  61,449

  73,937

  Percentage of all prescribed items

  8·5

  12·9

  15·9

  19·1

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many inquiries there have been to the family credit helpline since April.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) on 5 July at column 40.

  Income Support
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of single women aged 18 to 24 years in receipt of income support are also in receipt of housing benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest available figures are those for 1991. At that time approximately 48 per cent. of women aged 18 to 24 in receipt of income support were also receiving housing benefit.

  Notes:

  1. Income support statistics annual inquiry May 1991.

  2. Housing benefit and community charge benefit management information system May 1991.

  3. Percentages rounded to nearest whole figure.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many 16-year-olds on youth training schemes receive an income support top-up of £5·30 in addition to their training allowance; and how much are the administrative costs of each income support claim.

  Mr. Burt
  The requested information is not available as top-up payments are not separately identifiable from other income support payments. The cost of administering claims for income support is an average of £6·44 per claim. This cost is not constrained to a single week of benefit payment.
  124
  IGF-1 does not have the same hormonal action as insulin, nor does it interfere with the action of insulin, and is not absorbed from the gut. It should therefore pose no risk to diabetics.

  Prescribed Items (Cost)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated percentage of prescribed items dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors which cost less than(a) 40p, (b) 60p, (c) 80p and (d) £1·00.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 July 1993, columns 647–48]: I regret that the table in the previous reply did not indicate that the figures for the number of items dispensed are in thousands. A revised table is as follows.

  Young People's Income
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the income per week of a single 18-year-old, who is paying £30 per week rent and who is(a) a student and (b) unemployed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  On the assumption that insufficient contributions had been paid to give title to unemployment benefit, a lone, unemployed 18-year-old with a rent liability of £30 per week would normally be entitled to income support of £34·80 per week and would, through housing benefit, receive up to 100 per cent. of his rent, less any ineligible items. This equates to about £64·80 per week.

  An 18-year-old following a full-time course of higher education, but otherwise in the same circumstances, would not normally be eligible for income support of housing benefit but would receive support through the educational maintenance system. During the period of study, the standard maintenance grant outside London, for the coming academic year, equates to £59·60 per week over 38 weeks, with income available from the full-year student loan of £15·38 per week. This equates to about £74·98 per week.

  In addition, if a student in higher education faces particular financial difficulties he may be able to receive assistance from the access funds. The access funds are administered on a discretionary basis by the educational establishments.

  It is not possible to estimate students' income during the long vacation because some students will find work during that period.

  Maintenance Allowance Assessments
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change the process of maintenance allowance assessments to ensure that
  125
  mothers who are out of work and wishing to receive an assessment do not have to wait longer than mothers who are in work.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Agency is introducing the new child support maintenance arrangements from scratch and it would have been unrealistic to take on cases over a four-year period.

  Parents with care who do not receive income support, family credit or disability working allowance and do not have an existing court order or other written maintenance agreement may apply to the agency immediately. Those with an order or agreement will be taken on by the agency between April 1996 and March 1997: in the interim, they may apply to a court for a variation in their order or agreement.

  Parents with care who receive income support will be taken on over the three years to April 1996. Those who make a new claim to benefit will be taken on immediately. Existing cases will be taken on when there is a change of circumstances which affects maintenance or, if there is no such change, on a random basis.

  Changes of circumstances do not affect the benefit payable to parents with care who receive family credit or disability working allowance since awards are fixed for six months. These cases will be asked to apply to the agency when they make a renewal claim—and are therefore new claimants—so take on of this group will be completed before the end of 1993.

  We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which groups with incomes below income support levels are ineligible for housing benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  In the main, most people in registered residential care and nursing homes, and the majority of full-time students are ineligible, regardless of income.

  Crisis Loan Claim
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the administration costs of a crisis loan claim.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to him on 21 April at columns 140–41.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what revised medical criteria will be used to define an individual's incapacity for work for the purpose of invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  No decisions have been made.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much of the total of suspended invalidity benefit payments has been withheld to date, pending the hearing of the appeal against the social security commissioner's decision; and how many women have had their benefit withheld in each constituency.
  126
  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to whom the Occupational Pensions Board is responsible: whether it or its members are subject to(a) surcharge, (b) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (c) scrutiny by the Audit Commission or National Audit Office, (d) the statutory provisions for open government which apply to local authorities, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charters; and whether the chairpersons and members of the boards of each of these bodies are required to declare an interest.

  Mr. Hague
  The Occupational Pensions Board—OPB—is an independent statutory body established by the Social Security Act 1973. It is composed of a chairman, deputy chairman and up to 12 other members, appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The board has an executive office whose officials are made available by the Secretary of State.

  The OPB is not subject to a surcharge, nor is it listed in schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, as among the bodies subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. It is subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office under the National Audit Act 1983. The OPB is not subject to the provisions for open government which apply to local authorities, not to performance indicators, but is committed to the principles of the citizens charter. The board's constitution requires the chairman, deputy chairman and other members of the board to declare an interest, whether financial or otherwise, in any issue under consideration and to withdraw from the meeting when there is a serious conflict of interest.

  Retirement Pension Ages
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his current estimate of the likely date of the hearing of the appeal against the social security commissioner's decision in relation to the incompatibility with European Community law of the different state retirement pension ages of men and women and its implication for access to invalidity benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The appeal against the commissioner's decision—CS/27/91—has been listed by the Court of Appeal for hearing on either 26 or 27 July. This case concerns the rate of invalidity pension payable to claimants over state pension age the upper age limit for entitlement to invalidity allowance. The compatibility with European Community law of different state pension ages for men and women is not an issue in the commissioner's decision. EC law permits unequal state pension ages. Other forms of discrimination in the benefits system are also permissible if they are necessarily linked to that difference.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.
Lord Gifford—Took the Oath.
Lord Noel-Buxton—Took the Oath.

Bone Marrow Treatment Unit: Closure
Lord Howell Lord Howell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there was consultation concerning the decision not to transfer the bone marrow treatment unit from Westminster Children's hospital to the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital; what has happened to the medical team which formerly operated the unit at the Westminster Hospital; and when and where the unit will be reinstituted in London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, wide consultation took place on the transfer of the Westminster Children's Hospital to the new £230 million Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. The North West Thames Regional Health Authority admits that it did not consult on the transfer of the bone marrow transplantation service. There are eight hospitals in London that undertake bone marrow transplants, many for children. Of the four units in North West Thames, two undertake transplants in children.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but is it not a serious indictment that the divisional court held that the closure of the bone marrow unit, which carried out 20 operations a year at Westminster, was unlawful? Can the Minister tell us, first, what action has been taken in view of that illegality? Further, why has no apology ever been given to the parents of the lad who brought the action? Can the Minister also tell us why, since Guy's and Great Ormond Street Hospitals were prepared to take him, the Department of Health or North West Thames health authority could not offer the £800,000 needed to keep this excellent unit in operation? Is it not disastrous that, from the unit which has served us so well, the consultant is not now working on such cases; the very experienced sister in charge has been made redundant and the trained nurses have been dispersed? It is a serious matter when children suffer in this way.
I am sorry that noble Lords protesting are not prepared to hear the Question put as it should be on behalf of the people of this country who are suffering.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I would just like to say to the noble Lord that my understanding is that there were not 25 operations carried out per year. That was half the problem. The problem was that there were eight to 10 carried out per year. When a review was done of the services, it was recommended that
1198
there should be 25 done per year. That is why the proposal was made to transfer the unit to another hospital where the number of cases per year would be increased. I understand that a number of hospitals were approached in order to take this unit. All of them declined, for various reasons, and the situation was exacerbated because the charitable trust, the Cogent Trust, which was involved moved the equipment unilaterally to Bristol.
The findings of the court were that the regional health authority acted in breach of obligations to consult the community health council. But there was no evidence before the court to justify the conclusion that the regional health authority acted irrationally in letting the unit close without making arrangements for it to transfer elsewhere.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in her recent reply to my noble friend, the Minister said that she understood that approaches had been made. Who made those approaches?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the regional health authority told the district health authority to explore sites for the service. It negotiated with the Hammersmith Hospital, the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children and Guy's Hospital, but it failed to make the necessary arrangements.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether there is a danger that, by moving a medical team of great expertise from one place to another, that team may be broken up through its members being unable to move, due to family and other commitments? Therefore their expertise is lost.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, both the regional and the district health authorities tried very hard to move this particular team. There were two consultants involved; both are now at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital haematology department. There was also a staff grade paediatrician, a registrar and a senior house officer. The registrar and the senior house officer are part of the paediatric rotation and they have moved to other posts. The paediatrician is now in an academic post in the medical school.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that she said that it was "admitted" that there was no consultation? Will she attend to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, as to whether any apology was ever forthcoming? Or is this yet another example of overweening arrogance, not on the part of the Minister but on the part of those immediately responsible? Will the noble Baroness further inform the House as to how many patients are currently waiting for bone marrow operations in the London area? Will she further invite the Secretary of State, even if the Secretary of State will not listen to Members of this House, to read some of the editorials about this and related topics in the Evening Standard, a newspaper which on this occasion speaks for a large number of people in London?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I refute the allegation that anybody was arrogant in this case. The

1199
regional health authority and the district health authority tried hard to transfer this unit to another hospital, but failed for various reasons, some of which it would be inappropriate to go into this afternoon. I do not have the figures for bone marrow transplants at the moment. The case which has received a lot of publicity recently is the Rhys Daniels case. I am sure that noble Lords will be very pleased to know that this little boy is to be treated at Bristol in this coming month, I believe very shortly. With regard to the Evening Standard, it is a newspaper which I believe all of us find compulsive reading.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is adequate evidence from this country and around the world that, in highly specialised medical procedures such as this one, there is a critical mass in the number of operations that a team ought to carry out if they are to have good outcomes so far as the patients are concerned? Does she agree that that is the principal argument for concentrating these rare procedures in centres where that critical mass can be obtained, rather than scattering them around the country?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. That was the motivation behind this particular move.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, in view of the judgment of the court, is the Minister prepared to undertake to advise health authorities of the importance in future of consulting community health councils whenever there is any question of a closure or major variation in the provision made?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. I believe that district health authorities and trusts are well aware of the obligation on them to consult community health councils, and health authorities intended to do that. But once they had the results of that review, which showed that the unit had a 50 per cent. success rate, there was concern. The proposal then to move the unit was too late, because by that time the new hospital had been built and the services transferred.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the suggestions which appeared to come just now from the Front Bench opposite that her right honourable friend does not listen to representations made from this House are wholly unjustifiable and very wide of the mark?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comment. Indeed, the court stated that the Secretary of State, who had overall responsibility in this matter, had dealt with it properly and delegated it to the regional health authority and the district health authority.

Dockyards Decision: Social Effects
2.47 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston Lord Sefton of Garston asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether an analysis of the employment and social costs of the decision made on 24th June 1993 regarding the Rosyth and Devonport docks was carried out; and if so, whether they will place a copy in the Library.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence estimates that there will be a reduction of about 450 in the workforce at Rosyth as a direct result of reduced Ministry of Defence work and about 350 job losses at Devonport because of the declining overall refit programme. A consultation document will be issued by the Ministry of Defence shortly and copies of this will be placed in the Library.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, particularly as it comes from the Department of Employment. Is he aware that it featured in the Statement made by the Defence Minister but that it comes nowhere near to answering, either directly or in principle, the substance of my Question? May I therefore repeat it? Did the department or the Government carry out a proper analysis of the social and employment prospects when coming to a decision that is vitally important to the whole nation? If I have to give examples, on employment a comparison was made by the Minister between the South, which includes Devonport, and Scotland. Did that comparison take account of the type of unemployment that exists in the South? How many people in the South have been made redundant and taken early retirement with a good income in addition to being registered as unemployed as compared with those in Scotland? What would be the total effect on the nation as a whole if there were a transfer of skills from Scotland to Devonport, so exacerbating the situation in already congested areas of the South? The third question that needs answering—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Sefton of Garston: Noble Lords are only wasting time. The third question that needs answering is: when the economy picks up again, how much do the Government estimate that there will be further overcrowding in the South and the South East, so exacerbating the difficulties of people in the North?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the figures for potential job losses were calculated by MoD consultants on the basis of projected workloads. These draw upon the business plans submitted to the MoD by the dockyard companies. Unemployment is high in both areas. The figure for Plymouth is 12.6 per cent. and for Dunfermline 11.2 per cent. Although higher in Plymouth than in Dunfermline, the difference is not great.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the problems with the Government's

1201
job loss projection is that the Government are talking about direct jobs whereas in fact the net loss will be well over 1,000 when we begin to look at the linked jobs? Is he further aware that it is not only the Dunfermline travel to work area that is affected by the decision in relation to Rosyth? The whole of central Scotland, from where Rosyth draws its labour force and its supplies, is affected by the decision on Rosyth. Does he agree that the one thing that could instil confidence into the area is for the Government to give a guarantee of the surface fleet refitting work and not merely a promise? The workers want the guarantee. Will the Minister give that guarantee this afternoon?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the long-term effects of this proposal on the areas concerned will depend largely on the effectiveness of supplier companies in finding other markets. But the work that the MoD will allocate to Rosyth is by any standards a substantial amount of work for which the yard will not have to compete. Any business would welcome such a large allocation.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is about time that the Government had an overall strategy in regard to industry? Can they look again at some of the recommendations made by the Engineering Employers' Federation, among others, and endeavour to develop an overall strategy? Otherwise do we not simply have constant repetition of groups of employees being put in a competitive situation one with another over scarce amounts of work? Have we not already had the same situation with Barrow-in-Furness and Swan Hunter? Now we have the situation with Devonport and Rosyth. Is it not time that the Government had an overall policy in these matters?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government firmly believe that in the long term jobs are best created by an economy which is efficient. Decisions are best made on those commercial grounds.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, talked about guarantees. Why did the Government not keep to the guarantee that was given on their behalf by the noble Lord, Lord Younger? Did it have anything to do with the public opinion poll conducted by Devonport Management Limited which was passed on to Conservative Central Office, claiming that 21 Conservative seats in the West Country would be lost if the decision was not taken in favour of Devonport?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have already stated that that difficult decision was made on the firm basis of the key factors of soundness, safety and cost.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said that the only way forward would be to take a decision based on the analysis that we had before us. That analysis merely dealt with the cost to one dockyard as opposed to the other. The question now facing the Government is what will happen in the future. Do the Government have any plans at all to redistribute job resources from the South to the North?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, important though the employment effects are, the result would have been roughly neutral whichever yard had been selected. Therefore that could not be a decisive factor. I should add that the Government are committed to Rosyth. We wish Rosyth to develop into a yard that will bid competitively for surface ship refits and other work.

Hearing Aids: Interference Problems
2.53 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to minimise the interference to hearing aids from the new GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) digital cordless telephones.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the Radiocommunication Agency of DTI has investigated interference to hearing aids by the new pan-European digital mobile telephone system GSM. Two solutions were identified: first, improving immunity of hearing aids; and secondly, reducing the power of the mobile telephone transmissions. The agency has required GSM operators to use minimal transmitter power. A working group established by the British Standards Institution and chaired by Mr. Martin of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf is at the moment investigating the need for better immunity of hearing aids.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for that very informative Answer. Is she aware—I am sure that she will be—that in continental Europe, where the system is now widely used, experience has shown that one such telephone can have a devastating effect on hearing aids from some metres away? Is she further aware that the noise can be very near the threshold of pain—rather like standing behind a jet plane? Will it be enough to restrict the permitted power levels of those instruments? In addition, will it be essential to modify the construction of hearing aids? If so, what is to happen to the 2 million hearing aids at present in use, one or two of which can occasionally be spotted in your Lordships' Chamber? In particular what is to be done about the very large numbers of hearing aids that are issued through the National Health Service?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am well aware of the interest of this House in the Question. I can assure the noble Lord that the two parts of the solution will come together. He referred to the extensive investigations on the Continent. There are operational GSM systems currently in France and Germany and we are not aware of any complaints. However, research was carried out in Denmark and presented to the Telecommunications Council in Brussels in June 1993. I am pleased to say that the report that was presented concludes that interference caused to hearing aids by the GSM system can probably be entirely or partly removed.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, although I do not as yet require a hearing aid, I am aware that growth and use of the cordless telephone is developing so fast that it has become almost a rival to the ghetto blaster in invading people's privacy on public transport? Does she agree that that should be taken into account in any consideration of the matter by the Government?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord moves a little away from the question. The percentage of instruments is very small at the moment. There are 1,500 GSM telephones in this country out of a total of 1.3 million mobile telephones. However, new technology brings new problems and we are certainly looking at the solutions.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind that the noble Baroness is well aware of the efficiency of the behind-the-ear hearing aid and the comfort that it brings to millions of our fellow citizens as well as to some Members of this House, will she give the House an assurance that that wonderful instrument will in no way be impaired or prevented from providing its comfort by any other form of aid or telephone?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord that we are working very closely with those involved with people misfortunate enough to be deaf; namely, organisations such as the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, the Hearing Aid Industry Association, the Department of Health and the manufacturers. We recognise that there is an issue and we are dealing with it.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the new GSM telephone produces what economists call an external diseconomy; in other words, it imposes uncovenanted costs on other people? It is a form of pollution. Following the Government's espousal of the "polluter pays principle", does she further agree that her department ought not to be going in for a lot of elaborate regulation but should be taxing those phones and using the proceeds to improve the efficiency of the hearing aids? There is a straightforward economic solution to the difficulty. Does she agree that it would be rather more sensible than the bureaucratic system which her department seems to favour?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, that was certainly an economic question from the noble Lord, Lord Peston. We have taken the opportunity to include a clause in the Wireless Telegraphy Act that requires the licences of GSM operators to minimise transmitted power and potential interference. However, I would point out that the units bring technological advantage. The world cannot stand still and there is a UK market for them.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, as a Member of this House who needs to use a hearing aid in order to hear some of the comments made on the other side of the Chamber, I must say that sometimes when I hear them I am so horrified that I wish I did not have one.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, knows, according to who stands up, whether to switch on or off.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, perhaps I can press the noble Baroness on one point in regard to existing aids. Is there a real prospect that all the National Health Service aids will have to be modified? If so, will not that be a considerable expense? Following the point made earlier, ought not the manufacturers to pay?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I return to my original comment, that at the moment it is a limited problem. It applies only within a few feet of an active hand portable GMS telephone and within 14 feet of a vehicle-mounted GSM telephone. We have reason to expect that metallising the casing of the hearing aid will provide substantial improvements in immunity and such situations will evolve through.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain what she means by "minimising the power"? Does she mean that the manufacturers will make the machine less efficient or that the operators will turn down the power? It appears to me to be a little difficult to make the manufacturers responsible and I would not rely on the users.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to say that the Act requires the actual unit to have minimum power. That means that there will need to be a greater infrastructure supporting the use of the units, but it will not be left to the control of the user.

Non-Proliferation Treaty: Observance
3.2 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, and if so why, they believe that the United Kingdom/United States transfers of nuclear weapons and material which have taken place and are taking place are not prohibited by the spirit of the non-proliferation treaty and by the letter of Article 1 of that treaty.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, no nuclear weapons have been transferred between the United Kingdom and the United States. Transfers of nuclear materials between nuclear weapon states party to the non-proliferation treaty are not prohibited under the treaty.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that that statement is arguable? Perhaps she will forgive me for reading the opening words of Article I of the treaty, which states,
"Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices … directly, or indirectly";
That seems to exclude the transfer of such weapons. In assuring me that what she said is right—as I am sure the noble Baroness shortly will—can she answer the

1205
other question as to whether President Clinton's decision of yesterday will have the effect of reducing or eventually eliminating the traffic altogether?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is not sufficient to read the first section of Article 1 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; the noble Lord must also read the second part, which continues,
"and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices".
If the noble Lord takes the paragraph as a whole, he will understand the Answer that I gave in response to his substantive Question. The announcement by the United States President, as my noble friend showed at col. 1118 yesterday, makes no difference to the capability of our Trident system. I do not believe that the noble Lord needs to have any of the anxieties that he frequently expresses.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I want to ask the Minister a slightly simpler question than that of my noble friend. In view of the UK's long standing collaboration with the USA on nuclear matters, can the Minister tell the House whether or not the Government will be supporting President Clinton's decision not only to take further steps towards creating a comprehensive test ban treaty, but also to extend the US moratorium on nuclear testing?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we share the US non-proliferation objectives. Certainly we have no plans to test while the US moratorium continues, which is what I believe the noble Baroness was seeking to ascertain. We are prepared to participate fully and constructively in any negotiations for a comprehensive test ban. But the objective will be a ban which makes an effective contribution to non-proliferation goals. That is the way in which we have proceeded for a considerable time and will continue to proceed.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in view of the fact that we must agree to differ about the interpretation of Article 1, can the Minister say whether, if they were to abandon Trident, the Government would be able to save sufficient money to avoid all the disruptions to the services which have been brought about by the candle-end reductions they have had to make as an alternative? Is it not the case that to abandon Trident would give the Government sufficient money to avoid all those reductions and at the same time reduce the PSBR?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can only refer the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, to the answer given to him by my noble friend Lord Cranborne in the Statement on Defence Estimates at col. 1118.

Education Bill
3.7 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Duty in the case of primary, secondary and further education]:
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. 1:
Page 1, line 23, leave out second ("institutions").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a quick examination of Clause 2 will demonstrate the reason for Amendment No. 1. It is simply to remove an otiose word. Its sole effect is to improve the drafting of the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Consideration of views of pupils
The governing body of schools and local education authorities shall use their best endeavours to secure that—

(a) on any matter which affects a pupil the views of the pupil are given due consideration. having regard to the pupil's age and understanding,

(b) where reasonable, steps are taken to ascertain these views, and

(c) pupils are provided with the opportunity to be heard in any administrative proceeding which affects the pupil, either directly or through a representative.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 is quite straightforward and follows a line of progression which we have been following in this Bill and other pieces of legislation; that is, the consideration of the views of the people, as and when the people are of sufficient age and understanding to be able to give a sensible view.
The intention is supported by the UN Convent ion on the Rights of the Child which states,
"States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight".
Surely it is sensible that when a situation arises involving the future of a child and changes that are supposed to benefit the child, the child's views, where they can be expressed, are taken into account? The amendment does not ask for more than that they should be taken into account; it does not give a right of veto to the child.
We have given similar consideration to children with special educational needs. If we are taking into account 20 per cent. of the school population, surely we should include the rest. When a child's views are taken into account and they become a part of the decision-making process, it may avoid many of the problems of discipline and lack of understanding between the child and those in authority. It is well known that people involved in a decision-making process pay far more attention to the results of the process.
I look forward to hearing the Government's views on the matter and hope that they will look favourably on the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will speak on this matter. He told me that he intended to put his name to the amendment. I am delighted to speak to the amendment and take up some points that were made in the debate at Report stage, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who unfortunately is not in his place. They misinterpreted the amendment. The

1207
noble Lord, Lord Renton, described it as a troublemaker's charter and as giving a pupil an opportunity of expostulating before he or she is told to change his or her shoes.
That was a gross misinterpretation of what is expected from the amendment. All we are asking is that there should be understanding that children should have the opportunity to express their views at a certain time and that we should come in line with the convention. I just wish that those noble Lords had attended the all-party group on children of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, because they would then have had an opportunity to hear some of the experts on this subject talk about children and those who support the hearing of children and giving them the opportunity to express their views.
Children will not necessarily be taken notice of. The amendment seeks to give them that opportunity. I think that it is in line with modern thinking. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, thought that schools councils would provide the opportunity, but we are asking for something more than that. I just hope that this time noble Lords will agree that it is now accepted opinion that children should have the opportunity to express their views. Those views may be different from the parents' views. The noble Baroness said that parents could express the views, but that is not the point. Very often the children have a different point of view from their parents and they should be allowed to express it. I hope that a different attitude will appear this time and that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who put down the amendment originally, will voice his support for it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has referred to me, perhaps I may say that I adhere to what I said at Report stage. I wish to make three brief points. First, the drafting of the amendment leaves a good deal to be desired. Secondly, if the pupil is involved in any kind of disciplinary matter, it is only right and usual that the child should be heard before any action is taken with regard to that matter against the child. Thirdly, I still maintain that for children to be involved in discussions on all administrative changes likely to take place in the school is quite ridiculous. If there is to be some kind of representative of the collective body of pupils in the school I should have thought that the right thing is for the head of the school to consult the prefects.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I should like to intervene very briefly in support of the amendment and to speak from personal witness. I have the privilege and pleasure of having my name linked with a number of schools in the public sector of secondary education. In one of them, in north Shropshire, which is known to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, because we have corresponded on this matter, there is a body of the pupils —I forget its exact title—elected by the pupils. It is an unofficial body which is consulted by the governors, the headmaster and staff and advises them on all matters that bear on the administration, the ethos and the activities of the school, particularly the recreational and extramural activities, which affect the whole spirit of the school. I can only say from my
1208
personal experience over many years of a school of which I am very proud that the effect on its general morale and status has been wholly beneficial. I think it only right that something of this nature should be embodied in the Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is it not better for anything like that to be left as a matter of practice rather than be written into the Bill as part of the enforceable law of the country?
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I speak again from personal witness. This has had a most remarkably beneficial effect on this body of pupils and the staff and governors.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in case the noble Baroness, Lady David, should either think that I am, or have given the impression that I am, a turncoat in this matter I should say that the amendment that I had down in similar terms in Committee was put down as a probing amendment. I was prevented, unfortunately, from being here to speak to it. The noble Baroness took the Report stage debate on the subject with the strength of legal opinion which I saw. I did not feel capable of carrying the debate further than that, particularly in regard to the fact that my interest was only in probing.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that matters of this kind should be the subject of guidance and that that guidance should be strictly supervised and enforced. But to make it justiciable in the courts could lead into a mare's nest. I expressed that reservation when I originally put down the amendment. Although I must disappoint the noble Baroness, I am sure that my noble friend will take comfort from those words.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment. It is worth trying to establish the convention that local education authorities and school governing bodies should, when it is reasonable, listen to the views of pupils and that certainly, so far as concerns paragraph (c) of the amendment, people should be provided with an opportunity, when they are of a sensible age to do so, to have their views heard when decisions are being taken about them. I accept that there may well be a case for guidance on such matters. Perhaps when the Minister replies he will indicate to the House whether the Department for Education has any intention of issuing guidance on this matter. All good schools should adhere to the spirit of the amendment but, regrettably, as your Lordships have often said, not every school is a good school. We need to establish conventions about this kind of matter. I see no reason why this should not be on the face of the Bill, but I would be reassured if the Minister said that guidance on this matter would be issued.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can certainly give the noble Baroness an assurance that there will be guidance on these matters. We have every intention of doing that.

1209
Perhaps I may start by expressing, to some extent, my surprise that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, have brought back this amendment at Third Reading, having withdrawn it after debate on Report and after listening to the views of both my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I am rather surprised that, in view of the fact that they withdrew it on Report without any mention of bringing it back at Third Reading, they have done so on this occasion, especially in the light of the comments on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton.
We have heard that the amendment aims to incorporate the requirements of Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into the Bill. The primary purpose of Article 12 is to ensure that the child, or his representative, shall be afforded the opportunity to be heard in any judicial or administrative proceedings which affect the child, consistently with the procedural rules of national law. In the United Kingdom that provision already exists in education legislation which enables children, or their parents, to play an active part in choices regarding the child's education.
For example, we have long exhorted LEAs to take into account the wishes of the child when carrying out their duties in respect of special educational needs. Circular 22/89, which we issued jointly with the Department of Health, stated:
"The feelings and perceptions of the child concerned should be taken into account, and older children and young persons should be able to share in discussions on their needs and any proposed provisions".
Where a child's age and understanding make it possible, his attitude to the choice of school—be it special or ordinary: again, I am taking them as an example—is a very relevant consideration. But that does not, of course. mean giving a child a veto over a particular course of action.
The present circular offers guidance. Clause 151 requires the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice giving practical guidance to LEAs about the discharge of their functions in respect of children with special educational needs. That will differ from our current circular in that the Bill will give it statutory backing.
More generally, parents will also have the right to say which school they would like their child to attend and to appeal to a separate appeals committee if the local council or school governors refuse the school place of their choice. If the child is permanently excluded from school the parents, or the child if he is 18 or over, can appeal against that decision.
Improvements are being made in the way appeals are made. Appeal committees on admission and expulsion cases will include an independent member as well as those chosen by the local council or governors. This will ensure that parents get a fair and independent hearing about their child's case.
We are not persuaded that the scope of paragraph 1 of Article 12 referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is as wide as the amendment we are presently discussing implies. In our view Article 12 is about decisions affecting children individually and
1210
directly and not as a group. As I have already explained, there are already provisions in education legislation which provide for the pupils, or their parents, to have a say in decisions.
Further, paragraph (a) of the amendment as drafted lacks that individuality. It could conceivably be applied to every matter related to the organisation, staffing, curriculum and conduct of the school since they will all affect a pupil in one way or another. Clearly that would be inappropriate. The amendment is therefore simply not feasible as it stands. That is very important, particularly as we are debating the amendment at Third Reading.
I am aware of the opinion—referred to, 1 believe, by my noble friend Lord Elton and the noble Baroness, Lady David, on an earlier occasion—of Allan Levy QC that, unless Article 12 is incorporated into the Bill, a breach of the convention will occur. I am not persuaded that this is the case, and I certainly would not be able to accept that we should incorporate the noble Baroness's amendment into the Bill.
Further, one should also point out that the convention does not identify legislation as the only possible form of implementation. Other measures, such as administrative action or guidance which I referred to when responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, are equally acceptable, where appropriate. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I have listened to the Minister's reply which, as we have come to expect as regards this Bill, has been full and comprehensive. I still think that there is a degree of difference between us over the idea of what is a child's and a parent's right. We are stepping into a grey area here which is one of the reasons that this amendment was brought forward. We are here talking about young adults as well as children and as and when they have a perceptual awareness which enables them to make a decision. That is the reason that this amendment is brought forward and why we are trying to discover the Government's views on this matter.
In other parts of the Bill the Government are saying that they are prepared to listen to the child in certain circumstances but not in others. Here we are asking them to listen to the child under most circumstances, if not all.
There may be technical defects in this amendment which stop me from pressing it. It has been worthwhile having the debate in order to try to clear up this area. Young adults in society are having to bear increasing pressures. They are not children any more. The teenage revolution, for what it is worth, has left us with a sub-class between adults and children. Their opinions should have been heard. If we carry the line of argument of a troublemakers' charter to its extreme, very few people would be listened to in few situations in their lives.
I shall withdraw the amendment this time, but I suggest that we have heard the first salvoes in the exchanges about the rights of teenagers and young adults which will continue for a long time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Direction to admit child to specified school]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 37, after ("section") insert:
("(a) if requested to do so by a school subject to that authority; or
(b)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 to 7. I shall briefly remind your Lordships of the two sets of circumstances with which this group of amendments is intended to deal. The Bill recognises that a child should be educated at a school which is within a reasonable distance of his or her home and which provides a suitable education. The definition of a "reasonable distance" is, I believe, prudently left to common sense and the courts. The definition of "suitable education" is given in subsection (6) as,
"efficient full-time education suitable to his age, ability, and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have".
Every child is entitled to be registered at a school which satisfies both the criterion of accessibility and the criterion of suitability, unless otherwise specified. Clause 12 is designed to meet the situation where a child who has either been refused admission to, or who has been permanently excluded from, every school satisfying both those criteria. It does so by giving a power to what it terms "the appropriate authority".
As I understand it, the appropriate authority will be the local education authority or the funding authority for the schools according to the level of opting out in the area. In parenthesis, I should be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister would explain to us the point at which the power moves from one to the other, and assure us that it will not at any time be jointly exercised with consequent bureaucratic confusion.
The power given to that authority, whichever it is, will be a power to order or, as the Bill has it, to direct a school to admit a child for registration as a pupil there. The direction may only be given to a school which meets the description in subsection (2). Paragraph (b) lays down that it must be a school from which the child has not been permanently excluded. Paragraph (a) says that the school must be a reasonable distance from the child's home.
The first observation is that there is no third paragraph. As far as I can see, it follows that, while the directing authority is thus constrained by the first criterion of accessibility, there is no limitation by, or indeed further mention of, the second, which is suitability. It therefore appears that the authority will be free to serve its direction on a school which is within a suitable distance but which does not provide an education which is suitable in relation to that child.
Even if we accept that no respectable authority would do such a thing, it follows, does it not, that the appropriate authority and not the school will be the final arbiter of whether or not the education which it provides is suitable to the child? It follows also that no school will be able to resist the direction on the grounds that it cannot provide the child with the
1212
education he or she needs. We already know from my noble friend the Minister's reply in Committee that it will not be able to argue either that the school is full and there is no room for the child.
That brings me to the nub of the question. This power of direction will only be used in extremis. Indeed, it can be given only after the authority has completed the quite elaborate consultations set out in Clause 13. One must hope (and I certainly do) that 99 per cent. of all cases begun will, during these consultations, result in the school being reconciled to accepting the child voluntarily and not as a cuckoo in the nest.
Directions will, therefore, only ever be given when there is no other way in which a child will be accepted. He or she is going to be injected into the school against the better judgment of the teachers. They may believe that they have no room for him; but that will avail nothing. They may feel that they simply cannot provide him with a suitable education, but that will not matter. Perhaps it may be that this unwanted recruit's reputation has preceded him from the school, or schools, or indeed, from the court or courts, in which or through which he has been making his way.
This last is, I believe, likely to be the most normal scenario. The teachers will feel that introducing him into the only suitable or available class will cause constant disruption or so impede its work that the education of the other children in it is damaged. They will then feel that they have a duty—and indeed they do have a duty—to protect those children's legitimate interests.
The authority, however, with an urgent need to dispose of the problems presented by this troublesome child—let us remember that the funding authority for schools is likely to be a very distant body with very many schools under its care —may be inclined to think that perhaps the staff of that school are simply reluctant to add another, quite reasonable but escapable, burden to their load and to disturb the cosy tranquillity of an under-tasked school.
The day then comes when this star-crossed pupil arrives. How will he see himself and his new school and how will the school see him? After all the procedures have been gone through, it is highly unlikely that he will not know of those procedures. He may see himself in any one of a number of ways; but I guess that most of them will cast him in the role of either victim or victor.
He may think of himself as condemned to a school of last resort, in which he expects every man's hand to be against him, and enter it armoured in a protective shell of fear, anger or withdrawal; or he may see himself as the victor, armed with a sort of writ from on high by which he has breached the walls of this hostile institution and within which he can set up his tent and plunder the land and arrive buoyed up by an unjustified conceit.
The teachers, confronting this delicately explosive parcel of humanity, will do so knowing that their professional opinion of him and of their school has been overridden on his behalf by people who are not even teachers themselves. They would be superhuman if they did not regard him with resentment and highly

1213
gifted as professionals if they kept that resentment unsuspected by the child. That three-way split between authority, teachers, and child is dangerous.
My amendment, by offering a means by which teachers could introduce an element of their own professional judgment into the contents of the direction itself, is intended to reconcile them both to the authority and to the pupil.
Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 are paving amendments to the main provision which is in Amendment No. 7. This would have effect during the consultative process by which a direction is prepared. It would require the authority, during that process, to have particular regard to any proposals made by the school for making admission to the school conditional upon undertakings by the parents or the pupil, or both, worked out between the school and the parents.
Many schools now have home-school contracts relating to all their pupils. I warmly endorse the pioneering work of the National Association of Head Teachers on this matter. I know from it how helpful those contracts can be. In cases such as this, the agreements would have more hold on the parents of really difficult children—and on the really difficult parents as well—if they were incorporated into the direction. They would also bring the requirements of the teachers out into the open and put their professional mark on the authority's direction. The amendment does not specify the nature of the agreements. If a specification is needed, which I doubt, it should go into a circular, not a statute.
All the procedures which I have so far described would be set in place by Amendments Nos. 4 and 7 alone, whether or not Amendment No. 3, which we are now discussing, is agreed to. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 6 is to address another related problem by the same means. That problem, recognised by many teachers, arises because the Bill, which will limit the use of temporary exclusions, will also end the use of indefinite exclusions entirely. The effect of this amendment would be to enable a school to ask the appropriate authority to make a direction of the sort that I have just described.
That would provide schools with a response less draconian than permanent exclusion when they feel that temporary exclusion no longer suffices. Incorporation of conditions in the direction would make it clear that breach of those conditions would lead inevitably to permanent exclusion. That device is intended for those not infrequent occasions when a pupil or parents, or both, fail to grasp that the possibility of permanent exclusion is real and applies to their case. The formal document and the imprint of the authority would give it an impact which a less formal approach must lack.
At Report, I spelled out in the principal amendment the stages that would lead from the making of such a direction to the final exclusion of an intractable pupil. l have removed them at this stage in order to give more flexibility to the procedure as a whole. That surgery may have been too crude. I therefore hasten to remind your Lordships that the
1214
remainder of the group does not depend on acceptance of Amendment No. 3. It would be effective without it. Nevertheless, I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton. for drawing attention to an extremely important problem. I shall not pretend to know what the solutions to it are. We shall need to go on thinking about it after the Bill has been passed. The problem of discipline is not peculiar to this country. I have seen it in the United States where it is perhaps worse. There is an increased problem because competition between schools will put schools under more temptation to exclude pupils. In some circumstances, there is very nearly a need to exclude a pupil if the school is to continue hut, equally for the pupil, the punishment will be likely to grow more and not less severe in its effect. I really cannot see how to square that circle but I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for bringing it to the attention of the House, and shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I should like to support Amendment No. 7, which is very much a move in the right direction. It is a very serious matter for any child to be excluded from school and when it does happen it is difficult to make sure that that child will have a reasonable chance of being readmitted without a slur attaching to him or her. In these many difficult cases, if a child is to be given a chance, not to reform, but to return to school on terms that will be acceptable to that child, the parents need to be involved. There needs to be some negotiation, and that negotiation and its outcome should be recorded.
If the amendment is passed, it seems to me that it could make a difference that would be very much to the good for thousands—possibly tens of thousands—of children even though it imposes a new procedure on local authorities. Surely, however, the interests of bureaucracy should give way to the interests of individual children. I think that that would tend to happen if the amendment were passed, which is why I strongly support it.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I recognise my noble friend's concern that schools may be reluctant to admit pupils who have previously been excluded from another school. His suggestion that they might find it easier to do so if the admission was made subject to conditions seems on the face of it a reasonable proposal. I know that it is one with which the head teacher associations have some sympathy, although they also believe that it is a matter best dealt with in guidance rather than on the face of the Bill.
I have on the previous occasions when we have considered similar amendments made clear the Government's view on the subject or home-school contracts. We are all in favour of schools actively involving parents and seeking their understanding and support for school policies. Where that happens it helps to create the conditions under which schools can operate effectively, and teaching and learning can take place in an orderly and constructive atmosphere.

1215
Some schools have set out their policies in their prospectus, have made them part of the governors' annual report to parents or have discussed them with individuals or groups of parents. Other schools have tried informal home-school agreements as a way of gaining parental support for their policies. That seems to us to be the right way forward.
We would, however, see very real difficulties if contracts became an integral part of admission or exclusion procedures, or if schools were allowed to set conditions before they agreed to admit a child under a Clause 12 direction. Moreover, Amendment No. 7 contains no provision to time limit any agreement, which is to be maintained for as long as that child continues to be a registered pupil at that school. There is no provision for further consideration and action by a governing body, LEA or funding authority about a pupil's education in the light of changing circumstances.
There must also be the risk that the amendments would allow schools too much scope to exclude pupils for any subsequent breach of those conditions, no matter how trivial, and deprive children, and their parents, of the protection of the procedures governing the review and appeal of exclusions decisions afforded by the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 and by the articles of government of grant-maintained schools. That cannot be right.
The question would also arise of what would then happen to the child concerned. I know that at least one of the local authority associations shares our anxiety on that score. Would my noble friend expect the appropriate authority to direct his admission to another school, or would he expect the LEA to provide education otherwise than at school in pursuance of the new duty imposed by Clause 296?
We shall continue to encourage voluntary partnerships entered into by parents and schools with commitment on all sides. We are, as your Lordships know, planning to issue further guidance to schools on behaviour and discipline, on which we shall consult widely. This is one of the matters which it may be appropriate to cover in that guidance.
My noble friend also asked which is the appropriate authority for the purposes of Clause 12 at stage 2. I can confirm that the power to direct under Clause 12 will be exercised by the relevant LEA at stages 1 and 2—that is, when fewer than 75 per cent. of pupils in any phase are in self-governing schools—and by the funding agency above the 75 per cent. point. That is set out in subsections (7) and (8) of Clause 12.
In principle, it is right that the authority responsible for making enough places available should deal with the consequences of any shortfall by finding a place for a pupil who would otherwise be without one. That will be the case below 10 per cent. and above 75 per cent. But, in the interests of clarity, we decided that at stage 2—in other words between 10 per cent. and 75 per cent., when the LEA and the funding agency will share responsibility for securing the supply of places —it would be simplest for parents if only one body had the directing power. That is why it has been given to the local education authority alone.
1216
Perhaps I may take the opportunity to address Amendment No. 68, which is grouped with these amendments. The amendment has a simple purpose. It is intended to ensure that the financial adjustments which are at the heart of the arrangements proposed in Clause 261 are not triggered prematurely while the process of review of formal appeal against the decision permanently to exclude a particular child is in progress.
The principle of money following the child has clear and widespread support among those who responded to the Government's discussion paper on exclusions, but we must ensure that, as far as possible, the administrative complexities are kept to a minimum. We must ensure, in particular, that the arrangements come into effect at the point when the process of review and appeal has come to an end and the decision permanently to exclude has been confirmed. If the arrangements are triggered earlier, it would be a recipe for bureaucratic muddle and frustration for all concerned, not least the excluding school. The amendment is designed to prevent such situations occurring, and I commend it to the House.
I hope that with that explanation, and the fact that there is no distance between my noble friend, the Government and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who identified the issue and the analysis but was unclear as to how it should be resolved, we can now direct all our energies into ensuring that there is a clear and unequivocal resolution of the problem.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, up to a point, for her reply, and for accepting that the purpose of the amendment is reasonable on the face of it. I also thank her for her illumination of the up to 75 per cent. transfer point and the power to make a direction from the LEA to the FAS. However, that means that the authority making the order between stages 2 and 3 will be the LEA making the order on grant-maintained schools under the skirts, as it were, of the FAS and not its own.
The fears of a number of my noble friends might be allayed if I reminded my noble friend that the principal clause to which the amendment relates, and by which it is powered, is not prescriptive or mandatory but permissive. It provides:
"The appropriate authority may give a direction".
My proposal is merely that schools "may" make suggestions which the authority "may" consider. So I am a little surprised that there has been such a flutter in the dovecotes at the proposal of this terrible engine of war being introduced when it is permissive in no fewer than three categories. I hope that I shall receive an answer from my noble friend on that aspect by the device of withdrawing this amendment and moving the next one so that she can reply to the point. I believe that that is in order. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 45, at end insert:
("(c) the agreement or conditions, if any, referred to in section (Admission of pupils: policy) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak only to ask my noble friend one further question. Will she recall,

1217
between now and the next Education Bill, the tentative nature of what I have said? Will she monitor the procedures that she has described to see whether they are effective; but, most effectively, will she please arrange for advice to be given, or guidance issued, on the implementation of what is now Clause 12 so that the opportunity to use it as a means of achieving accord and not discord between teachers and authorities is not missed? I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have no hesitation in giving an absolute "yes" to all three points that my noble friend has just asked me to take into account.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend has restored my good humour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Procedure for giving direction]:
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
3.45 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington Lord Young of Dartington moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Separate arrangements for sick and invalid children
—(1) Where there is a hospital in the area of a local education authority which is provided by a health service body (within the meaning of section 4 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990), being a hospital at which separate provision is made for the treatment of children as in-patients (whether by means of the provision of a separate ward or the provision of treatment or equipment which is particularly suitable for children), the arrangements to be made by the local education authority for those children under section 296 below shall be made—

(a) by the establishment or continuation of a school at that hospital or at a group of hospitals including that hospital, or

(b) by the provision of staff and other educational facilities (not amounting to a school) at that hospital or at a group of hospitals including that hospital;

and such provision as is mentioned in paragraph (b) shall be known as a "hospital educational unit" or, as the case may be, as a group of such units.
(2) Where a local education authority make such arrangements—

(a) for the provision of education at a school situated at a hospital or group of hospitals, or at a hospital educational unit or group of such units, and

(b) for teachers to teach pupils for whom provision must be made by reason of their illness elsewhere than at such a school or unit,

they shall make arrangements—

(i) for the provision of education by those teachers to be organised from such a school or unit;

(ii) for those teachers to be supervised by teachers providing education at such a school or unit.

(3) Where a local education authority make arrangements for the provision of education at a school situated at two or more hospitals or hospital educational units they shall make arrangements for each of those hospitals or units to co-operate with the others to facilitate the adequate provision of education to the children for whose education the arrangements are made.
(4) In making such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (1) above, a local education authority for any area shall, so far as practicable, co-operate with the local education authorities for the neighbouring areas in the use of the facilities and staff provided by them for the purposes of those arrangements.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, unfortunately I was unable to wait until the amendment in my name was debated late the other night. I had to leave the, Chamber because I had received news that my wife. who was ill, had taken a turn for the worse. I should like to thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who wrote to me for the sympathy that they extended, which I appreciate greatly. I should like to say a special word to the Minister because of the very kind letter she wrote me on that occasion. She reminded me, as she had reminded the House, of the great loss that she suffered when her young son died in hospital. That is a terrible thing to happen: in many ways, it is far more devastating than the death of someone who has run their life. I should like to assure the Minister that there would be no question of a hospital teacher approaching someone in that state. The hospital teacher would appear only when the doctors and nurses were clear that the patient in question was capable of learning and was well enough for it. That point would not have arisen.
I come now to the amendment. I, and its supporters, who are quite numerous on all sides of the House, have at no stage pressed for a Division because we have hoped continuously—I think all being hopeful people—that at some stage a concession would be offered to us by the Minister on behalf of the Government. We have been treated throughout with the utmost courtesy, and for that we are grateful. But in concrete terms we have, as often happens, gained nothing so far. That does not mean to say that our hope is dimmed entirely, even at this late stage of affairs, but we cannot pretend that they are riding very high.
We have tabled an amendment somewhat different from any we have produced previously, having taken the best legal advice about it that we can. Upon that basis, we make our final appeal to the House today on behalf of hospital schools and the education of sick children. We do so because hospital schools contain some of the most devoted teachers in the country. They have a special skill in relating the teaching, arid what can be done by teachers, to a detailed knowledge of the health requirements of children. They know about the interaction between health conditions and educability. That is not something that is codified easily, but it can be learnt by experience and then passed on to others. Many of the full-time teachers in the 200 hospital schools and educational units in the country have acquired that essential skill which has given a chance to tens of thousands of sick and invalid children in this country since the 1944 Act, and could continue to do so, as we see it, if only the amendment were accepted today.
I do not for a moment believe that the Government intend the consequence that we believe will follow from the Bill in its present state—that all the hospital schools and educational units will be under threat. As we know from experience, Bills have unintended consequences. We can think of the poll tax and what has happened to schools testing. That was not foreseen when the previous Education Bill was debated in the House.
Many things work out in a way that is unintended. Our grave fear is that that will happen in respect of this Bill unless some change is accepted. The consequence is not obvious; unintended consequences seldom are. Therefore, I must take a few minutes of your Lordships' time to present an argument showing why it should be so.
Clause 296, which must be taken with Clause 18, to which the amendment refers, proposes that the power to provide education for children who are not in an ordinary school should be converted into a duty. On the face of it that appears to be excellent and a considerable advance. It provides that educational arrangements should be made for all types of children not at school. Disruptive children, persistent truants, school resistors, pregnant school girls and so on are lumped together with sick children despite their different problems and needs. Since the Bill first came to the Floor of this House we have argued that it is necessary to recognise the fact that separate arrangements are needed for them because their problems and needs are different. In addition, the amendment specifies what those separate arrangements should be; namely, that they should be provided in a hospital school or hospital educational unit or based on and organised from them.
Why is a threat raised by the imposition of this new duty? The duty will mean that every local education authority in the country must look again at its provision for such children who are not in an ordinary school. Almost all will find that they are not performing that duty in any good measure for disruptive children; that is, children who are expelled from school, persistent truants, school resistors and so on. What will the authorities do in order to perform the duty at a time when their resources have been greatly cut? The easiest thing will be to take a chip at the only part of the educational service for such children who have moderately good provision to the extent that it falls below the most ideal standards. The easiest thing to do will be to save money by withdrawing teachers from hospital schools —therefore, they will not be sacrosanct by any means —and closing educational units. They can then provide a common service from a new tuition centre in an LEA which will look after disruptive and sick children at the same place with the same basic staff.
That is so likely to happen. Although it is dangerous to make prophecies—in my case no one will come back and say that I have made one that has not been borne out—I fear that during the next year or two the story in this sphere of education will be dismal. It will consist of almost continual closures of hospital educational units and the withdrawal of staff from hospital schools even though they are registered special schools.
I am reinforced in that view by the plans of the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley which have come to light since the Bill arrived in this House. It is not a bad authority—I am not saying that it is a bad authority in any way—but the case illustrates the kind of pressure that LEAs will be under if this duty is imposed on them without extra resources to perform
1220
it. The chief education officer of Dudley proposes that the two educational units in the two hospitals in which they exist will be closed; that all full-time hospital teachers will be withdrawn; and that the money saved will be spent on setting up a new centre for disruptive children and truants. The borough will open a new centre on or near the site of the Saltwell school refusals unit. A visiting tutor will be sent to the hospital for bedside teaching but that cannot be of the same standard as has been received in the past. According to this proposal, the standard for the sick children will be levelled down to the only standard which will work in relation to resources for the large and growing number of disruptive children.
I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that one of the arguments in the review of the chief education officer is that the Bill, which he expects to be passed in its present form, will put a duty on LEAs such as his to provide education for all pupils unable to attend school. That new duty means that they must do a great deal more for disruptive children and therefore they must cut down—in his case radically—on what is done for sick children.
Surely there is no justice in that. If the situation works out in that way—and it is only too likely that it will—why should the cost of providing more adequate facilities for disruptive children be borne by sick children? It is only an administrative accident that those children are put together under the general heading of "education otherwise". Perhaps least of all should sick children be the ones to bear that. They are children who return to hospital many times or who are in hospital for long periods. Unless they receive decent education which is linked to their medical programme, they may be socially handicapped for life and many may be unable to obtain work. They should not be the ones to suffer.
The Minister has said several times that, after the Bill becomes law, guidance will be given to local education authorities as regards the education of sick children. However, I put it to the Minister that the way things are going, and might well go, by the time that guidance is issued the bird—and this delightful bird—could have flown the coop. The Dudley scheme, if it is approved, is supposed to come into operation in August. Other authorities could follow quickly. The plans for adjusting to the new duty which is placed on them could be well in hand and come into force before the winter or whenever the guidance is issued.
That could be halted by making clear in the Bill what I believe will be made clear in the guidance that will follow; that it is not on to close hospital schools and hospital education units as the first and central means of doing something for disruptive children and truants as a result of the savings made. If the amendment were passed it would mean that staff would not be withdrawn from the 44 hospital schools which are special schools; the 160 hospital educational units in the country would not be closed; and where nothing is done—and there are such places—something would have to be done. For instance, one can look out of the windows of the bar in this House and see St. Thomas's Hospital across the river. That hospital has two successful and world-renowned

1221
children's wards. But the Lambeth Borough Council has so far refused to do anything. There is no provision for the children in those two wards. If the amendment were passed, at least Lambeth would not be able to get away with that.
The country has a small but very important sector of an educational service which has been built up since the 1944 Act. My argument is that purely as an unintentional consequence of what is proposed, all that might go in the next year or two. The danger is such that a positive amendment is needed to make it clear that that will not he allowed to happen.
Subsection (1) of the amendment provides that where there is a children's ward in a hospital, there should be a hospital school or educational unit. Subsection (2) provides that home tutoring for convalescent children should be organised from a hospital school. Subsection (3) provides for cooperation and clustering among hospital schools and units. Subsection (4) provides for co-operation among neighbouring LEAs. The fate of tens of thousands —and it may be hundreds of thousands over the next decade—of children is at stake.
I should like to mention the other two amendments grouped with Amendment No. 8. Many of the same arguments apply to Amendments Nos. 78 and 79. It would be an advantage if LEAs were required to make separate arrangements for sick children and not lump them together. Taken together, the two amendments form a logical pattern. I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
4 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington. I use that phrase advisedly since he is a personal friend of mine. I admire his courage and determination in coming to the House to argue once again so eloquently for a cause in which he believes. Those of us who knew his late wife would like to say what a remarkable, lively and exciting woman she was. We share a deep sense of sympathy for my noble friend.
My noble friend has argued strongly for the amendment. I wish to add a few points which noble Lords may wish to bear in mind. First, as the noble Lord pointed out, the numbers of children who are in hospital schools in any one local education authority are relatively small, just as, it is hoped, the numbers of children who regularly truant and who are disruptive, although higher, are still relatively small.
The danger which the noble Lord so eloquently outlined is that of lumping together all children who present problems to a local education authority and who must be dealt with outside school. As he said, that would not only be inappropriate; it would also be devastating for children whose serious physical handicaps have taken them into a hospital school.
Many noble Lords will know people who have children who suffer in that way. We begin to see the gradual battle against such long term chronic illnesses as cystic fibrosis or serious spasticity beginning to be won. Children with those conditions now live much longer. They often live through to adulthood and, if they have been properly educated in their early years,
1222
are able to hold down some kind of occupational job. That will not be made easier by the fact that we shall see rather less in the form of early education in nursery schools. My noble friend's case is very powerful. I believe that noble Lords on all sides of the House will sympathise with it.
I ask the Minister to tell the House rather more about the provisions of the Bill which request district health authorities to work closely with local education authorities on issues which concern both. That will happen where a local education authority ceases to control the administration of a sufficient number of schools for it to be fully operational. That is envisaged in the Bill. In those circumstances, there will be a worsening of a situation until local authorities either do not pay or are reluctant to pay the sums necessary on a per capita basis to enable hospital schools to be maintained. Noble Lords will know that in some cases hospital schools are finding it difficult to wrest such payments from local authorities. As those authorities come under more and more pressure, so that task will become even harder. That is why my noble friend —and I hope that the House will allow me to use that phrase again—is trying so hard to ring fence the position of profoundly ill children whose education must take place in hospital schools. He is absolutely right. I believe that the prospect which he outlined is a real possibility. It is not intended by anyone but it is all too likely occur as local education authorities come under pressure.
I should be extremely appreciative if the Minister could say something about the situation which she envisages, not only now, but also when LEAs, or some of them, lose administrative control over their schools as may happen if a number of schools opt for grant-maintained status in a single LEA. From these Benches, we strongly support the powerful and eloquent arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington.
Baroness Masham of Ilkon: My Lords, if the Bill is passed without amendment to the clause in which sick children are mixed up with all other non-school attenders, the fear is that the Dudley example, which has been given, could be followed all over the country.
There are some extremely good hospital schools carrying out excellent supportive work. They deal with both physical and psychological problems which very sick children must overcome. That is helped by dedicated, motivated teachers who understand the children and the many varied illnesses which they have.
It is not everybody who can work with sick children. Thousands of children with serious long term illnesses could end up being deprived of a decent education. If they are not able to keep up with the national curriculum, they may be doubly handicapped —physically and educationally—for life and may never be able to obtain a job.
The amendments are supported by the National Association for the Education of Sick Children, the National Standing Conference of Hospital Teachers, the London Hospital Head Teachers' Association, the

1223
British Paediatric Association and the child and adolescent psychiatry section of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
I hope that your Lordships will be able to support the amendment dealing with the education of sick children both within hospitals and at home. When such services are cut, the Government always seem to say that those are matters for local authorities. The education of sick children is a vulnerable commodity. I hope that your Lordships will support the sick children's educational services.
Lord Judd: My Lords, on these Benches we support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Young. Before adding a few words, I join with others in putting on record our admiration for the pluck and determination which has brought my noble friend to these proceedings so soon after his bereavement. I am sure that he will be buoyed up in his determination in the knowledge that his wife would have wished nothing else. However, it is powerful testimony to the consistency with which he has pursued this matter.
Like my noble friend, I can think of no higher priority than a commitment to children who are unfortunate enough to find themselves in hospital. As noble Lords on all sides will know, we have argued consistently throughout our deliberations on the Bill that we believe there should be a community approach to education. In other words, a community should feel concerned for the children in its midst as regards their preparation for life, just as children should feel a commitment to the community. It is obviously at an hour of need—that is, at a time of hospitalisation—that that compassion and concern of the community becomes all the more important. Therefore, we hope that the Minister will find it appropriate to accept the amendments.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I wish briefly to express my support for the amendments. Children, whether physically disabled or ill, can frequently spend long periods of time in hospital. It is often very difficult for their normal teachers to visit hospitals and help them to continue their education. Therefore, such an amendment is, in my view, very desirable.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, after the persuasive speeches that we have heard from all parts of the House, I shall only say a few words, mainly because I am chairman of the Guy's and St. Thomas's Trust. I know that the Guy's school, which is very widely respected, can obtain grant-aided status so far as concerns the legislative provisions. But, equally, there is a concern, to which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, referred, that although St. Thomas's is now part of the Guy's and St. Thomas's Trust, I am not entirely clear—neither are those at St. Thomas's—whether it will be able to provide the facilities for its sick children that it would wish.
There appears to be a dependence on Lambeth Borough Council. Without wishing to be pejorative, I know well that there will be people in many parts of the House who feel that an entire reliance upon that council is not a happy situation. Therefore, I hope that
1224
my noble friend the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance. So far as concerns the amendment, I am certainly not able to judge whether it would have the intended effects. However, I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister will be able to provide the reassurance which I think all of us who are concerned with the matter are seeking. I look forward to hearing her response.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I have supported the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, at all stages in his argument for the cause. It seems intuitively wrong that under Clause 296 the arrangements for sick children should be lumped together with those who are excluded from school for other reasons. At various stages during the debates on the Bill—I raised the matter myself once, I believe at an inappropriate place —we have heard that the number of exclusions for truancy and other matters is rising fast and, indeed, has risen over the past two years.
The latter is an important matter which needs to be addressed separately. Moreover, it is a problem that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has tried to address and one that needs serious attention. However, such serious attention should not be given at the expense of children who need an entirely different type of approach as regards the reason for their not being able to attend school. I agree that there may be difficulties. The Government propose a common administrative procedure. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Young, were accepted, the administrative procedure would be different and would no doubt lead to some consequent costs. Nevertheless, I believe that the feeling in all parts of the House is that it is a matter that the Government really must address. We hope to hear from the Minister that she has had some positive thoughts in that direction.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I very rarely, if ever, in this House agree with my noble kinswoman. However, on this occasion I rise, as an exception to the rule, to say that I entirely agree with her. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will give the amendment considerable support. In fact, if the noble Lord decides to divide on the matter, I shall be very strongly tempted to follow him through the Division Lobbies.
I was for some time a governor of a hospital school. I should like to point out that it is not always seriously ill children who are hospitalised. Indeed, the hospital school with which I was involved was very much for orthopaedic children. The children would often arrive at the hospital with broken arms and legs. I remember that as a governing body we used to have great fun visiting them and signing their plaster casts. However, that is incidental. Very often they would be admitted at critical times when they were taking exams. It was only because of the excellence of the teachers in that hospital school—they taught at all hours of the day, so that medical treatment could continue —that some of those children were successful and passed their exams. If that sort of education were to be threatened, it would prove to be a very bad state of affairs.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, for his kind words to me personally. We are all much moved by his words, his courage and, indeed, his commitment to the needs and the well being of young people, especially young people who are sick. But in the absence of the noble Lord on that evening, which we know was very difficult for him, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, stoutly defended the amendments tabled in his name. Nevertheless, the noble Lord was much missed on that occasion. I know that the whole House will join with me in offering him our heartfelt sympathy for the loss of his wife.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Blatch: I believe that we have done more under the Bill to meet specifically the needs of sick children and, indeed, the needs of all children with special needs than any other administration before us. While I sympathise with much of what was said and understand much of it, I find it difficult to reconcile that with what is actually in the Bill. For the first time in law, as the Bill finds its way on to the statute book, there will be an obligation on local authorities—even local authorities such as Lambeth—to meet the needs of children who are sick or who have other special needs.
There were two useful and wide-ranging debates during the Report stage on hospital education. I have taken care to explain to your Lordships that the Government have made comprehensive provision for the education of sick children. Under current legislation, there are two ways in which a local authority can provide education in hospital: first, by establishing a special school, with its own governing body and staff, within a hospital; and, secondly, by using discretionary powers to provide,
"education otherwise than at school"
in hospitals. That does not constitute school provision, or require the setting up of a governing body.
Under the Bill, the essential difference is that the discretionary power to provide education outside a formally constituted school will become a duty upon local education authorities. In other words, we are removing the discretionary element and in effect protecting and safeguarding the education of children in hospital. I am, therefore, somewhat at a loss as to the point of principle being pursued by the noble Lord in Amendment No. 8.
I have said before that Clause 296—the new duty to secure education otherwise than at school—already differentiates between those children who are out of school for reasons of illness and those children who are out of school for other reasons. The arrangements will be distinct from those for disaffected pupils in pupil referral units. My department will be formulating separate guidance on sick children in the context of the new "education otherwise" duty on LEAs. That will be a different document to that relating to other pupils for whom education otherwise must be provided.
1226
I also explained to the House that we cannot introduce separate arrangements for pupils out of school because of illness without referring to pupils in other circumstances, school phobics, pregnant school girls, pupils convalescing at home or pupils receiving home tuition, pending completion of a formal assessment or placement in a special school. There is therefore a comprehensive general duty in Clause 296. It will enable the approach to educating each child or young person who is sick to be appropriate and sensitive to individual needs.
I have used those and similar arguments before, but let me expand further. I find it difficult to see why the noble Lord, Lord Young. should read Clause 296 as defective in the sense that it does not sufficiently require LEAs to make appropriate arrangements for the education of sick children. Clause 296(1) can be read as placing an LEA under a duty to make arrangements for the provision of suitable full-time or part-time education at school or otherwise for any child of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for him or her. There can be no question of Clause 296 somehow operating only in relation to the generality of children in an LEA's area, and not the individual child. What then is the point of this new clause other than to prescribe arrangements which may, conceivably, be inappropriate to the area in question?
Given the definition of "suitable education" in subsection (7) of Clause 296, the "needs" of a child have to be taken into account by the LEA. In the case of sick children, I find it difficult to see how an LEA could determine education suitable to a child's special educational needs without taking full account of such circumstances as the nature and extent of the child's disability, where he is physically located, and the extent to which the need for treatment—for example, kidney dialysis—might impede the provision of education.
Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 would clearly have the effect of reinforcing on the face of the Bill the idea behind Amendment No. 8; that there is a need to prescribe separate arrangements for children who need education in hospital. For the reasons which I have previously adduced and set before your Lordships, the Government do not see the need for this in primary legislation.
I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that we will be discussing later today Amendments Nos. 43, 91, 97, 98 and 106 which address the required co-operation between local education authorities and health authorities, district health authorities and other agencies who will be required to play their part in implementing Part III of the Bill. I believe the House will welcome that degree of agreed collaboration between various agencies.
It was said during the course of the debate that the costs of addressing the needs of other children will be borne by sick children. I cannot say I agree with that statement but —I hope this is appreciated on all sides of the House—I believe there will always be tensions as local education authorities determine their priorities. Nevertheless when this Bill reaches the

1227
statute book local authorities will have an obligation in law to make provision for all children, including children who are sick or who have special needs. That, of course, is the catch-all for authorities such as Lambeth.
I understand that Dudley has not yet made a final decision on the proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, mentioned that. However, when this Bill arrives on the statute book, that authority will not escape the duty I have mentioned. I believe there is another safeguard in that any closure of a hospital school has to come through my department and must be agreed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It is again inconceivable that he would close a school that was needed in a community without the local authority concerned making sure that there was other provision to meet the needs of the children in that area. I hope these amendments will not be pressed because I believe there is no distance between the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, and the Government on these matters. The paramount consideration at the end of the day is that the needs of sick children are properly met.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I wish to say once again how grateful I am to the noble Baroness for her statement and the manner in which she gave it. However, I am not so grateful for the content of it. Before I deal with one or two of the points that were raised, I wish to say a few words to the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe. It is perfectly true that the excellent Evelina School at Guy's Hospital, with which the noble Lord is so much concerned, cannot be closed by Southwark Borough Council because it is a registered special school. The council could try to deconstitute it but that could not be done without the agreement of the Government. However, that council can—this is the crucial point—continue to do what it has already done; that is, to cut down the staff at Guy's Hospital school. In recent years the staff have been cut by 50 per cent. There is nothing in the law as it stands at present to prevent the council from cutting the staff further. As noble Lords will be aware, there are already proposals to cut the staff at the Maudsley Hospital school by 50 per cent.
As things stand at present, LEAs can deprive special schools of the sinew they need to keep going. That is what this amendment would prevent according to my legal advisers. If noble Lords are concerned that Guy's school should be protected and that some decent provision should be made for St. Thomas's when the two hospitals are merged, I submit that the right thing to do is to support this amendment.
The noble Baroness made a number of important points. She asked why the costs of providing for disruptive children expelled from schools and for persistent truants should be borne by sick children. I, too, wonder why that should be the case but that is the way that the local authority mind will work. Local authorities have certain budgets for "education otherwise" among their budgets in their overall schemes. Local authorities are under great pressure and the first thing they will look at is what they can
1228
save within the "education otherwise" budget. They will perceive that they can save something on hospital schools where costs can be quite substantial. Dudley has perceived that. If local authorities can make savings in that area, it is a simple thing to achieve. I can see why the chief education officer would propose that course.
The noble Baroness also said that LEAs will not be able to escape the duty to provide education for sick children along with other children. That is perfectly true. There will be a new duty imposed on LEAs in that regard. But the great question is: at what level should the duty be performed? In the case of Dudley it is said that as disruptive children only receive about one hour's education a day, why should sick children receive any more even though their needs may be different? It is perfectly proper to consider children in this somewhat egalitarian fashion. That is the way an LEA would ordinarily consider them. Therefore, that means the duty I have mentioned would not be escaped and would be performed, but it would be thinned out and debilitated as regards sick children. That is what this amendment is trying to prevent.
Even when the guidance is issued by the department on the subject of sick children's education, if authorities do not propose to act on that guidance there is nothing anyone can do about it. There is nothing any government can do about it under legislation as it exists so far. Unless teeth are put into the Bill on this point, in our submission—on behalf of all the people who are supporting the Bill—the future is grim for a deserving set of children who need not just compassion and excellent medical care but also decent educational provision provided by teachers who know about the special needs of sick and invalid children. I am afraid we have reached a stage in the discussion of this matter where I feel I have no option but to press for a Division.
4.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 122; Not-Contents, 144.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

David, B.

Airedale, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Annan, L.

Desai, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ardwick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Avebury, L.

Ennals, L.

Aylestone, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Barnett, L.

Falkland, V.

Birk, B.

Flowers, L.

Blackstone, B.

Foot, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Gainford, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bottomley, L.

Galpern, L.

Bridges, L.

Gifford, L.

Brightman, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Glenamara, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Carver, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hampton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Craigavon, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hayter, L.

1229

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Palmer, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B. [Teller.]

Parry, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Peston, L.

Howell, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hughes, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hunt, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Rea, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Richard, L.

Jeger, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rochester, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Russell, E.

Judd, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Seear, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Shackleton, L.

Listowel, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Lockwood, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Swinfen, L.

McNair, L.

Swinton, E.

Mallalieu, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Masham of Ilton, B. [Teller.]

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mayhew, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mellish, L.

Warnock, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Whaddon, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wharton, B.

Molloy, L.

White, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Wigoder, L.

Mulley, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Northbourne, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Northfield, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Addison, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Davidson, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Denham, L.

Alport, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Arran, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Elibank, L.

Astor, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elton, L.

Barber, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bellwin, L.

Flather, B.

Bessborough. E.

Forbes, L.

Birdwood, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Blatch, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Blyth, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Boardman, L.

Geddes, L.

Borthwick, L.

Goschen, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Granard, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Gridley, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Butterworth, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Caithness, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Caldecote, V.

Harlech, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Harrowby, E.

Carnock, L.

Harvington, L.

Carrington, L.

Henley, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hives, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Holderness, L.

Chelmsford, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Hood, V.

Clark of Kempston, L

Hooper, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cranborne, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kimball, L.

1230

Kitchener, E.

Romney, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

St. Davids, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Long, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Savile, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Seccombe, B.

Sharp of Grimsdyke. L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sharples, B.

Margadale, L.

Sherfield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Monson, L.

Slim, V.

Mottistone, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Mountevans, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strange, B.

Munster, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathclyde. L.

Newall, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Norfolk, D.

Norrie, L.

Sudeley, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Swansea, L

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Terrington, L.

Orkney, E.

Teviot, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trumpington, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Ullswater, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Porritt, L.

Vivian, L.

Pym, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Quinton, L.

Reay, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Rennell, L.

Westbury, L.

Renton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Renwick, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Wynford, L.

Rodney, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 23 [Duty of governing body to consider ballot on grant-maintained status]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 11, line 20, leave out from ("apply") to end of line 21 and insert ("to the governing bodies of all schools, or all schools in England or Wales, which are eligible for grant-maintained status.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will recall that during the Report stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, tabled amendments intended to secure that an order bringing into force provisions on annual consideration of grant-maintained status would apply to either England or Wales or to both. At that time my noble friend gave a commitment to return at Third Reading with an amendment to secure exactly that intention. That is what the amendment does. I therefore commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, while I thank the Minister for what he has just said, I wonder whether he feels able to make very clear for the future that there is no intention on the part of the Government to use the phrasing of this particular amendment to enable them selectively to work within the areas designated; for example, to pursue individual schools in particular areas by putting pressure on them to hold annual ballots in the hope that that will bring them round to the policy favoured by the Government. There is still anxiety in this area and it would be helpful if, this afternoon, the Minister could make it absolutely explicit that the Government have no such intentions for the future.
Lord Henley: My Lords, in moving the amendment I made it quite clear that it would apply to England or Wales or both but that it would certainly not apply —and this is the assurance that the noble Lord requests—to any individual LEAs. I repeat that Clause 23, as now drafted, with the amendment, applies to England or Wales or both, with no other combinations or permutations than those. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Expenses in connection with proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 17, line 24, at end insert ("provided that the aggregate of the payments made in a financial year to governing bodies within the area of a local education authority shall not exceed the prescribed amount in subsection (3) below.
( ) The governing body of a school shall not make any payments from the school's budget share of the general budget of its local education authority for the purpose of influencing the outcome of ballots held under section 27 of this Act.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 10 and to speak to Amendment No. 12, which is part of a common package with it. The amendment is also grouped with Amendment No. 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We think that, taken together, the three amendments would add up to an orderly series of proposals for the conduct of elections. They deal first with spending limits. Already in the Bill, we have a maximum amount to be prescribed for the local education authority to spend. Amendment No. 10 would provide that the amount made over to the governing body to spend may not exceed that amount. It would put them on all fours with each other. The amendments would also provide that no payment should be made by the governing body for influencing the ballot.
Amendment No. 12 would also provide that spending by the Department for Education is to be counted within the limits of spending for the ballot. Some noble Lords may remember that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in the debate in Committee on opting back, expressed the desire that schools should not become too politicised as a result of the conducting of ballots. I believe we all agree with that. We do not want to have massive spending and tremendous campaigns. The principle of a spending limit on campaigns is perfectly reasonable and fair, provided that it is applied—as any election rule ought to be—equally to all parties. For that reason, placing a limit on payments to the governing body for the conduct of a ballot is a perfectly reasonable specification for which to ask.
The restriction on the governing body making payments to influence the ballot is perhaps also necessary because, after all, the governing body has to live with the result, which may go either way. It does not wish to make the mistake of making the matter unnecessarily an issue of confidence. I cannot help being reminded of the former principal of a college discussing an issue which had divided that college for 20 years. She said that if it were carried she would
1232
resign; it was then immediately carried by an overwhelming majority. That is the kind of thing of which governing bodies might usefully beware.
The third and most important provision is the restriction on spending by the Department for Education. That department spends large sums of money on publicity. The rule is that government departments may spend money and distribute material for information, but not for purposes of propaganda. The distinction is perfectly acceptable in all quarters. What is so difficult is actually applying it, because the selection of information may itself on occasion —however carefully it is done—appear to other people to be a partisan exercise.
We know from a Written Answer given in another place today that the Department for Education has spent over £1 million on information given out on the exercise of going grant-maintained. The department may think that that is entirely impartial provision of information but it is my central contention that I do not believe that the Government are impartial judges of impartiality, any more than I myself should claim to be an impartial judge of impartiality. Noble Lords on the Government Benches have heard me giving information to the House on such a matter as, say, student finance, which appeared to me to be impartial. I do not believe it so appeared to them.
I ask the Government to understand that it seems the same the other way round. If the local authority is to be under a spending limit—and that by itself does not worry me—it seems to me that the Government must equally be under a spending limit. In any ballot on opting out, inevitably there is a possibility that the local authority will appear to be one side and the Government will appear to be the other. If that is so, they must be under the same rules.
Thus, if all three of the amendments reach the statute book, I am happy. If none of them reaches the statute book, I would not be so happy, but I would regard it as acceptable. What would give me great difficulty is the passing of Amendment No. 11 if the noble Baroness were not prepared to give an undertaking to accept Amendment No. 12. So I shall listen with great care to what she says in reply.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am glad to support the noble Earl's amendments. Before I speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 10 and 12, perhaps I may say a word in anticipation of Amendment No. 11. As I understand it, the amendment will meet a commitment given at Report stage to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. It covers similar ground but has a different purpose from the amendments in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby.
The Government amendment seems to seek to provide much greater regulation on the ability of LEAs to spend money for the purpose of influencing the outcome of grant-maintained school ballots. Under Amendment No. 11, the Secretary of State gains enormous powers, including those on the separate account of the expenditure which is open to the Secretary of State to inspect and the accounting

1233
period for such expenditure. The amendments do not touch on the issue of the fairness of the material produced by LEAs or governing bodies. I suggest that it is quite amazing that the Secretary of State requires such enormous powers over LEA expenditure when there is virtually no accountability over the Secretary of State's enormous expenditure on grant-maintained school publicity. Indeed, I venture to suggest that in many quarters this amendment will inevitably be seen as an affront to the democratic processes.
I turn to our own Amendments Nos. 10 and 12. The experience so far has been mixed, and, of course, perceptions differ. Much of the evidence is largely anecdotal. It has certainly been suggested by Ministers and some of their colleagues that LEAs have sometimes bombarded parents with literature seeking to persuade them against opting out. However, far more commonly. it is alleged that governing bodies or even head teachers have subjected parents to a welter of letters and leaflets seeking to persuade them in favour of opting out, often including much information which is at best highly optimistic and at worst downright misleading.
In that context, the role of the Grant Maintained Schools Centre has been highly contentious, to say no more. As we know, there is now a call in the other place for the National Audit Office to look into its activities. It would probably not therefore be appropriate for me to say more on that particular point at this stage.
During the Committee stage in the other place, on 12th January, the Minister, Eric Forth, said:
"This part of the Bill aims to place reasonable limits on what LEAs are able to do and to facilitate as far as is possible the provision of proper information to parents by school governors … I hope that all hon. Members share my wish for as much parity as can be achieved in the circumstances".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E; 12/1/93; col. 765.]
That was said in response to an amendment which we have also tried to put forward in this House, and which would have brought the situation in England and Wales into line with that in Scotland. The Government have rejected that amendment on a variety of what I would describe as largely spurious grounds, despite the fact that the amendment offered a practicable solution to the otherwise apparently insuperable difficulty of calculating a prescribed amount in a way which could adequately take account of the hugely variable rate of balloting in different local education authorities.
The present amendment offers an alternative mechanism for the establishment of parity. It also puts to the test the Government's sincerity in seeking as much parity as can be achieved in the circumstances, for it would achieve almost complete parity between the interested parties. It would thus offer parents the opportunity to receive roughly equal amounts of information from either side, the content of which would be subject to other provisions of the Bill.
Governing bodies would be funded by the Secretary of State up to the same limit as would be applied to the expenditure of the LEA. While they would be free to raise additional funds—a freedom denied to LEAs—they would not be free to use
1234
schools' budgets; that is, the local education authority funds delegated to schools for the purposes of educating children.
It was argued in the other place that LEAs are able to take advantage of economies of scale. Indeed, the Minister said:
"Local education authorities can reap the economies of scale … because they can produce material in bulk and relatively cheaply for the ballots held by different schools". —[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E; 12/1/93; cols. 764-765.]
I find that a slightly strange argument to deploy over a measure whereby schools are being encouraged to opt-out of their LEAs and thus deny themselves the benefits of such economies of scale in the future. However, leaving that particular observation on one side, it is anyway a highly questionable argument. The governing bodies are able to obtain from the Department for Education material which is produced with an economy of scale very much greater than that achievable by any LEA.
In the other place yesterday, Mrs. Ann Taylor asked a Question to which there has been an interesting Answer. It appears that the Government have now circulated more than 5½ million book lets about opting-out at a cost of £515,000—that is, a cost of £1,000 for each existing grant-maintained school, or £500 for each school which has so far voted to opt-out. If the Government are sincere in their wish to achieve parity, then this amendment will pose no problem. If the amendment is resisted, it will become manifestly clear to parents and to the public in general that the Government's real objective is nothing more nor less than an enshrinement in law of a most unequal system—a system under which, while maintaining that opting-out is a choice for parents to be made with all the trappings of a democratic process, in reality the Government will have cynically insisted that parents will be subject to the presentation of information which is heavily biased in favour of opting out.
I do not, however, believe that this arrangement will achieve the Government's wish to see more schools opting out. By contrast, I suspect that it is likely to produce a backlash of opinion among parents, who are indeed sound judges of such manipulation. If the extension of grant-maintained status can be achieved only through the deployment of such tactics, now that the Treasury has pulled tight the purse strings on financial inducements which previously tempted schools, parents will increasingly reject the idea, as indeed they have clearly been doing of late. Once again, I suggest that the Government will have nobody to blame but themselves.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, Clause 35 is an important clause about expenses in connection with proposals for the acquisition of grant-maintained status. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, seems to have a penchant for, at best, over-generously interpreting facts. Let me just give him the facts. Five-hundred thousand pounds has indeed been spent. But there are over 7 million schoolchildren. That information applies to all schools—(19,000 to 20,000 primary schools and over 4,000 secondary schools), all parents —and I hesitate to put a figure on how many of those

1235
there may be —and all children (between 7 and 8 million). Therefore I make the cost of each booklet about 12p to 14p. To allocate that cost to each grant-maintained school—schools which are not in need of that information; they have already taken the step down the road of becoming grant-maintained—is not really necessary. Noble Lords opposite press us constantly about making sure that information is available to parents. If the noble Lord believes that there is anything misleading in that booklet, I would be very pleased to hear that complaint.
Secondly, the noble Lord knows—and if he does not know, perhaps his honourable friend in another place should explain to him—that a code of conduct is being drawn up, with great co-operation between the local education authorities and my department, which will bite on the activities of the Grant Maintained Schools Centre, our department and indeed the local education authorities. That is a very good thing. It will make sure that information which is imparted is the truth and is not misleading.
At Report stage I gave an undertaking to my noble friend Lady Cox to look again at the wording of that part of the clause which deals with controls on local education authority expenditure in connection with grant-maintained status. Amendment No. 11 is the result. It is designed to secure an effective limitation of local authorities' expenditure. That was always our intention, but I have now been advised that the present wording of the Bill may not provide an adequate basis for the necessary regulations. My amendment will correct that defect. I am most grateful to my noble friend for drawing this to our attention.
Perhaps I may also remind the House of the purpose behind this part of Clause 35? It will put limits on local authority expenditure aimed at influencing the outcome of ballots of parents about whether or not the school should apply for grant-maintained status. Experience in several parts of the country has shown the necessity of limiting local education authority expenditure in this way. It is vital to a balanced debate among parents about grant-maintained status in any particular school.
Local education authorities which are opposed to grant-maintained status are perfectly entitled to put their views to parents in any school which is considering opting out of local authority control. But local authorities have sometimes submerged parents in a sea of propaganda in the process of putting their case. We take the view that this is quite inappropriate, particularly as schools have limited resources with which to play their part in the debate, and also because in the past some of that information has been misleading.
The amendment also makes clear that the limit on expenditure refers to all expenditure by a local education authority for this purpose. It provides for specific accounting arrangements to be introduced for the expenditure concerned and will allow the Secretary of State to see those accounts, if it is appropriate.
Let me turn now to the amendments in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. The first of these calls
1236
for the aggregate of payments made to governing bodies in the area of an LEA not to exceed the prescribed amount which that LEA may spend for the purposes of influencing ballots about grant-maintained status. It would also prevent schools from making payments from their normal local management of schools budgets for the purposes of influencing the outcome of ballots.
I agree that it is vital that parents are entitled to hear both sides of the debate about grant-maintained status for their children's school. But at present there is a significant imbalance. Schools considering applying for self-governing status have no alternative but to dip into their limited school budgets to finance information for parents, while, in comparison, an LEA has access to a considerable pool of resources.
Clause 35 seeks to redress that imbalance. Our intention is to make modest payments to governing bodies of schools applying for self-governing status which should be sufficient for the purpose of putting their arguments to parents. That will help level the playing field on information. But we also intend that the provision in subsections (1) and (2) should enable the Secretary of State to contribute to certain other costs which governors may incur in acquiring grant-maintained status. For instance, in some cases, because of the circumstances of individual schools, they need to incur quite significant legal costs. Once that element of the prospective expenditure is taken into account, it is quite apparent that the noble Lords' amendment would in fact tilt the playing field quite considerably in the LEAs' favour. I could not accept that.
The noble Earl's second amendment, Amendment No. 12, would offset the production costs of any of the department's publications which were distributed in an area against the total prescribed for expenditure by the LEA or, if Amendment No. 10 were approved, for payments to governors.
Many noble Lords, will be familiar with the department's publications on grant-maintained status. They are designed to be informative and helpful by explaining the procedures and experiences involved in acquiring self-governing status. They provide factual information which is of interest to those who are seeking grant-maintained status. They are not designed to sway parents one way or the other on whether their school should apply for grant-maintained status. I see no reason why such factual guidance and information should be counted against the costs of influencing a ballot. Indeed, the publications do not seek to influence or persuade parents in the way that other documents arguing for or against the case aim to do. I therefore urge the House to resist this amendment as well.
I hope that the amendments will not be pressed. But I accept always that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and their colleagues on other Benches start from the standpoint of not approving of this area of policy in any case. We need to have real information and a level playing field awarded to both the school and the LEA in these matters.
5 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes; namely, that we start from disapproving of the policy. But I believe that she would plead guilty to the charge that she starts from approving of the policy. I am trying to suggest that that places us in an equal position. It is not possible to say that her information is impartial because it supports the policy whereas our information is partial because it opposes the policy. If we are to have an insistence upon impartiality, I welcome it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. I feel that at this juncture I ought to make what I consider to be a significant point. The policy is now approved by Parliament. Grant-maintained schools are here by force of parliamentary will. The noble Earl is right to remind me of my personal views. But we have to start from where we are now: it is parliamentary approved policy. We have that policy and, whether or not we approve of it as individual Members of this House, it is important to have a level playing field for both the schools and the LEAs, as I hope the noble Earl will agree.
Lord Judd: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I believe that she said something rather significant. Did she say that grant-maintained schools are here by the will of Parliament or that the choice on grant-maintained schools is here by the will of Parliament?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I said that the policy for grant-maintained schools is here by the will of Parliament.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we may have some difference between us about what Parliament in fact approved. My understanding is that in 1988 Parliament approved the policy of giving parents a choice on grant-maintained schools. It is my further understanding that if people are given a choice, they are free to make it one way or the other.
Lord Judd: Absolutely, my Lords.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I, am grateful for the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, but we do not need to sing a duet just yet. It seems to me that, if there is to be a free choice, it must be legitimate to support making that choice one way or the other. What worries me very deeply is that the noble Baroness seems to be suggesting that it is more legitimate to make the choice one way than the other. If she is not suggesting that, I do not see why she brought in the will of Parliament. The will of Parliament has been to provide a choice.
The noble Baroness defended what the Government are putting out on the grounds that it is information—for that is what it is. She defended the cost on the grounds of economy. But economy was not the issue. Information may be put out in all honesty without appearing to people who disagree with its basic premise to be impartial. I am sure that the noble Baroness does not believe that the
1238
information that I give her on student finance is impartial. I am sure she recognises that I give it in sincerity. Equally, I recognise that she gives information in sincerity and believes it to be impartial. But I do not concede the claim to her any more than she concedes it to me. I believe that that puts us on art equal footing.
The Government are not the judge of what is misleading information. If we are to have a judgment about misleading information, it must be judicial. The noble Baroness said that the local authority puts out a sea of propaganda. She may not understand that to many people, rightly or wrongly —I make no judgment on that view at present—what is put out by the Government appears exactly in the same light.
I shall not press this amendment today. However, I ask the noble Baroness not to press Amendment No. 11 which, it seems to us, in a contest would put a restriction on one side that does not apply to the other. That seems to be an infringement of basic democratic; practice. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment No. 11. If she cannot, we must advise the House to reject it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 17, line 25, leave out subsection (3) arid insert:
("(3) A local education authority shall riot incur any expenditure attributable to any period for the purpose of influencing the outcome of ballots held under section 27 of this Act if the aggregate of the amounts of expenditure for that purpose attributable to the period exceeds or, if that expenditure were incurred, would exceed the limit for that period.
(4) Regulations may make provision for determining for the purposes of this section—

(a) whether expenditure is incurred for the purpose referred to in subsection (3) above,

(b) the amount of any expenditure,

(c) the period to which expenditure is to be attributed, and

(d) the limit for any period.

(5) Regulations may require each local education authority—

(a) to keep in accordance with regulations, and any directions contained in an order made by the Secretary of State, a separate account of the expenditure incurred for the purpose referred lo in subsection (3) above, and

(b) to prepare in respect of such periods as may be prescribed a statement of account and, if the Secretary of State so requests, send each statement to him before the end of such period as may be prescribed.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
5.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided Contents, 150; Not-Contents, 91.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Addison, V.

Astor, V.

Ailesbury, M.

Astor of Hever, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Auckland, L.

Alport, L.

Barber, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Arran, E.

Blatch, B.

1239

Boardman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Margadale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Mountevans, L.

Caithness, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Caldecote, V.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Carnock, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Norrie, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Northbourne, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Onslow, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Clark of Kempston, L

Orkney, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Palmer, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Perth, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Prentice, L.

Cranborne, V.

Pym, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Quinton, L.

Davidson, V.

Reay, L.

Denham, L.

Rennell, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Renton, L.

Eccles, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elibank, L.

Rodney, L.

Elles, B.

Romney, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Ferrers, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Flather, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Savile, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Seccombe, B.

Geddes, L.

Sharples, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Sherfield, L.

Goschen, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

Granard, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Slim, V.

Guildford, Bp.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harlech, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Harrowby, E.

Harvington, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Swansea, L.

Henley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Swinton, E.

Hives, L.

Tebbit, L.

Holderness, L.

Teviot, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Trumpington, B.

Howe, E.

Ullswater, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Vinson, L.

Kimball, L.

Vivian, L.

Kitchener, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Lauderdale, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Liverpool, E.

Wynford, L.

Long, V.

Young, B.

Lyell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Airedale, L.

Bottomley, L.

Annan, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Aylestone, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Carter, L.

Blackstone, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

1240

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

David, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McNair, L.

Desai, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Eatwell, L.

Mayhew, L.

Ennals, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkland, V.

Molloy, L.

Fitt, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Foot, L.

Mulley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Northfield, L.

Galpern, L.

Ogmore, L.

Geraint, L.

Parry, L.

Glenamara, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Rea, L.

Hampton, L.

Richard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hanworth, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Howell, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hughes, L.

Stedman, B.

Hunt, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Warnock, B.

Judd, L.

White, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Listowel, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Lockwood, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.16 p.m.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Clause 51 [Implementation of proposals]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 29, line 28, leave out from ("persons") to ("appointed") in line 29 and insert ("are").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 to 20, 27 to 31, 33 to 35, 70, 80, and 85 to 87. Those amendments either correct drafting errors in the Bill or meet commitments made to Churches to ensure that they are consulted on matters affecting grant-maintained schools with foundation governors. I shall deal with them briefly.
Amendments Nos. 13, 85, 86 and 87 are technical, drafting amendments. At Report stage the Government introduced amendments which would enable initial parent governors at prospective grant-maintained schools to be appointed by the governing body if fewer people stood for election than there were vacancies.
The remaining amendments—Amendments Nos. 15 to 20, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35 and 80, 14, 27, 28 and 70 —all respond to concerns expressed by the Churches. Amendments Nos. 15 to 20 and 80 provide that the Secretary of State will consult the relevant Church body, either on a local or national basis as appropriate, when he makes regulations under Clause 299 or initiates changes under Clauses 56 and 57 to the

1241
instruments and articles of government of those grant-maintained schools which have foundation governors.
Amendments Nos. 29 to 31 and 33 to 35 will place a requirement on the funding authority to consult the relevant local diocesan authority before publishing any proposals to change the character or discontinue a grant-maintained school with foundation governors where the relevant local diocesan authority appoints one or more of the foundation governors.
Amendments Nos. 14, 27, 28 and 70 are concerned with the recovery of assets of voluntary-aided and special agreement schools and also of grant-maintained schools whose premises are held by trustees.
At Report stage, in response to the continuing concern of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, I gave a commitment to consider further the possibility of tabling an amendment to Clause 280 to reflect our policy with regard to the recovery of assets from voluntary-aided and special agreement schools which have been provided with or enhanced by grant aid, should the assets cease to be used for the purposes for which the grant was paid. The principle underlying the amendment is that grant spent on premises owned by trustees should not be recoverable by the Secretary of State, but should be recycled for educational purposes through well-established mechanisms provided by existing education and charity law. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I wish to raise a point on Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31. As I see it, they certainly meet a commitment given to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford on his new clause "Duty to Consult". It seems that the amendments require the funding authority to consult Church authorities prior to publishing the proposals to make a significant change of character to or to close a grant-maintained school that has foundation governors appointed by the Church of England, the Church in Wales or the Roman Catholic Church. But as I recall it, the right reverend Prelate's amendment also required consultation with local education authorities for the area. The removal of the LEAs from the right reverend Prelate's list of bodies to be consulted smacks of yet another example of the paranoia of this Government in terms of their attitude to the proper role of local government in our affairs.
Local education authorities should be consulted prior to the funding authority making proposals for such changes to grant-maintained schools. I suggest that it is wrong that that is not explicitly stated on the face of the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am not in a position to answer the fairly technical point which the noble Lord has just raised. He is quite right in saying that when I moved the amendment at an earlier stage I was anxious that the consultation by the funding authority should cover not only the Church authorities but appropriate other bodies as well. No doubt the Minister will respond to that point.
I rise to express my gratitude to the Government for this group of amendments which in their many
1242
different ways meet the anxieties that we have expressed both on the Floor of the House and in continuing negotiations with the Government. I am grateful for the patience that the Government have shown and the care with which they have responded to our concerns.
I am particularly grateful for those amendments which deal with the recoupment provisions. The House will know that it was on that Issue that I said that the Bill as originally drafted, or rather the Bill as it came to the House, was simply not acceptable. The amendments now put that entirely to our satisfaction. It is for that reason that I wish to express the gratitude not only of the Church or England but of the Roman Catholic Church as well, with which, over this whole matter, we have been in the closest association. I would not wish the House to be in any doubt of the gratitude of the Churches for this group of amendments.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I should like to confirm what the right reverend Prelate has said. The Roman Catholic Church is most grateful for the attentive and helpful way in which the Government have listened to representations which were made to them and have responded to those representations in a reasonable manner.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate and to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for their expressions of gratitude. Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I simply do not accept what he said about there being a bias on this matter against LEAs. The LEAs have a right to comment and to consult the FAS, and vice versa, on all such matters. In fact, if the noble Lord looks at Clause 96(4) of the Bill, he will see that LEAs have a right to be consulted. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Exercise of powers before proposed date of implementation, and payment of grant]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 30, line 34, at end insert:
("( ) No such requirement as is referred to in subsection (6) above may be imposed where any grant is made under subsection (2) above in respect of the provision of premises for the school if any freehold interest in the premises in respect of which the grant is paid is, or is to be, held on trust for the purposes of the school.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Subsequent instruments of government]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 15 to 17:
Page 32, line 2, at end insert:
("( ) No order may be made under subsection (1) above in respect of a school having foundation governors unless the governing body have consulted

(a) the person who appoints the foundation governors, and

(b) in the case of a Church of England, Church in Wales or Roman Catholic Church school, the appropriate diocesan authority (if different).").

Page 32, line 8, after ("consulted") insert ("(i)").
Page 32, line 10, at end insert:
("(ii) if the order relates only to a school having foundation governors, the person who appoints them and, if it is a Church of England. Church

1243
in Wales or Roman Catholic Church school, the appropriate diocesan authority (if different), and
(iii) if the order relates to two or more schools and any of the schools are Church of England, Church in Wales or Roman Catholic Church schools having foundation governors, a body appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of the church in question in matters relating to the provision of education in grant-maintained schools having foundation governors.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 57 [Subsequent articles of government]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 18 to 20:
Page 32, line 26, at end insert:
("( ) Before exercising that power, the governing body of a school having foundation governors shall consult

(a) the person who appoints the foundation governors, and

(b) in the case of a Church of England, Church in Wales or Roman Catholic Church school, the appropriate diocesan authority (if different).").

Page 32, line 32, after ("consult") insert ("(a)").
Page 32, line 34, at end insert:
("(b) if the direction relates only to a school having foundation governors, the person who appoints them and, if it is a Church of England, Church in Wales or Roman Catholic Church school, the appropriate diocesan authority (if different), and
(c) if the direction relates to two or more schools and any of the schools are Church of England, Church in Wales or Roman Catholic Church schools having foundation governors, a body appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of the church in question in matters relating to the provision of education in grant-maintained schools having foundation governors.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
("Behaviour towards others
.—(1) The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of section 22, after "authority" there is inserted "and for others." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at an earlier stage I drew to your Lordships' attention Section 22 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 upon which is founded current visual thinking on the matter of discipline. I drew to your Lordships' attention the odd fact that the section, while it set upon the governors of every school the duty of requiring the head teacher to determine measures to be taken with a view, inter alia, of promoting self discipline and proper regard for authority, did not mention proper respect for others and that that was a wholly imbalanced approach since drilling by discipline does not necessarily produce good behaviour at all and can in fact induce bullying and all kinds of other things, as is now generally accepted. I therefore put down Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 as alternatives to each other before I saw the government amendment, Amendment No. 95. I was trying to anticipate what the next objection the Government could raise to my amendment might be and I thought that two shots at it might be better than one. Since then the Government have put down their own amendment.
The effect of my amendment would have been to introduce the words "and respect for others" in sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of Section 22, which makes it a duty of the head teacher to make arrangements and so on for promoting respect for others. The Government have put it into subparagraph (ii), which makes it his duty to encourage good behaviour. I do not see the difference. I am grateful to my noble friend. I suspect that if he replies to the amendment in the terms which I expect, I shall be able to withdraw it in anticipation of Amendment No. 95. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I have supported the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in his pressure for a concept of discipline as being a matter for the whole school and for mutual respect between pupils and teachers, teachers and pupils and one another. I therefore strongly support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I had better briefly respond before my noble friend feels it necessary either to move or withdraw his amendment. On reflection, we feel it is better to separate regard for authority from the more general according of respect for others. That is why we have added in our amendment, Amendment No. 95, to which I shall speak now but which I hope noble Lords will allow me formally to move later on, "and respect for others" to the requirement in paragraph (a) (ii) to encourage good behaviour on the part of pupils. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to accept our slight variation which we believe achieves slightly better the end that he desires.
I agree with my noble friend that it is highly desirable that young people should be encouraged to have respect for others, including their peers and those in society who are vulnerable. Respect for others will be a theme in our forthcoming guidance on behaviour. Therefore, I would hope, once my noble friend has withdrawn his two amendments, to be able to commend in due course Amendment No. 95.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I have never yet achieved words of my very, very own in statute. This is near enough. I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Clause 68 [Joint schemes]:
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 40, line 33, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (5A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26. The purpose of the amendments is to investigate further the terms and conditions of employment of teachers in grant-maintained schools. Clauses 68 and 69 were introduced as new clauses during the Committee stage of the Bill without any prior consultation. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Judd questioned

1245
various aspects of the employment consequences of the new clauses. In replying the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said:
"But it is inconceivable that the interests of an employee would be sacrificed; they would be looked after".—[Official Report, 27/4/93: col. 277.]
These four amendments now seek to test four specific aspects of that general commitment. If the House will bear with me, I shall go through those four specific questions in a little detail.
First, the school teachers' review body was established under the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991. The recommendations of the review body have been given effect by the annual school teachers' pay and conditions document, thus providing national pay scales and contractual duties for school teachers. Section 3 of the 1991 Act permits a grant-maintained school to opt out of that national pay and conditions framework for school teachers, although no school has yet done so. My first question is: does the drafting of Clause 68(5), if unamended, mean that a joint committee could opt out of the national pay and conditions arrangements for teachers, as if it were an independent school, while the constituent schools of the joint scheme did not opt out of those arrangements?
If Section 3 of the 1991 Act does apply, it would appear to require the joint committee only to consult those teachers employed by them rather than all the teachers in the constituent schools. We recognise that the members of the joint committee are representative of the constituent schools. But there will also be considerations of cost involved and those members might be tempted to see teachers employed by the joint committee as in some way second class. I shall be interested to know what the Government's intention is on that matter.
The second point is that for each grant-maintained school paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 requires the articles of government to include provision as to the delegation of functions by those on whom they are imposed or conferred. We wish to see effective and successful management which requires considerable delegation by the governing body to the head teacher. Where individuals are employed by a joint committee and there are several head teachers involved, how will the scheme provide unambiguously for effective line management for each member of staff? It would be unreasonable for an employee to be left in any doubt as to whom she or he is responsible. Here again, I shall be interested to know what is the Government's intention.
The third point is that for each grant-maintained school paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 requires the articles of government to include provisions for, first, disciplinary rules and procedures; secondly, procedures for the redress of grievances; and thirdly, procedures in the case of people the subject of contemplated dismissal. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has said that,
"Mechanisms [in respect of] grievances will clearly form part of the regulations controlling the way the federation would work".—[Official Report, 27/4/93; col. 277.]
Since Clause 68 appears to contain no reference to regulations, we shall be grateful for clarification as to
1246
whether such grievance machinery will be provided within the text of the joint scheme itself by attaching the provisions of Schedule 6 to the scheme or by some other method. In addition to the grievance procedures, will the Minister give similar assurances on the other two points covered by paragraph 3 of Schedule 6; namely, the procedures for the redress of grievances and those in the case of a contemplated dismissal?
My fourth and perhaps most important point is this. The provisions of Clause 68 appear to permit the governing body of a grant-maintained school to contractualise effectively parts of its necessary function. That may even include the employment of teachers. It can contractualise that to a joint committee which operates as a separate employer. That artificial device could allow the joint committee to pay less for work of equal value. The amendment seeks to prevent that happening. My final question to the Minister is this: does she not agree that equal pay for work of equal value is such an important principle that the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools should not be offered a loophole to escape from that important principle? I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we discussed these amendments at Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said then that he wanted to know the Government's intention in respect of the employment of staff under the arrangements introduced into the Bill in Committee in this House for schools to enter into joint schemes under which they could delegate functions as specified in the scheme to a joint committee of governors. Although by no means intended exclusively for Church schools, the provisions were brought in as a result of discussions with the Churches and were welcomed, I believe, by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford.
I emphasised in our earlier discussions the aim of flexibility so that schools could draw up schemes best suited to their own circumstances. The provisions on the face of the Bill cover requirements which must be in all joint schemes; for example, the composition of the joint committee and provision for any expenses of exercising a joint scheme.
It is not the intention of this provision to interfere with employment law and with the normal rights and obligations of employer and employee. It will be possible—indeed, this may well normally be the case —for governing bodies to continue to carry out their normal employment functions in relation to their own teachers. We needed, however, to make special provision where the schools under the scheme decided that they wanted to employ teaching staff jointly or otherwise manage the employment functions through the joint committee. Express provision was required in relation to Section 3 of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991 if the schools concerned were to be able to take advantage of those provisions.
We would expect schools to want, as far as possible, to adopt the same policy in relation to all the schools with regard to conditions of employment. It is not in the interests of the schools concerned to stimulate

1247
disharmony. There may, however, be circumstances where schools joining the scheme have in some cases statutory conditions of employment and in other cases locally determined conditions. In those circumstances we would expect schools to maintain the position by keeping the employment functions with the individual governing body. There may be other cases where for particular reasons it is desired to employ staff jointly.
The amendment would allow an application only where the Secretary of State has made an order in respect of each school covered by the scheme. Its effect would be to prevent co-operative employment arrangements unless the schools were within the provisions of the Act or exempt from them. That is not flexibility. It would inhibit or prevent schools from entering into a scheme.
In saying that we are seeking flexibility, I do not mean that schools will be free to enter into loose arrangements entirely of their own devising. These will be serious arrangements intended to give the schools concerned security. They will want to know that where they decide to co-operate with other schools under a scheme, the arrangements are clear and watertight. All schemes will be subject to approval, either by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State or, should he decide to transfer the function, by the funding agency or agencies. There will be clear guidance to schools drawing up schemes. I am sure schools will welcome that. Approval will take account of the extent to which they have adhered to the guidance. A scheme which flouted the guidance would not be approved.
Not all schemes will deal with employment matters. As I emphasised when we discussed this at Report, the guidance will make clear that where a scheme does deal with joint employment matters or the delegation of staffing matters, it must contain arrangements for the staff concerned. In those circumstances the scheme would have to cover the discipline and grievance procedures set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 or leave the provisions in the school's articles in accordance with paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 substantially undisturbed. Line management arrangements would be for the joint committee to determine but we would look for schemes to make clear that these should be set down clearly for the persons concerned. In that regard I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that it is absolutely essential that anyone being employed under those circumstances should know exactly what is the remit and the circumstances under which they would be required to work.
As far as equality in terms and conditions of employment are concerned, a joint committee would be expected to operate as a reasonable employer. Is the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, suggesting that a set of school governors will be reasonable yet become unreasonable when they put on their joint committee hats? Employment law offers certain safeguards to employees; staff here are covered to the same extent as anyone else. The guidance to which I have referred will be the subject of consultation. We shall seek the views
1248
of interested parties in due course. It will contain matter concerning those areas which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is concerned about.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I am grateful for most of that reply. I am particularly grateful for the Minister's concern that there should be clear lines of responsibility. That was perhaps the most positive part of the reply. I was also pleased to hear that, generally speaking, she expected that there should be the same pay and conditions for work of equal value. The point of the amendments is that that principle is such an important one that it should be on the face of the Bill.
Nevertheless, the noble Baroness has expressed her view that there should be equal pay and conditions. She also hoped that this would be properly emphasised in the guidance. At this stage of the Bill it would be wrong if I did anything other than withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24 to 26 not moved.]
Clause 83 [Imposition of requirements on governing body in receipt of grant]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 51, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) No such requirement as is referred to in subsection (6) above may be imposed where any payment is made in respect of capital grant if—

(a) the grant is made in respect of the provision, alteration or repair of premises for a school, and

(b) any freehold interest in the premises in respect of which the grant is made is, or is to be, held on trust for the purposes of the school.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to refer also to Amendments Nos. 28 to 31, to which I spoke when we considered Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 89 [Imposition of requirements on governing body in receipt of grant]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 53, line 44, at end insert:
("( ) No such requirement as is referred to in subsection (6) above may be imposed where any payment is made in respect of capital grant if—

(a) the grant is made in respect of the provision, alteration or repair of premises for a school, and

(b) any freehold interest in the premises in respect of which the grant is made is, or is to be, held on trust for the purposes of the school.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 96 [Proposals for change of character etc. by funding authority]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 29 to 31:
Page 58, line 26, after ("consult") insert ("(a)").
Page 58, line 26, after ("appropriate") insert ("and
(b) in the case of a Church of England, Church in Wales or Roman Catholic Church school having any foundation governor who is appointed by the appropriate diocesan authority, that authority").
Page 58, line 27, leave out ("this subsection") and insert ("paragraph (a) above").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 98 [Approval of school premises]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 32:

1249
Page 60, line 13, after ("particulars") insert ("prepared or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 32, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 36 to 38, 88 and 89. These are all minor technical amendments. Amendments Nos. 32 and 88 refer to the particulars of premises which form part of the proposals for either a significant change of character or for the establishment of a new grant-maintained school.
Amendment No. 38 removes an inconsistency between Clauses 144 and 97. As currently drafted, Clause 144 implies that under Clause 97, the funding authority could adopt proposals
"that the required provision for religious education should be provision for religious education in accordance with the tenets of a particular religion or religious denomination".
The funding authority is unable to publish such proposals. They cannot therefore be adopted under Clause 97 and as a consequence the words "or adopted" must be removed.
Amendment No. 36 repairs a small technical defect in Clause 113 as presently drafted. As was pointed out during discussion of these provisions at Report stage, our intention is for the tribunal's determination to be binding on the Secretary of State in relation to the maximum consideration—that is, its full market value. But, as presently drafted, subsection (7) does not require the Secretary of State to reconsider the amount of consideration paid to trustees by virtue of subsection (4). This omission is clearly at odds with the intention of these provisions, and Amendment No. 36 repairs the defect.
Turning finally to Amendments Nos. 37 and 89, at Report stage the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford queried the need for paragraph 2(3) (b) of what is now Schedule 8, which provides for the persons named in the school's instrument of government to appoint externally appointed core governors for groups. We are indebted to the right reverend Prelate for his attention. We agree that was not right. Amendment No. 89 therefore removes paragraph 2(3) (b), leaving the power to appoint externally appointed core governors with those named in the instrument of government for the group. Amendment No. 37 is a drafting amendment, consequential upon earlier amendments. I commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 104 [Proposals by funding authority for discontinuance]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 33 to 35:
Page 64, line 4, after ("consult") insert ("(a)").
Page 64, line 4, after ("appropriate") insert ("and
(b) in the case of a Church of England, Church in Wales or Roman Catholic Church school having any foundation governor who is appointed by the appropriate diocesan authority, that authority").
Page 64, line 5, leave out ("this subsection") and insert ("paragraph (a) above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 113 [Disposal of school property]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 36:
1250
Page 71, line 14, after ("(3)") insert ("or (4)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 36, I should like to refer also to Amendments Nos. 37 and 38. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 32. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 121 [Core governors]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 75, line 41, after ("Act") insert ("(which makes provision in relation to core governors for groups)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 144 [Changes in religious character of schools]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 89, line 30, leave out ("or adopted").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington Lord Young of Dartington moved Amendment No. 39:
After Clause 150, insert the following new clause:
("Sick children: application of Part II to hospital educational units etc
.—(1) Regulations shall make provision for this Part of this Act to apply to a hospital educational unit, or a group of such units, or a group of home tutors for sick children as if the unit or the group were a school to which this Part may apply.
(2) Regulations made for the purposes of this section may apply any provision of this Part of this Act with or without modification.
(3) In this section—

"hospital educational unit" means the provision of staff and other educational facilities (not amounting to a school) at a hospital where health services are provided by a health service body (within the meaning of section 4 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990);

"home tutors for sick children" means teachers employed to provide education for children of compulsory school age in the children's homes in cases where the children by reason of illness may not otherwise receive suitable education.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the whole of this part of the Bill has been about grant-maintained status. Under these provisions, hospital schools, which are themselves special schools, will be able to seek grant-maintained status if that is their wish and particularly if it turns out that their local education authorities are not giving them the support that they deserve. So far, so good.
But the weakness in the Bill on this matter is that hospital educational units are not going to be able to seek grant-maintained status. Although I have said on so many occasions (to the extent that I am sure that have bored some Members of the House) that I hope that hospital educational units will be allowed to cluster together in order to get grant-maintained status in the same way as hospital special schools are able to do, so far my pleas have fallen on deaf ears from the very top of the Department for Education right to the somewhat more humble levels with which I have been dealing. I have been sorry about that because it seems to me that there is an especially strong case for hospital educational units in some circumstances to have the freedom to apply for

1251
grant-maintained status, subject to submission in the correct manner to the Secretary of State, as is the case for other schools.
The fact is that the distinction between hospital schools which are special schools and hospital educational units is very arbitrary. It depends on a whole host of local accidents about the way in which education committees and chief education officers have thought about these matters. A further fact is that, because of that arbitrariness, some hospital educational units are much larger than some hospital special schools and are doing a very grand job. It is strange that, although it is recognised that the distinction is an arbitrary one and that hospital educational units are, in most cases, doing the same job as hospital special schools, there has been no bow to that in the way in which the Bill has been drafted. If the amendment were incorporated in the Bill, it would make it possible for hospital educational units to be treated in the same way as hospital schools. It provides that they should figure in Part II of the Bill in the same way as though they were hospital special schools.
As I see it, the argument is straightforward. It is partly a question of justice as between one type of school and another. However, it is also much more than that. It seems particularly strange that the 160 hospital educational units in this country (which are, in effect, hospital schools, and which could become even more effective if they were clustered together in the same way as is provided in the Bill for small primary schools) should not be allowed to do that.
We have to look to the future—or at least some way into the future—even though "through a glass darkly". If these units were given the option of having grant-maintained status where the local education authorities were not able to provide or were not providing the right degree of support, that would give them some measure of security where things were not going well. It would also give them some degree of security in places where the funding agency becomes more important—if it does become more important —as a provider of funds.
In the medium term, if the scope and power of LEAs continues to be reduced, they will have even fewer resources for hospital educational units. If they were able to have recourse to grant-maintained status that would at least give them the option of keeping afloat. They would then be able to seek funds from the centre, like other grant-maintained schools. I have always thought it odd—with all respect to the Minister—that she is unable to accept the strange inconsistency that she supports the grant-maintained principle to such a large extent, but not in this case, which, in my submission, is especially strong. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the main difference between hospital schools and hospital educational units is that the schools are better funded and have the resources to offer access to the national curriculum. That opportunity is perhaps being denied to children in the units. In his introduction to the White Paper Choice and Diversity, the Prime Minister
1252
stated clearly that all children everywhere should have the same opportunities to receive education. The amendment seeks to offer to all sick children that equal opportunity to receive education. I shall be interested to hear the Minister explain why she allows that inconsistency in the Bill.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. I have already said that because so many changes have taken place within the Welsh education system, the grant system and the system of support will be in chaos when the provisions of the Bill are introduced. As no strong arguments were put forward in response to earlier amendments, it seems to me that the Minister is close to being able to say that it would be sound common sense to implement the amendment and take it into the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset that there is absolutely no inconsistency. I support, my Government support, and my colleagues support the policy that parents should be able to choose grant-maintained status for their schools. We do not afford that choice to units in the mainstream of education and so we are not affording to units and loose federal groups of peripatetic teachers within the hospital system the opportunity to become grant-maintained schools. It is absurd even to consider that they should become grant-maintained schools.
There is, however, a serious inconsistency on the Benches opposite. They do not support the policy of grant-maintained schools or that parents should have the choice of having grant-maintained status, but for one reason or another, in this difficult area, noble Lords opposite think grant-maintained status a good thing. That is one inconsistency. The other inconsistency was named by my noble friend Lady Masham. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was right—again, this is consistent with what is in the Bill—in that the needs of all children, irrespective of their background or however special their needs, shall be met. The Bill places a duty on local authorities, schools and various agencies to provide education for children of all needs, special or otherwise.
We debated this amendment at great length on 14th June on the second day of Report, and we also considered these questions in Committee back in April. I shall therefore, if your Lordships will forgive me, be very brief. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, contends that a hospital teaching service should have the opportunity to be a grant-maintained school. The Government believe that that would not be appropriate. Part II of the Bill is about grant-maintained schools, and teaching services are not schools.
We have made it possible for mainstream schools under LEA control to become grant-maintained schools. We have made it possible for bona fide schools in hospitals to become grant-maintained schools. Here we are talking about hospital services and, as I say, loose groupings of teachers who teach in the hospital service. It is inconceivable that they could become a grant-maintained school.

1253
Where a school exists in a hospital, it is a special school. It will therefore have an opportunity in future to consider whether to apply for self-governing status. In other words, such schools will be eligible to become grant-maintained special schools but not grant-maintained schools. We have recently added extra flexibility: there are new provisions in the Bill to enable special schools, like ordinary schools, to apply in groups, or in groups containing ordinary schools. Obviously, we envisage that hospital schools might therefore be included within such groups.
Some teaching services, although not properly constituted under Section 9(5) of the Education Act 1944, may de facto be "schools" for all practical intents and purposes. In those circumstances, LEAs should think carefully as to whether they should make proposals that those institutions be established formally as schools and therefore receive funding under LMS from April 1994. That must be a choice for the LEA. But for the small-scale services the position is different, and it may be unwise to concede the principles of self-governance. The provision may only consist of a part-time peripatetic teacher. Like hospital schools, there would be no coherent parent body. Additionally, such services will lack governors and head teachers. In short, there will be no competent managerial structure outside the LEA. Many would never make suitable candidates for self-governing status.
The Government therefore consider that it would be inappropriate for hospital teaching services or home tuition services to become grant-maintained schools. There is no provision for other special units to acquire such status, and it could import damaging inflexibility into the system. I urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment. I believe that, in the interests of the children, federation of services needs a proper co-ordinating body. That co-ordinating body will be the LEA.
I take this opportunity to answer a question put to me earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, about the LEA's responsibility once the 75 per cent. trigger point has been reached. The LEA retains for all time that co-ordinating role for education, or for otherwise, and for meeting the needs of the sick children who will be outside the school.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask a question. Is she aware that there is a hospital unit in Newcastle which is bigger than most hospital schools? This matter is complicated and a mishmash.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am aware of that. I said that if the LEA wishes to confer upon that unit the status of a school, it becomes eligible to seek grant-maintained special school status.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. There are one or two points about it that I should like to raise. The Minister said that it would be absurd for a hospital educational unit to become grant maintained without making it clear why it would be absurd. The Bill provides that small primary schools which may have only one or two
1254
teachers can join to form a grant-maintained primary school. Even those who, like me, are opposed in general to the grant-maintained principle would welcome closer co-operation among small primary schools in rural areas. If it is possible for them, why is it not possible for hospital educational units, even though in some cases their staff numbers are small?
There was also a reference to the unsuitability of any management structure which might operate for a number of hospital educational units. But where under the Bill there is provision for the promoters of new types of schools to seek grant-maintained status there is not ordinarily in those cases any management structure at the beginning. The management structure must be provided by setting up a suitable trust with a governing body in accord with the usual model for the organisation of schools. Having done that, grant-maintained status is sought. Of course, that would happen in respect of the hospital educational units if they took that course in some areas where the LEAs were not doing what they should in order to support the service for sick children. New trusts would be set up with governing bodies and they would proceed to seek grant-maintained, status together with the promoters of other types of new schools.
Those two objections seem to me not at all strong and nor, I am afraid, do any of the others. However, we have discussed the matter on several occasions arid no doubt we shall return to it in the future. Certainly I shall wish to do so when an opportunity presents itself. Having divided the House once this afternoon I believe that it would not be proper for me to do so again and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No 40:
Before Clause 151, insert the following new clause:
("Efficiency Studies
The Secretary of State shall make regulations for the purpose of securing that, in respect of every grant-maintained school,—

(a) an examination under section 6(1) of the National Audit Act 1983 is carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General once in every five years or such other period as the Secretary of State shall from time to time prescribe, either generally or for any particular grant-maintained school, unless

(b) a study by the Audit Commission has during that period been carried out at the request of the Funding Agency for Schools, or the Schools Funding Council for Wales or the governing body of the School, pursuant to section 220 of the Education Reform Act 1988.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 40 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 41 but not at this stage to Amendment No. 40A. On Report I moved an amendment relating to grant-maintained schools which provided that an efficiency study should be made every five years either by the National Audit Office or by the Audit Commission. That amendment is now Amendment No. 40 on the Marshalled List.
I shall read the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to the amendment that I tabled on Report. She said:

1255
"I would accept the principle of Amendment No. 199. I should prefer to come back on Third Reading with a suitable amendment, but it is my intention to accept the principle". —[Official Report, 14/6/93; col. 1265.]
She said later:
"I give the House an assurance that I will put on the face of the Bill a commitment and clear requirement that an examination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness at grant-maintained schools should be held on a regular basis". —[col. 1333.]
What was done to implement that undertaking? The answer is Amendment No. 41 which does not provide or require that any efficiency studies should ever be made on a regular basis or on any other basis. Subsection (2) of that amendment states:
"The Comptroller and Auditor General shall, in each session of Parliament, report to the House of Commons… whether he has carried out… any examinations in respect of grant-maintained schools, and if he has"—
contemplating, of course, that he may not have—
"the results of such examinations".
Therefore, under Amendment No. 41 the supposed implementation of the undertaking given to your Lordships, not to me, the Comptroller and Auditor General is not required to carry out any efficiency studies. I do not see how Amendment No. 41 can conceivably be a fulfilment of the undertaking given to your Lordships because it does not require any efficiency studies to be undertaken.
In those circumstances, when I saw Amendment No. 41 I reinstated my Amendment No. 40 which is now before the House. It seems to me that this is a matter of procedure and not of politics. What is to be done if an undertaking given to the House is not implemented? If an amendment is accepted in principle by the Government, as in so many words was my amendment, and if an undertaking is given to table a government amendment containing that principle and that undertaking is broken, surely in all justice the original amendment should be allowed to stand. Otherwise, what is the value of an undertaking given to this House?
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, has asked me to apologise for his absence from the Chamber and to say that he shares my disappointment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wonder whether the House will allow me to intervene at this stage. I shall not prevent any noble Lord from speaking after me because I shall not regard my comments as a summing up. However, my intervention my be helpful.
On Report I promised to come back with an amendment putting on the face of the Bill a clear requirement for examinations of economy, efficiency and effectiveness at grant-maintained schools on a regular basis. I believe that that is what Amendment No. 41 is about.
In brief, it would put into primary legislation the Comptroller and Auditor General's right to inspect the accounts of grant-maintained schools. That is presently secured only through regulations. As a result, there will be no question in future about the National Audit Office's responsibility to undertake value-for-money studies covering grant-maintained schools. Your Lordships will be aware that the NAO
1256
has already exercised such responsibility in its recently-published report on financial controls in grant-maintained schools. Amendment No. 41 will provide an even firmer basis for such studies.
It will also go further. The amendment extends the current position and I believe reaches the heart of some of the anxieties which were expressed previously and today by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. It requires the Comptroller and Auditor General to report to Parliament in each session on the studies of grant-maintained schools which have been carried out. It will thus ensure that there is opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the findings of such studies. It will also provide an opportunity for Parliamentary comment on the adequacy of the programme of studies undertaken. I believe that it is inconceivable that this will not lead to a significant and regular programme of studies of value-for-money at grant-maintained schools. Such a programme would almost certainly be undertaken a good deal more frequently than the once every five years, which was specified in the amendment we discussed on Report.
Moreover, in conducting such studies the Comptroller and Auditor General will be required under Amendment No. 41 to have regard to any value-for-money studies which have been published by the Audit Commission in relation to the grant-maintained sector, whether relating to individual schools or groups of schools. This will help ensure that the auditing organisations properly learn from each others' findings. But it will also help to avoid unnecessary double scrutiny which will put an undesirable burden on schools.
It may be, of course, that a study by the Audit Commission turns out to have substance warranting further investigation; in which case the NAO's hands would not be tied. I see this as being a most useful encouragement to ensuring that there are independent professional studies over the sector as a whole, and that such studies are mutually supporting.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for having looked at Amendment No. 41 in the short time that was left after various technicalities had been sorted out in its production. We had a most useful discussion about it yesterday afternoon—he talked at some length with my officials —and he made then many of the points which he has made again eloquently today. I assured him, and I readily assure the House, that I fully stand by the commitment that I gave on Report. That was the intention of Amendment No. 41. It is implicit in the amendment that there should be regular studies, and I believe it to be inconceivable that the requirement for the Comptroller and Auditor General to report to Parliament every year will not lead to regular studies.
The noble and learned Lord, however, would prefer there to be an explicit requirement for regular studies. I recognise that my amendment does not include such an explicit requirement. If the feeling of the House is that it should, I would be very happy to use my good offices with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State before the Bill is considered further in the other place, and to draw his attention to the

1257
desirability of such an explicit requirement. Noble Lords will appreciate that, given the usual conventions, that is the strongest undertaking that I can give. Such an approach would meet the principal point raised by the noble and learned Lord and in view of that, I hope that he will accept that the amendment in my name will very largely achieve our common objectives; and agree that, with the addition of the sort of specific requirement that I have mentioned, it would wholly do so.
In the meantime, however, I would be prepared to accept Amendment No. 40A. I have been advised by counsel that that amendment is not without its difficulties; in particular, because of the duty it places on the Secretary of State to make regulations, and because of the problems to which that may give rise in relation to the much prized independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I trust that those difficulties will be resolved when the two new clauses are considered side-by-side in the other place. Indeed, given the particular role of the other House on these matters, it is probably best that they should be resolved there.
Therefore, I advise the House that my amendment, together with Amendment No. 40A in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, should be accepted and should go together for consideration to be approved technically in another place.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 40.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 40A:
Before Clause 151, insert the following new clause:
Economy and efficiency of grant-maintained schools
(" The Secretary of State shall make regulations for the purpose of securing that an examination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness at grant-maintained schools shall be held on a regular basis.'').
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 152, insert the following new clause:
Inspection of accounts and reports to Parliament
("—(1) The accounts of the governing body of any grant-maintained school shall be open to the inspection of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
(2) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall, in each session of Parliament, report to the House of Commons—

(a) whether he has carried out under section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983 any examinations in respect of grant-maintained schools, and if he has,

(b) the results of such examinations.

(3) The first report under subsection (2) above shall cover a period beginning with the commencement of this section and each subsequent report shall cover a period beginning at the end of the period covered by the preceding report.
4) in determining whether to carry out any examination under that section in respect of grant-maintained schools and, if he determines to do so, the nature of the examination, the Comptroller and Auditor General shall have regard to any relevant published report of any study promoted or undertaken by the Audit Commission under section 220 of the Education Reform Act 1988.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 153 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 41A:
Page 93. line 36. at end insert:
1258
(" "the Audit Commission" means the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, believe that it is necessary to move the amendment, otherwise there is no definition of the Audit Commission which is referred to in subsection (4) of Amendment No. 41. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 160 [Qualified duty to secure education of children with special educational needs in ordinary schools]:
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 97, line 44, at end insert:
("( ) Unless the consent of the parent has been obtained. subsection (1) above shall not apply to any mentally handicapped child.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment at the request of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch who cannot be here until 8.30 p.m. The amendment stands also in the name of my noble friend Lady Cox but she is in the Sudan doing work in connection with humanitarian aid and human rights.
Amendment No. 42 would add a new subsection to Clause 160. That clause enacts a qualified duty to secure the education of children with special educational needs in ordinary schools; in other words. it provides for integration, But at earlier stages of the, Bill it was pointed out by a number of your Lordships; —and I spoke on the matter—that integration is generally unsuitable for mentally handicapped children. We argued that for strong reasons and I hope that it is not necessary for me now to repeat them. The matter was gone into fully both in Committee and on Report.
Therefore, Amendment No. 42 makes an exception in favour of children who are mentally handicapped by adding this subsection which reads:
"Unless the consent of the parent has been obtained, subsection (1) above shall not apply to any mentally handicapped child".
If that subsection is added, Clause 160 makes good sense and is just as effective, apart from the one exception which some of us believe should be made. I hope that it will receive the support of my noble friend on the Front Bench and of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support the amendment. Surely the parents of mentally handicapped children have their best interests at heart and will know whether or not they are likely to fit into an ordinary needs school. They will know how their child gets on with other children and will be able to assess whether a child will survive being in an ordinary school. One can recall from one's own schooldays what little varmints children can be and how they can torment one another, particularly if they think that there is anything odd or unusual about an individual.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the House will expect me to support the amendment in view of what I have said on many occasions. I agree totally with the idea and

1259
concept of integration and the real purpose behind it, but it is possible to see that the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is extremely strong. The arguments are very persuasive. Parents of mentally handicapped children are extremely concerned that their children will in many ways—in terms of finance, general support and comfort of life—lose out by being caught up in the integration which may be so valuable for other children.
Baroness David: My Lords, I do not support the amendment. I believe that it is too absolute and I should prefer to see a degree of flexibility. However, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for inviting some of us to discuss this clause with her in her office a few days ago. I tabled an amendment on Report which assumed that a parent has a right of veto. Following our discussions, I am convinced that that is not so.
I should like to go through what the Minister said to make sure that I have got it right. When the Minister replies, perhaps she will confirm that I have the facts right. First, the clause makes a presumption in favour of integration. Secondly, the reports and assessments are made by the professionals which result in a statement. In that statement a school will be named as the preferred school. At that point the parents come into the picture and have the opportunity then to say that they either approve or disapprove of the school.
However, that is not quite the end of the matter. I understand from what the Minister said that the child's needs are paramount. If the LEA still does not think that the parents' wishes are compatible with paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2) of Clause 160, then the parents' wishes may not take precedence. There is still the opportunity for the LEA, because of the paragraphs to which I referred, to make the decision. I hope that the Minister will confirm in her response that I have got the position right. In that case, I shall be quite satisfied with the clause at the end of the day.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise to intervene briefly in the debate. I am one of those people who have riot been 100 per cent. convinced by the arguments either for the opt-out of integration or for total integration. My view has been based on the fact that I have specific knowledge about one area of special needs; namely, dyslexic children. I have felt, on occasion, that they would benefit from being placed in a sheltered environment. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, it is important to note that we have now reached the position—and the Government have been very helpful in this respect—where we are allowing for the best interests of the child.
In any one category of special needs we shall come across people who vary within it. If we have one category that states an absolute opt-out we shall, by definition, be creating a situation which will not apply to all of them. Parents do not always know best, even if they have the best interests of the child as their main concern. They should leave as much of the decision-making as possible to the experts, and simply
1260
provide assistance. That will ensure that there is enough flexibility to allow the correct choice to be given to the child. Even when we start to break down special educational needs, we are breaking them down into very large blocks all of which have very different requirements. As someone who does not always support the Government, I can say that I believe they have moved forward on the matter in a very positive light.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to echo the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I, too, found the meetings with the Minister extremely helpful and illuminating. I am convinced by her explanation of the meaning, even if I am not enamoured by the existing wording of Clause 160.
I shall not bore your Lordships with a speech on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. Therefore, I should just like to say how grateful I am to the Minister for the several meetings that I have had with her or her officials. I should also like to thank her for her willingness to make time to listen and discuss the issues. I feel that We have reached a good understanding.
In passing, I hope that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will remain; or at least something to that effect. I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will not press his amendment. I recognise the depth of feeling, the conviction and the personal experience with which he and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, speak. I urge the noble Lord to remember, as I am sure he does, that there are also parents of children with a mental handicap who may feel that they already have to struggle hard to obtain mainstream education. On reflection, and after hearing the Minister's response, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that the Government have got the wording just about right to meet the needs of both groups of parents.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should just like to add a few remarks to those made by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I find that "shall" and "must" represent very strong language in this connection. Is it not the interests of the child which are paramount? Some parents can be very protective. As the amendments are grouped, I must point out that there is something in Amendment No. 43, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that worries me. Working on an FHSA, I wonder whether reference should be made to the "health authority" rather than "any District Health Authority". I ask that because it may concern other health authorities; indeed, there are now so many different health authorities. The provision is rather limited if it refers only to "any District Health Authority". I should have thought that it would have been better to make it more flexible.
Perhaps I should stress that I am speaking about Amendment No. 43 which I believe is grouped with Amendment No. 42.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 43A separately.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I understand, my Lords.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am finding it difficult to follow the question asked of me by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I apologise to the House. I was confused by the grouping, in particular by the use of the letter "A". However, with the permission of the House, I was also talking to Amendment No. 42 in support of the noble Baroness, Lady David. It is very strict in its application.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that that has clarified the situation.
I should like, first, to thank all speakers for their kind words. I, too, found the meetings on this, and on many other issues, very useful. Indeed, I believe that we all learned something from them and our understanding of the Bill has increased on each occasion. The issue is a delicate and complex one. I appreciate that some of your Lordships have been fearful that the Bill accords parents a right of veto over a mainstream placement. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, at the same time I am aware that others might wish to seek such a veto. I should like to explain, as clearly as I can, why the Bill provides no such veto and why we believe that it would be wrong to do so.
I believe that the Bill strikes a proper balance. It embodies the principle that children with special educational needs should be educated alongside their peers wherever that is possible and sensible. It also provides and gives proper weight to parents' views and allows for a special school placement where that is appropriate. But above all, the Bill seeks to ensure that in every child's case the LEA placement will be the most appropriate placement consistent with the needs of the child. Securing the appropriate placement for the child is the heart of the issue.
I have previously explained to your Lordships that when we were drafting the legislation it became clear that we might impose conflicting duties on LEAs both to integrate children with special needs into mainstream schools where that is appropriate and to comply with a parent's preference for, possibly, a maintained special school. We therefore decided to give a steer in favour of the parent's wishes. Thus, Clause 160 gives local education authorities a duty to integrate a child with a statement of special educational needs in a mainstream school, provided certain reasonable conditions are met and unless the parent wishes his child to attend a special school.
If the parent expresses a preference or makes representations for a special school placement, the LEA's duty to integrate the child falls away, but the LEA's power to name a mainstream school does not. The LEA will always be under a duty to arrange an appropriate placement for the child. If the authority decides that a special school placement is not appropriate but a mainstream school is, then it will be
1262
under a duty to specify a mainstream school in the child's statement. Clause 160 does not, therefore, involve a parental veto on mainstream placements.
The effect of the primary legislation is that the most appropriate placement for a child, consistent with the efficient education of other children in the school and the efficient use of resources, will always be considered for a child with a statement of special educational needs. In addition, the code of practice will give guidance to LEAs on the many issues to be weighed up when considering a school placement.
I understand and have sympathy for the position of my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Pearson; and, of course, of my noble friend Lady Cox whom we wish well on her present mission. They speak with the authority of their own experience. I understand the fear that parents who wish their child to attend a special school may be intimidated by an authority which is actively pursuing a policy of integration. But I maintain that the Bill as drafted protects the position of parents who wish their children to attend a special school and gives them every opportunity to secure such a placement—provided that a special school placement is the right placement for the child.
I have mentioned the code of practice and the guidance it will give LEAs about choice of school. The code will also promote the importance of partnership between parents and the authority, not confrontation. It will stress the need to enable parents, at an early stage, to take an active part in the decisions relating to their children's future. Related to this, the code will also recognise the valuable role which voluntary agencies may play in supporting and advising parents on all aspects of their children's special education, including at this important time when a child's statement is being drawn up and agreed. All these points will also be explained, in plain English and translated into other languages, in the guidance for parents on the new SEN system which will be issued from my department.
Furthermore, I remind your Lordships that we amended the Bill at Report stage to enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to require LEAs to provide parents with full details of their rights to make representations over their child's statement, and also of the various schools outside the maintained sector which might be appropriate for the child. These details will accompany the copy of the draft statement served upon the parents. Parents will therefore be fully informed of their right to express a preference for a school in the maintained sector and to make representations over the contents of the statement, including for a placement outside the maintained sector.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I hope the Minister will accept from me that many parents of mentally handicapped children would have great difficulty in reading texts on this subject. They would need help and advice on the matter. Will that be forthcoming? I know the fact that they are unable to read or accept the advice given in a certain form does not in any way remove their right to object strongly to a placement with which they disagree.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parry, makes an important point. We intend that the code of practice will make all of the system as user-friendly as possible to parents, particularly parents who for one reason or another are unable to read or interpret the information. In addition to making sure that the information is given verbally rather than simply in writing if that is necessary a parent can be accompanied by a professional from a particular society, for example, Mencap or the Spastics Society, to help that parent understand the information upon which he will make his choice. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, makes an important point. It will be covered in the code of practice.
Turning to Amendment No. 43A tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I suggest that the provisions of the Bill already meet his concern and that his amendment is therefore unnecessary. Part of parents' right to make representations is the right to require meetings with the authority to discuss the statement. If they wish to express a preference for a maintained school, they must do so within 15 days of receipt of the draft statement or of the last of the meetings to make representations. Thus a parent who is convinced that his child requires a special school placement may make representations for, say, a non-maintained special school, discuss those representations with the authority and, if the LEA indicates that it is not minded to meet his wishes, thereafter express a preference for a maintained or grant-maintained special school. There is a fall-back position which can be taken into account. The authority will then be under a duty to comply with that preference, subject to the usual conditions.
Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent parents seeking advice from the school which they wish to be named on their child's statement when making such representations or expressing a preference of school. Similarly, a parent who appeals to the tribunal against the school named in his child's statement in favour of, say, a non-maintained special school placement, may receive support and advice, in preparing and presenting his case, from someone from his desired school. This has been another matter of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I hope that what I have said reassures him.
I must, however, be firm in response to the amendment in the name of my noble friends Lord Pearson and Lady Cox. If their aim is that there should not be a presumption in favour of an integrated placement where the parent wishes his child to be educated in a special school, the Bill already meets their concern and their amendment is not necessary. We have made extensive provision in the Bill for parents of children with statements of special educational needs to express their views on the appropriate placement for their child. So far as maintained schools are concerned, we have obliged LEAs in law to abide by the parents' preference so long as certain reasonable conditions are met. We have obliged LEAs to consider very carefully any representations made by parents in favour of a school outside the maintained sector. Regulations and the
1264
code of practice will ensure that parents are fully informed of their rights and choices. But let me be clear: at the end of the day the decision rests with the LEA, subject to the scrutiny, on appeal, of the SEN tribunal. The crucial considerations determining the LEA's decision are that the placement should be appropriate to the child, appropriate to his peers and compatible with the efficient use of public resources. We cannot allow parents' views to override these wholly reasonable considerations: we cannot give parents a veto.
I know the anxiety that my noble friends Lord Renton, Lord Pearson and Lady Cox have. They are concerned about those local authorities that have aggressive policies for integration. They are concerned that the desire of those local authorities for integration will override what might be a sensible decision and that the authorities will impose a decision that is inconsistent with a parent's preference. That cannot happen. Clause 160 will bite and will give parents' preferences and wishesproper consideration. The duty to integrate will fall away as long as those preferences are being considered. Only if the preference or representation made by a parent is inconsistent with certain measures which include, most importantly, the needs of the child, will a local authority move away from that preference. That decision will, of course, be subject to scrutiny by the tribunal.
I say again how much I have appreciated the positive contributions to what is a sensitive and important debate. I repeat that I am convinced that the Bill strikes the right balance. The noble Baroness, Lady David, was absolutely right in her remarks except in one detail. The draft statement does not contain the name of the school. Parents are allowed to make their choice either through preference or representation and the local authority must then consider it. The local authority will only move away from that choice if it believes it is inconsistent with the needs of the child. The noble Baroness is absolutely right in that at the end of the day the needs of the child are paramount in Part III of the Bill. I hope that in the light of those assurances my noble friend, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Pearson, will not press the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, first may I say I am grateful to those noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I hope that those noble Lords who have opposed it will not be too disappointed by the speech of my noble friend Lady Blatch which gives me very great pleasure. She is quite right in saying—on further thought I agree with her—that the amendment is unnecessary because Clause 160 as it stands makes it clear in subsection (1) by the use of the words,
"unless that is incompatible with the wishes of his parent",
that if the parents do not want the child to go to an ordinary school, the child will not have to go there. I am very grateful to my noble friend for the full and very sympathetic explanation that she has given as to the way in which mentally handicapped children's cases will be considered before it is decided where they

1265
are to go to school. With a load off my mind I ask your Lordships whether I may withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 166, insert the following new clause:
Duty of District Health Authority or local authority to help local education authority
("—(1) Where it appears to a local education authority that any District Health Authority or local authority could, by taking any specified action, help in the exercise of any of their functions under this Part of this Act, they may request the help of the authority, specifying the action in question.
(2) An authority whose help is so requested shall comply with the request unless—

(a) they consider that the help requested is not necessary for the purpose of the exercise by the local education authority of those functions, or

(b) subsection (3) below applies.

(3) This subsection applies—

(a) in the case of a District Health Authority, if that authority consider that, having regard to the resources available to them for the purpose of the exercise of their functions under the National Health Service Act 1977, it is not reasonable for them to comply with the request, or

(b) in the case of a local authority, if that authority consider that the request is not compatible with their own statutory or other duties and obligations or unduly prejudices the discharge of any of their functions.

(4) Regulations may provide that, where an authority are under a duty by virtue of subsection (2) above to comply with a request to help a local education authority in the making of an assessment under section 167 of this Act or a statement under section 168 of this Act, they must, subject to prescribed exceptions, comply with the request within the prescribed period.
(5) In this section, "local authority" means a county council, a metropolitan district council, a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 91, 97, 98 and 106. An important part of this debate has centred around the provision of services by agencies other than the LEA, and co-operation between the LEA and such agencies, in particular district health authorities and social services departments. I must take into account immediately the matter referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. Her point is covered in that all agencies are required to play a part in the implementation of Part III of the Bill. Amendments seeking to address this issue have been tabled in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady David, Lady Faithfull and Lady Williams of Crosby, and of the noble Lords, Lord Elton, Lord Howell and Lord Northbourne.
Both at Committee and Report stages, my noble friend Lord Henley and I have spoken of the aim shared by my department and the Department of Health to ensure closer co-operation between agencies concerned with children with special educational needs. Your Lordships are aware that the Department of Health conducted a consultation exercise with this widely supported objective. You will also recall my noble friend Lord Henley's commitment on behalf of the Government at Report stage to come back to the House with an amendment if, in the light of that
1266
consultation, that proved possible. I am therefore very happy to be able to put the amendments before the House today. I commend them to your Lordships.
The amendments provide the much requested statutory underpinning to co-operation between LEAs, district health authorities and local authorities' social services departments in their dealings with all children with special educational needs. There was a full and positive response to the consultation. Many people made detailed suggestions which do not lend themselves to inclusion in primary legislation, but we shall consider them carefully when drawing up the regulations, the code of practice and associated guidance, all of which will be the subject of further consultation this year.
This is a significant step forward. It stems from the Government listening to what people have said about the need for assurance regarding the co-operation of district health authorities and social service departments and consulting those concerned as to the way forward. The result is legislation which is wide-ranging and clear.
The amendments would also enable district health authorities and social service departments to be subject to the statutory timescales for the making of assessments and the issue of statements which will be embodied in the regulations. That should give reassurance. There are good examples of authorities which have already negotiated agreements with district health authorities and social service departments. The amendment will spread that good practice further for the benefit of all children who are being assessed and may need a statement.
Your Lordships will see that the amendments to Schedule 19 have the effect of repealing Section 27(4) of the Children Act 1989. The purpose is to bring together into one place all legislative provisions dealing with co-operation between authorities concerning children with special educational needs. Part III of the Bill is the most appropriate place.
I commend the amendments to the House as meeting the anxieties which Members of this House and others have expressed previously. I am most grateful for the contributions of many of your Lordships to this important debate, which has culminated in the amendments and, I believe, a good deal for our children. I beg to move.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will it be necessary for any special financial arrangements to be made to carry out those functions?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with these amendments we are concerned with proper co-operation between appointed agencies. Local education authorities have their money and have to decide their priorities. However, there are now proper obligations in law which they have to meet. We now have the highest possible degree of co-operation between the health authority, where it is appropriate that it should have a part to play, and the LEA. It is impossible for me to answer the noble Lord's question other than to say that there are now obligations in law which will have to be met.
Lord Young of Darlington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question about the amendment. I am thinking of my own King Charles's head. The district health authority and local authority need to collaborate in many different ways, but particularly because the district health authority provides the premises in schools for which local authorities provide the staff. I am not sure whether it is intended that that should be covered by the amendment. If it is intended, and it clearly could be because hospital schools are special schools providing a particular form of special education, then is it not a failing in the drafting of the amendment that there is no reference to hospital trusts?
District health authorities' functions have been diminished and they no longer provide many of the hospitals directly but purchase services from them. It may be the case that before very long most of the hospitals in the country will be hospital trusts, although I regret that fact. District health authorities will then be concerned almost entirely with purchasing services from them. Therefore, hospital trusts would be required to provide such co-operation, especially where the needs of sick children are concerned.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I wish to follow up the point made by my noble friend Lord Young. Obviously the new clause should be welcomed. It meets a commitment given at Report stage. However, the problem lies in what I hope I am not unfair in describing as poor drafting. I hope that it is not a determination to make the system as complicated as possible, but the drafting makes the new clause far less helpful than it might otherwise have been.
The problem to which my noble friend referred is that the clause refers to the district health authority rather than to National Health Service bodies, which is the term used in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. As a result, the LEA will be forced to ask the district health authority to act even when the appropriate body would be the NHS trust, as my noble friend suggested, or the family health service authority. The term "National Health Service bodies" would have included NHS trusts, family health service authorities and the commissioning district health authority. It seems absurd for the Government to create such a bureaucratic system when they claim to be against increasing bureaucracy. Is there really no way, even at this very late stage, that the situation can be put right?
Lord Elton: My Lords, when she replies can my noble friend resolve a doubt that I have as to the effect of the amendment? Of course, I welcome the amendment.
The problem relates to subsection (4) of the new clause set out in Amendment No. 43. Is the effect of that subsection to set aside the waivers in subsections (2) and (3)? Subsection (2) provides that an authority shall comply unless it considers that the help requested is not necessary or one of the two conditions in subsection (3) applies. Subsection (4) provides for regulations to be made, providing that:
1268
"where an authority are under a duty by virtue of subsection (2) above to comply with a request to help a local education authority in the making of an assessment under section 167 of this Act or a statement under Section 168 of this Act, they must, subject to prescribed exceptions, comply".
My narrow concern is to ask whether, even when they are subject to such a regulation, authorities will be able to decline to assist in the making of an assessment or statement because of the reasons given in subsections (2) and (3), or whether the object of the regulations is to set aside those two requirements.
I hope that I have made myself clear to my noble friend the Minister and that there is time for her to give advice on this question, to which I have been unable to obtain an answer.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I should also like to ask a question. It would be less than gracious not to thank the noble Baroness for what she has done in response to the debate at the Report stage. However, perhaps I may pursue the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, by asking a question in relation to the force of subsection (2) (a) of the amendment. The phrase:
"they consider that the help requested is not necessary"
is very broad. Perhaps the noble Baroness can say more about exactly what it is intended to cover.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should also like to ask a question. Subsection (3) (a) states:
"in the case of a District Health Authority, if that authority consider that, having regard to the resources available to them".
Does that mean that, for example, in the case of speech therapy which we have raised so often, if it is though: that speech therapy is necessary for a child, the district health authority can say that it does not have the resources to provide it? Can the noble Baroness clarify that point?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as always, under any government, at the end of the day there will be a finite sum of money. I understand that, therefore, it is parliamentary practice to say that if there is no money, then clearly the service cannot be provided. With the amendment we have provided for the highest possible degree of co-operation between all the key agents in the process.
As regards speech therapy, under the Bill as amended by these amendments a local authority may request the help of a district health authority with the provision of speech therapy and that health authority will be obliged to give that help, provided that the conditions within the clause are met. One of those conditions relates to the efficient use of resources.
It is also right that, given that the health authority is in the lifesaving business, it too has priorities to order. It is important that at the end of the day there is not a total pre-emption of health authority moneys. But as far as is practicable, the health authority has agreed, under the amendments to the Bill, that there will be the highest degree of co-operation that is permissible.
For one reason or another, the district health authority has been considered an inappropriate body, but that authority purchases the services from hospital units and the hospitals themselves. I was fascinated by

1269
the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Young, and his aside about his regret that hospitals and units may become trusts over time. We have spent part of this afternoon being pressed to accept that schools and units should become independent bodies; in other words, to have trust status. There is a slight schizophrenia in the air about these matters.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Young, in principle the answer is yes and the most obvious example relates to the provision made in a statement for a pupil in hospital. It would require the appropriate co-operation of the health service.
My noble friend Lord Elton referred to subsection (4). I understand that subsection (3) overrides it; it is not appropriate for the LEA to override a medical service judgment. I apologise—I am having difficulty in reading this writing and I am not sure that I have given my noble friend a satisfactory answer. Perhaps, even at this late stage, he will allow me to write to him.
In answer to the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Judd, the principal aim of the new clause is to strengthen the co-operation between the health and social services departments, and the education authorities, in carrying out their duties towards individual children who may require an assessment or a statement of special needs. The real breakthrough here which hitherto has not been possible, and nor have we received agreement on it, is the agreement to stick to deadlines. I have been into too many schools where children are waiting for their statements to be completed but one agent or another has been holding up the process. There is agreement on these amendments to abide by deadlines and that is an important breakthrough which I hope will be welcomed.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she could help me. When I asked about the financial arrangements, her answer was that there were provisions in law to deal with such matters. With great respect, she may correct me in her reply but it seems to me that the answer she gave contradicts the one she gave to my noble friend Lady David. The Minister is quite right, resources are finite and I made that point throughout the debate on the Bill. Any government cannot do everything that everyone wants all the time. I fully accept that. But it seems to me that there is a contradiction in her comments. I received the impression from them that, whatever the body, there is provision in law and therefore the needs must be met. Does the Minister not see that as a contradiction?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I did not give the answer that the noble Lord said but, like him, I shall read Hansard tomorrow. I can say that there will always be tension between the global amounts of money given to health authorities and the global amounts given to local education authorities. Each of those bodies will have duties placed upon them by this House. Month after month the House lays duties upon various bodies, in particular on public service bodies. They have obligations to meet in law and, so far as is practicable, they will meet them. All I am saying is that in these amendments—as I hope I said
1270
—at some stage when there is absolutely no money and when co-operation is required from the health authority, it can plead in aid that it cannot respond to a request because it simply does not have the money to do so. That is because there is no blank cheque policy operating anywhere in the public services.
However, in these amendments we have the highest possible commitment to co-operation and collaboration between all the key agencies—health authorities, social service departments, local authorities, schools, individual hospitals and units—in the interests of meeting the needs of individual children. The hope is that the resources they have at their disposal will be properly deployed in the interests of the children in their care.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down. I believe that she agrees with what I said, that there might come a point—and in my view there will—when an authority is simply unable to carry out its obligations.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 167 [Assessment of educational needs]:
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 43A:
Page 100, line 44, at end insert:
("( ) In any case where a patent requests a non-maintained special school for a child with special needs that parent may also express a preference under paragraph 3 of Schedule 10 to this Act for a maintained or Grant-maintained special school to take effect only in the event that the request for a non-maintained school is refused.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for dealing with this amendment in its grouping. I had intended to take it separately but, with consummate skill, the Minister read my mind and put it at rest on the issues which worried me. So I can be brief. My anxiety in this amendment and previous amendments which I tabled is to ensure that the fine tradition of voluntary and independent schools dealing with children with special needs in this country should be preserved or have the best possible opportunity of being preserved. There is obviously a danger that, if local authorities are under pressure, there will be a tendency for them to support their own special school. As a result, they may not send the same number of children to the independent schools.
The noble Baroness has been able to give a number of assurances. One was at Report stage, when she made clear that full publicity will be given to all parents of children at special schools, including the non-maintained special schools which are available to children with whatever problems they may have.
The second point is that when representations are being made to a tribunal, the parent will have the opportunity of having a representative from a special school, including possibly—if it is the parents' choice —a non-maintained special school, so that the case can be properly made. The non-maintained special school can explain why it believes that it can do the best possible job for the child at a cost no greater than the local authority provision.
Finally, if a parent makes a representation that he would like his child to attend an independent school, that does not estop him from subsequently making a preference for a special school in the maintained

1271
sector, otherwise that might have been a strong deterrent to parents from making such a representation. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness and I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I wish to take the opportunity of the reference to the non-maintained schools to say publicly on the Floor of the Chamber what I have said privately to my noble friend on the Front Bench. She has moved a long way to meet the anxieties that some of us expressed at Committee and also Report stages on the Bill about ensuring, so far as possible, that the wishes of parents who want their children to go to a non-maintained special school should be respected. I recognise that she could not go the whole way or as far as some of us asked, but I am grateful to her for going as far as she did.
I add that there is a case in my former constituency of parents whose child is severely spastic. They wished the child to go to a school with conductive education on the lines of the Peto Institute in Hungary. The local authority decided that it would be cheaper to send the child to the local junior training centre. We are still arguing on the case. The problem is real and the only thing I have been able to tell the parents and the school is that under the Bill there are new procedures which they will be able to follow, including the right of appeal. I am therefore grateful to my noble friend for what she has done.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the noble Baroness informed me today through the channels, confirming what was said earlier in the debate, that there are only seven maintained schools in Wales. Therefore, the choice for parents would be fairly limited.
7 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to ask one brief question about the appeal procedure. How long does it take? There is concern about crossing borders, as mentioned when we discussed the hospital schools amendment. Local authorities are not good about crossing borders. I should like to know how long it takes for a parent to appeal.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is quite difficult to be specific. So much will depend on the complexity of the case and the degree to which professionals have to be questioned or investigations have to be carried out. The code of practice will cover the procedures in very great detail and it should take the shortest possible time. We hope that that is what the guidance will produce.
So far as concerns Wales, what we have provided for in terms of parents making choices is that they will have the right to make a preference or a representation covering every single school in Wales, whether it is LEA maintained, grant-maintained, a non-maintained special school or an independent school. It is important that, however many schools there are in Wales, they will all be available to be preferred or made representations for by a parent.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No. 44:
1272
After Clause 172, insert the following new clause:
Inspection of accounts and reports to Parliament
(" .—(1) Where it has come to the attention of the local education authority that the governing body of a county, voluntary or grant-maintained school is not fulfilling its duties under section 161 of this Act in respect of a pupil for whom a statement of special educational needs is maintained under section 168 of this Act then the local education authority shall direct that the governing body make the special educational provision specified in the statement.
(2) In order to carry out its duty under this section, the local education authority shall have the power to inspect the special educational provision and require the governing body to supply such reports as the local education authority may require.
(3) After a period of two months after the making of a direction under subsection (I) above, the local education authority shall review the special educational provision made for the pupil for whom the direction was made and, where it appears that the provision has not been made, the local education authority shall review the educational needs of the pupil under section 172 of this Act.
(4) Where, as a consequence of a review under subsection (3) above, a new statement of special educational needs is made under section 168 that names a different school, the Governing Body shall pay to the local education authority the cost of educating that pupil for the remainder of the financial year, the cost of reassessment and such compensation to the parents of the pupil as the local education authority deems reasonable.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, before speaking to this amendment I should like to call attention to a rather strange side note that has crept in here. It ought to read, and did read yesterday:
"Duty to direct governing body to make special educational provision".
I do not know how that substitution happened.
The purpose of my moving this amendment is simply to tidy things up. So far as the content of the amendment goes, it has already been included in Clause 165. But in Clause 165(2) the addition of the clause proposed in this amendment is referred to. So it seemed necessary that there should be such a clause to be referred to in Clause 165(2). I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is not an amendment which I would ordinarily accept. Nonetheless I recognise that the Bill would be technically defective if this amendment were not accepted. It is inextricably linked to Clause 165, which was introduced into the Bill by an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock at Report stage. On these grounds alone I shall not be opposing it.
Having said that I stress to your Lordships that neither Clause 165 nor this amendment are necessary. I maintain that the amendments which my noble friend Lord Henley moved on behalf of the Government at Report stage address the heart of the concerns which have prompted this amendment and Clause 165.
The Bill as amended by the Government at Report stage contains wide-ranging measures which will strengthen the provision made in schools for pupils with statements. The Bill ensures that LEAs are able to monitor and review both the continuing suitability of a child's statement to his special educational needs, and the delivery of the special educational provision specified in that statement.

1273
I would also remind the House of the other measures we have taken in this Bill to strengthen provision generally for pupils with special educational needs. All schools will have to formulate and report on their policies for special needs. All schools will be inspected by independent inspectors on a systematic basis for the first time, and inspection of the school's special needs policy will feature highly in any inspection. All schools will have to have regard to the code of practice.
The Bill is not improved by Clause 165 and this amendment. Nonetheless, I am concerned for the legal integrity of the Bill as it passes to another place, and so will not oppose the amendment. It will be for my colleagues and Members in another place to consider carefully the implications of all amendments made by this House.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the side heading to which the noble Baroness referred is completely different from the one that we just discussed. I hope that it will be possible to have that corrected when the clause is printed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may say—it is with the leave of the House because I thought that we had gone beyond the point of no return—that the reference that the noble Baroness made is simply a typing error in the margin of the Marshalled List; it will have no part to play in the amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: It is not a typing error.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 183 [Establishment, etc. of maintained or grant-maintained special schools]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 110, line 5, leave out ("referred to in") and insert ("for the purposes Or).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 46 to 57 and 82 to 84.
Amendment No. 45 should not detain the House over long. It is purely a drafting amendment and has no substantive effect on the provisions in Clause 183. Amendments Nos. 47 to 55 and Amendment No. 84 are concerned with school attendance orders and are essentially technical in nature. First, they allow parents who apply for and subsequently secure a place for their children at a grant-maintained school to have that school named in a school attendance order, provided that they notify the LEA responsible for the school attendance order or for the application within 15 days, starting with the day on which the notice was served.
Secondly, they allow for the situation which will arise at stage 3, when responsibility for paying for private education where it is needed' because of shortage of places passes to the FAS. The arrangements will apply where the education provided at an independent school is at the expense of the FAS. Again, the LEA responsible for the school attendance order will be notified.
On Amendments Nos. 56 and 57, at Report stage I gave a commitment to consider further the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and
1274
the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, which sought to place a requirement on the face of the Bill that education associations should include at least one member with experience of the relevant kind of education or of the management of education.
In most circumstances, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would indeed expect to appoint people with experience of the relevant kind of education. It is also possible to envisage circumstances in which it might, for example, be appropriate to include a secondary school head as a member of an education association established to conduct a primary school.
Amendment No. 57 ensures that an education association must include at least one member appearing for the Secretary of State to have experience of and to have shown capacity in the provision of either primary or secondary education, giving the Secretary of State the right degree of flexibility. This wording would include those with experience of management of schools, such as school bursars.
In considering further the amendment of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, I also felt it appropriate to place a requirement on the face of the Bill that where an education association is to conduct a special school it should include a member with experience of providing for children with special educational needs.
Amendment No. 56 is a drafting amendment, intended to ensure consistency of expression across Part V.
Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 to Schedule 2 relate to the functions of the LEA at stage 3 in meeting the costs of boarding pupils with statements of special educational needs who are attending schools in the maintained sector. Amendment No. 82 clarifies the circumstances in which the LEA will be required to meet such pupils' boarding fees. Amendment No. 83 corrects an omission in the Bill and secures that LEAs have power to meet the boarding costs of a pupil with A statement where they are not otherwise under a duty to do so.
Amendment No. 46 to Clause 190 carries forward into the Bill the existing powers and duties of LEAs regarding the provision of board-arid-lodging pupils with statements of special educational needs attending schools outside the maintained sector. The amendments reflect the provisions of the Education Act 1944 and the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953 in this respect. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for having met the points raised in the debate earlier at Report stage. We are very grateful for the concession that he has made.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I should also add my thanks, but in so far as I understood the noble Lord's answer, he is offering us part of a loaf—though that is certainly welcome—rather than the whole loaf. I understand from his reply that there is no requirement as such that somebody with specialist knowledge should have primary knowledge when applying for a primary school or secondary knowledge when applying for a secondary school. I must say that I fail

1275
to see why he should not be a little more specific in requiring the appropriate kind of knowledge for the appropriate school. Nevertheless, as I said, half a loaf is better than none.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for the gratitude of both the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. As the noble Lord said, he has not had quite the full loaf but I would not go so far as to say that he has only got half a loaf. The noble Lord is correct. We believe that the Secretary of State ought to have appropriate flexibility and someone with experience of either primary or secondary education for either level. In other words, one could take someone with expedience of secondary education in the primary area or vice versa. We feel that that gives the appropriate flexibility.
We do not feel that it is necessary to tie down my right honourable friend quite so specifically as the noble Lord wishes. No doubt, where it is appropriate that it should be particularly one or the other, my right honourable friend will take that into account. To that extent, I feel that the noble Lord has got jolly nearly a full loaf.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 190 [Provision of education at non-maintained schools]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 114, line 37, leave out from ("school") to end of line 44 and insert ("and
(b) if board and lodging are provided for the child at the school and the authority are satisfied that the necessary special educational provision cannot be provided for him at the school unless the board and lodging are also provided, pay the whole of the fees payable in respect of the board and lodging").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 193 [Choice of school: child without statement of special educational needs]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 47 to 51:
Page 116, line 20, after ("above") insert ("(i)").
Page 116, line 24, after ("application") insert ("or
(ii) the parent applies for the child to be admitted to a grant-maintained school and notifies the authority by whom the no ice was served of the application").
Page 116, line 30, leave out ("not maintained by a local education authority") and insert ("which is not maintained by a local education authority and is not a grant-maintained school").
Page 116, line 32, leave out from first ("school") to end of line 34 and insert ("under arrangements made by the authority under which the fees payable in respect of the education provided at the school are to be paid by them under section 6 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953").
Page 116, line 38, after ("authority") insert ("and is not a grant-maintained school").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 195 [Amendment of order at request of parent: child without statement of special educational needs]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 52 to 55:
Page 118, line 9, after ("authority") insert ("or grant-maintained school").
1276
Page 118, line 20, after ("authority") insert ("or a grant-maintained school").
Page 118, line 21, leave out from first ("school") to ("and") in line 23 and insert ("under arrangements made by the authority under which the fees payable in respect of the education provided at the school are to be paid by them under section 6 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953").
Page 118, line 29, after ("authority") insert ("and is not a grant-maintained school").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 209 [Destination of reports]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 126, line 7, after ("make") insert ("a copy or).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 218 [Power to establish education associations]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 132, line 43, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("( ) An education association—

(a) must include at least one member who appears to the Secretary of State to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of primary or secondary education or to have held, and shown capacity in, any position carrying responsibility for the provision of such education,

(b) if the association conduct any school which was a voluntary school, must include at least one member who appears to the Secretary of State to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of education in voluntary schools, and

(c) if the association conduct a special school, must include at least one member who appears to the Secretary of State to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, providing for children with special educational needs,

but one person may satisfy the requirement in paragraph (a) above as well as that in paragraph (b) or (c) above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 224 [School conducted by education association acquiring grant-maintained status]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 136, line 4, leave out ("become a grant-maintained school") and insert ("continue").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, together with Amendments Nos. 59 and 60, raises a fundamental issue of principle about the Bill. Under Clauses 224 and 225, once a school has been taken over by an education association because it is failing, there are only two possible outcomes for the school: the Secretary of State decides either that the school should be discontinued or that the school should become grant-maintained. In other words, the parents of the children in that school have absolutely no say in the school's future.
That is counter to the Government's philosophy in favour of parental choice, the principle which we have been led to understand underlies the Bill. Surely if the Government believe that parents with children in LEA-maintained schools should have the right to decide the future of their children's school, then parents in a school which has not been performing satisfactorily and has had to be given special help to recover and improve the education that it provides should have the opportunity to decide whether the school becomes grant-maintained. This amendment would give parents precisely that say, by amending

1277
Clause 224 to provide for the organisation of a ballot on exactly the same basis as a ballot called under Clauses 24 or 25 of the Bill.
Why should parents be denied their rights and in effect be penalised for a situation which certainly was not of their making? It has been argued in Committee stage and elsewhere that the school's crisis might well have resulted from a failure by the local education authority. But even if that were the case, the intervention of the education association could well prove the catalyst for a transformed local situation, which would make staying with the local education authority a very attractive proposition.
The ballot would be an option only in the case of a school which the Secretary of State considered was able to continue. If the Secretary of State was of the opinion that the school should be discontinued, obviously there would be no vote. However, should the Secretary of State make a positive decision for continuing, surely he would want the future of the school to be based on the choice of the parents, by which he sets so much store everywhere else in the Bill.
This Bill is either about parental choice or it is not. We have already heard that in our previous discussions today. As things stand, it is altogether too obvious that it is only about choice when the outcome is likely to suit the Government's book. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am sure that Ministers will wish to continue the harmonious atmosphere that currently attends the discussion of the Bill and therefore that they will be more than ready to concede the point that has now been raised.
I should like to add one other thought to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I recognise that there are people in all parts of the House who at one time or another have been engaged as education Ministers and have been faced with the problem of having to order the reorganisation of schools or sometimes the discontinuation of schools. The kind of examples that one comes across in real life can cover an appalling LEA—there have been one or two appalling LEAs, notably in south London—where the main responsibility for the school going bad has rested squarely with the LEA. That proposition was discussed in the earlier stages of the Bill. There is no doubt that there are precedents and examples to bear it out. But also sometimes a school goes bad because of the head teacher. In Britain we are very lucky in having excellent and responsible head teachers. But among any group of men and women there are always one or two who are not up to the job. There have been instances--I shall not name them in the House this evening—where schools have gone wrong largely because they have been badly led by the head teacher. In one or two cases it has been because the head teacher was a wholly inappropriate person to appoint to a leading position in a school. A third and rather less usual reason why schools occasionally go wrong is because they have irresponsible governors or, in some cases, extraordinarily cantankerous or contradictory
1278
governors who appear to press a case to the school based on little experience, knowledge, or understanding of the needs of the school.
All three examples spring to mind when one considers actual instances of reasons why schools have had to be reorganised or closed. There are plenty of examples in the annals of Her Majesty's Inspectors, and no doubt soon will be in Ofsted, in every one of those categories, which will bear out my words.
Where the fault lies with the LEA, the Bill as drafted is perfectly proper and right. That is the reason why the school has been a failure. It is highly unlikely that parents would wish to keep the school with such an LEA. But should we rule out the possibility that the main cause of a school going wrong could fall into one of the other two categories which, from direct experience, one can so frequently name: a poor head, or in some cases a difficult group of governors? Those two possibilities exist. In those instances, when the LEA may have been doing its very best to change the situation, why do we insist that the school cannot be put back under the control of the LEA, even though the parents wish it?
I do not want simply to echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the essential nature of parents being allowed to make the judgment, as the Government have argued that they should make the judgment in the case of grant-maintained schools. I want to bear out what he said by bringing forward specific instances of the kind of reasons why schools sometimes get into trouble and specific cases where the reason for that trouble could not reasonably be found to rest with the local education authority. Therefore, I add to the pleas that parents in this instance, as elsewhere in the Bill, should be the people who make the final decision about the well-being of their children.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I should like to echo what has already been said and say, as we have pointed out before, that it is another of these cases where the Government's enthusiasm for parental choice and variety of schooling is shown to be somewhat hollow. As with the refusal to allow an opt-back in, the provision for a possible annual ballot and the move to grant-maintained special status, it is clear that as little as possible is to be left to chance; that is, to the wishes of parents on the spot. They might—horror of horrors!—decide to stay with their local community of schools.
In cases where the local authority has been at fault, it is indeed most unlikely that parents and governors would so decide. In those cases they will do the Government's job for them with more legitimacy than if no choice had been provided. But in cases where an LEA is not at fault—we gave examples at previous stages of the Bill and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, reinforced them just now—it is simply not right that all decisions about the school's future should be taken away.
As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out, under our amendment it is still open to the Secretary of State to close a failing school if it is felt that that is the only thing to do. But in all other circumstances it is the

1279
people on the spot who should decide what happens to their school. A ballot under Clauses 24 and 25 is the proper way to do it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in order to understand the amendments I have amended my copy of the Bill and put a metaphorical wet towel around my head. But I find them confusing. Perhaps I may deal with the three amendments in detail.
To say, in lines 4 and 5, as the first amendment does, that we should delete the words "become a grant-maintained school", overlooks the fact that under Clause 227(2) the report may recommend that the school should become a grant-maintained school; we cannot get away from that. Yet the amendment seeks to delete the words "become a grant-maintained school", and substitute the word "continue". That means that not only has a limited hypothesis been reached, but in my opinion a wrong hypothesis.
My point in relation to Amendment No. 59 is a minor drafting point. The words,
"as though the ballot had been called",
are not really necessary. And I am sorry to say that I cannot make any sense of Amendment No. 60. Taken together, I doubt whether the amendments express the intentions of those who are moving them. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend Lady Blatch has to say.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I listened with care to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It is possible that some technical tidying up may be needed. But it would not be impossible, if the principle of the amendment were to be accepted, for that to be done.
The principle of the amendment is rather important. The point the noble Lord, Lord Judd, made in regard to choice, is significant. It makes me doubt how the Secretary of State can claim to be in favour of freedom of choice until, by deed poll, he changes his name to Hobson.
Also, I should like to add one more to the list of reasons given by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby for the possible failure of a school; that is, the economic and in some cases social failure of the area. The Minister will undoubtedly say that living in a depressed area does not necessarily lead to a failing school. She is quite right. Being shot does not necessarily lead to death; but there is a risk that it may do so.
The constituency in which I live—I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and say that it is my constituency, as it is Mr. Ken Livingstone's constituency —now has adult male unemployment of 40 per cent. Figures like that harm the self-respect of an area. It is a struggle to maintain self-respect in that sort of situation. If one finds one's local school is taken away from the local community and put under the control of professionals thrust in from the outside, as I am sure it will be perceived even if wrongly, it may be one final measure towards the loss of self-respect in the community, which can only cause more work for the police.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, would have the effect of requiring the education association to organise a ballot for grant-maintained status where the Secretary of State had received a report stating that the school was no longer in need of special measures and had decided that it should continue.
I have said many times before, and believe that it is worth repeating, that if we could have that kind of concern for the democratic rights of parents who in law have the democratic right to vote for grant-maintained status, what noble Lords were saying would have more meaning and would be a genuine plea for parental rights. But it is not. It is a plea to keep the LEA in business almost for its own sake.
I hesitate to repeat what I have already said to the House on more than one occasion, but am forced to do so in the light of the Opposition's suggestion that we, on these Benches, do not value the opinion of parents. That is completely unacceptable. Of course parents know what is best for their children. But these are not normal circumstances. Let me take the House back a step. If the Secretary of State thinks that the school and the LEA have set out effective action plans for dealing with the problems identified in the inspection report, he will not transfer the school to an education association in the first place. If the plans are implemented effectively, the school will remain with the LEA. Only where he judges the plans to be inadequate, or the school and the LEA incapable—I stress "incapable"—of implementing them effectively, will a school be transferred to an education association. It will be very much the exception. It will not be a frequent occurrence. It is not a normal situation. It is certainly not, as noble Lords have suggested, a backdoor route to self-governing status.
We have no interest in seeing schools fail—that should unite the whole House. We want parents of pupils in schools which are giving their pupils a high standard of education to have the free choice whether or not to opt for self-governing status. But in the exceptional circumstances where a school, and its LEA, have failed the pupils and their parents we see no choice but to have exceptional arrangements for a quick, simple move on to grant-maintained status. Noble Lords opposite have argued that moving swiftly is not an important factor. On the contrary, it is central to the case. A failing school will have been subject to uncertainty of different kinds over a lengthy period, not only failing as a school, but the local authority failing to restore good education to that school. Therefore, decisive action is highly desirable in such cases. Balloting for grant-maintained status would just mean a further period of uncertainty for the school.
However, these amendments do not even properly address the issue of what might happen as a result of a parental ballot. Where a county or voluntary school has a ballot for grant-maintained status, parents have a clear choice—either to keep the school as it is, under LEA control, or to choose self-government. That

1281
would not be the case with a ballot organised by an education association. The school could not remain in the care of an education association in perpetuity if parents voted "no". Perhaps it was the intention of those tabling these amendments that, were parents to vote against grant-maintained status, an assumption would be made that they were voting for returning the school to the LEA. But as they stand that is not the effect.
My noble friend Lord Renton is right to point out that the amendments are not only slightly defective, but wholly defective. I have done my best in previous debates on this issue to point out to the Opposition the technical failings of their amendments. I should have thought that at this late stage in the progress of the Bill they might have tried to produce amendments which would actually achieve their intended aim. However, they appear to have completely given up on any attempt to produce workable amendments. There is no provision for a school to transfer back to the LEA. There is no provision for the LEA to say whether it is prepared to take the school back. There is no provision for the establishment of a governing body. I cannot help but feel that there is no heart in these amendments. We have the makings of a procedural cul-de-sac.
Parents being balloted for grant-maintained status in. LEA controlled schools can make a judgment as to whether they believe the school is operating to their satisfaction under the LEA or whether they would prefer the school to enjoy the benefits of self-government. A parental ballot at a school conducted by an education authority would not allow them to make that same judgment. They would have the evidence before them that an education association, operating in much the same way as the governing body of a grant-maintained school, had turned the school around. They might also have vague promises from the LEA which had failed the school in the past about what it might do in the future. Although I have no doubt about the way in which they would vote, I do not believe that that is a reasonable choice to ask parents to make.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, quite rightly reminded us of the different circumstances in which a school could fail. I recognised many of the reasons given. But we are talking about schools that are already under local authority control and every example that was given by the noble Baroness is a matter for the local education authorities. They can, if they are concerned about the future of a school and good education in a school, put in an inspection team. They can call the school to account. There are many ways in which they can do something to make sure that the education in a school does not arrive at such a stage that it is deemed by Her Majesty's Inspectorate as being a school at risk of not giving good education to the children.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, referred to an LEA not being at fault. I am afraid that we are talking about an LEA that is at fault. It is only if an LEA is at fault that an education association would be
1282
put into place. If an LEA is found incapable of restoring good education to a school it is only then that an education association would be put in place.
I am not saying that the local education authority is necessarily the cause, as indeed the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, said. It may not even have contributed to a school failing or contributed to the crisis, as the noble Earl mentioned, in a failing school. What I am saying is that the local education authority will have failed that school in failing to restore good education to it. It is only in that circumstance that an education association would be put in place.
We shall have to continue to agree to differ on the issue. We believe that the Bill gives considerable choice to parents. But where a school has arrived at the sorry state of having failed its children, and where the local education authority has also failed those children, it is my view that good education should be restored and that the school's future should be secured in the grant-maintained sector.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I say that I find her strictures at this hour a little rich. More than 900 government amendments were tabled to the Bill—most of them described as technical and drafting amendments. With all the resources of draftsmanship and of the Civil Service to assist the Government, that is the reality.
Of course we are sorry if there are imperfections in our drafting. If the Minister were prepared to meet the principle, if she would give an indication that she is prepared to meet the principle, we would sit down at once with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, with all his expertise, and others and work out how this could be put right. It is no good the Minister retreating behind technical arguments when she knows full well that it is the principle to which she objects. That is what brings me to the centre of the issue.
We have been told over and over again during our deliberations that the Bill is about extending parental choice and that the health and future of schools depend on parents being committed to what is happening in schools and to playing their part. That argument has been repeatedly deployed. Here is a situation in which a school has gone through all the trauma of an education association coming in. The whole object of the exercise is to normalise the situation and bring the school into line with what the Government have said is appropriate for the country as a whole, a situation in which parents will feel content with what is being done. Now we hear, even at the last moment, the Minister telling the House that the parents are not to be trusted in that situation, that their judgment is not valid, that the Secretary of State knows better in that situation than the parents. is the Minister really arguing—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He missed out an important part of the trauma for that school. The school has already been deemed to have failed its children. The local education authority is given in this process an opportunity to restore good education to

1283
the school. It is the local education authority which then fails that school and those children. That is the extent of the trauma. To suggest that it should go back to the LEA is simply unacceptable.
I thought I made it clear that I was not rejecting the amendments only because they are defective. I said that they are defective and that I thought it was unfortunate that there was no provision for the school to transfer back to the LEA, no provision for the LEA to say whether it was prepared to take the school back and no provision for the establishment of a governing body. The amendments are not only partly defective; they are defective in so many cases. But on the principle of sending it back to the LEA, I have made it absolutely clear that we do not agree.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the length of the Minister's intervention reminds me of her reaction to an intervention by me earlier in the proceedings. But we will not go into that just now. What we are emphasising in our approach is that the more upsetting the experience for a community—for the children and the parents—the more important it is that everyone concerned is on board with what is being proposed. If the Secretary of State made a decision about the future of a school and it was known widely that the parents of that school were totally opposed to it, would that be a good basis for normalising the situation in the school? Is that what the Minister is suggesting? Would that be a sound basis for putting right what had been wrong? It would be to perpetuate the instability, the uncertainty and the tensions which had led to the crisis in the first place.
As to the Minister's point about local education authorities failing, I do not understand her position. She reminded me —quite specifically, me—as well as the House as a whole of her experience in local government. Does she believe in the principles of local democracy, or does she not? As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out powerfully in Committee, there may have been a crisis in a school which necessitated the presence of an education association. As a result of that crisis there may have been a total change, in an election, of the political leadership of the borough concerned. The action taken by the Secretary of State would, whatever we may feel about education associations in general, have to be commended because it would have been the catalyst that brought about a democratic change for the better. In that situation, because of her doctrinaire and dogmatic commitment on the issue, the Minister says that it would not be possible to find a democratic and sensible solution in which the parents could participate. No, that is not acceptable. Although it be the hour for dinner—I apologise for delaying what we are all looking forward to in that respect—on this side of the House we are determined to press the issue to a Division.
7.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 58) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Lockwood, B.

Airedale, L.

Longford, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Avebury, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

McNair, L.

Barnett, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Ogmore, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Parry, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Desai, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Eatwell, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Russell, E.

Fitt, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stallard, L.

Stedman, B.

Gregson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hamwee, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

White, B.

Judd, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberconway, L.

Dundonald, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Eccles, V.

Alport, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Arran, E.

Elles, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Astor, V.

Elton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Ferrers, E.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Beloff, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Blatch, B.

Gisborough, L.

Boardman, L.

Goschen, V.

Borthwick, L.

Grantchester, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Greenway, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Braine of Wheatley. L.

Halsbury, E.

Brentford, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Harvington, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Henley, L.

Caithness, E.

Hesketh, L.

Caldecote, V.

Hives, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Carnock, L.

Howe, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Kimball, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Kitchener, E.

Clark of Kempston, L

Lane of Horsell, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lawrence, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Leigh, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cranborne, V.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Crawshaw, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cross, V.

Lyell, L.

Cumberlege, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

De Ramsey, L.

Denham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Margadale, L.

1285

Mountevans, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Moyne, L.

Seccombe, B.

Munster, E.

Sharples, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Stewartby, L.

Norfolk, D.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Norrie, L.

Strange, B.

Northbourne, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Onslow, E.

Swinfen, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Swinton, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Tebbit, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Peel, E.

Torrington, V.

Pender, L.

Trumpington, B. [ Teller.]

Perth, E.

Ullswater, V.

Prentice, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Pym, L.

Vivian, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Rennell, L.

Renton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry. L.

Wynford, L.

Romney, E.

Young, B.

St. Davids, V.

Younger of Prestwick, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.45 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 not moved.]
Viscount Astor: 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 7.46 to 8.30 p.m.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 61:
After Clause 229, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of. sections 4 and 232 of the Education Reform Act 1988
—(1) In section 4 of the Education Reform Act 1988, subsection (5) shall be deleted.
(2) In section 232, in subsection (3), after 3(4) (a), there shall be inserted "4(2) (c)".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 61 and to speak also to Amendment No. 64 which is grouped with it. Both amendments deal with testing. The purpose of Amendment No. 61 is to amend the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988 which laid down the procedure for the Secretary of State to set out methods of assessment. It was to be done simply by executive order. There was no procedure for parliamentary scrutiny of any sort. I accept the point which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, made about this on Thursday—that we ought to have paid attention to that in 1988. But we did not. We set up a procedure allowing the Secretary of State to do it by himself without coming back to Parliament to report on what he had done or to secure any approval. That may be regarded to some extent as our own fault. If so, I am one of those who has to say, "mea culpa". The effects have been unfortunate and we should consider what we can do to put them right.
The effect of the amendment would be to make any future setting out of methods of assessment subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which would mean that it would be necessary to bring them to this House. One advantage of that is that it is a fairly regular experience that administrative work which has to be submitted to the scrutiny of the House is carried
1286
out with rather more care and is perhaps rather higher up the list of priorities than it might otherwise be. There is also a value in the way of obtaining consent and, whichever point of view we hold, it is vital that, whatever the assessment arrangements arrived at in future, they should enjoy general consent. It gives the House a chance to satisfy itself that whatever is proposed is practical; that it can be made to work; and, above all, that it is ready. It is very difficult to convey to those who work regularly in Whitehall quite how strong a resistance there is among those who work in education to exposing their pupils to tests for which it has not been possible to make them ready. That is something that one would expect anyone with any academic training to refuse to dc. One of the advantages of making any new procedure come before Parliament is that it gives us a chance to satisfy ourselves that what is offered is ready.
When we discussed these matters on Thursday evening in an Unstarred Question, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was kind enough to vouchsafe to me an advanced view of her answer. As she did that, 1 think that it is in order for me to respond to some of the points that she made. She said that it was necessary —and I agree with her on this—to strike a balance between the demands of effective scrutiny of legislation and the no less pressing demands on the time of this House. It is a fair point, but my plea is that the time of this House has not actually been saved. By allowing a mess to be made, the House has created a great deal of work for itself, whereas if something adequate had been put in front of us for scrutiny, vie might have got through the work much more quickly.
The noble Baroness also argued that we should ask whether it was realistic to expect Parliament to approve the details of assessment and testing arrangements. She said that those were essentially operational matters and matters of detail. I am sure that the noble Baroness remembers our debate on 5th May 1988 when the powers which I seek to amend were originally approved. In that debate, a great many noble Lords (some of whom are now present in the Chamber) expressed strong and detailed views about the differences between different methods of assessment. They expressed a willingness to approve some but not others. The record of the House therefore refutes that argument.
The noble Baroness also asked how one could scrutinise papers which needed to be confidential. There is such a thing as a specimen paper. When one is introducing something new, it is fairly normal to show a specimen paper and to consult on it in advance while keeping the actual paper secret. So I do not see any great difficulty in that.
Next time—in a year's time—we should not be where we are now. I do riot think that the conclusions of the Dearing Review can be accepted as wholly revealed. There needs to be consultation about them. It is essential that that consultation should be brought to Parliament so that we can see whether we are satisfied with it. In the long-term, I hope that that might save more trouble than it creates. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendment No. 64 which stands in my name, although the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has covered most of my points.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure the full consultation period where it is "reasonably practicable" to do so. The gist of the argument which the noble Earl has advanced is that the Minister has not said that only consensual changes shall be made; nor has she said that only urgent changes shall be made. Since she has not, as I understand it, given those undertakings, I do not see why the full procedure as originally agreed should be short-circuited in this way. Although the amendment seeks to keep in place the Minister's changes, we are speaking about arrangements where it will be "reasonably practicable" to do that. Those two simple points are all that I have to say about my amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may take Amendment No. 61 first. We had the opportunity to consider these matters during Report on 21st June. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, did not speak to the similar amendment in his name on that occasion. But this House has also had the opportunity to consider the issue of subordinate legislation at large during the course of the short debate which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, initiated on 1st July.
The House will be aware that in framing legislation there is always a balance to be struck between matters of principle and matters of detail. This amendment seeks to shift the present balance in respect of assessment orders made under Section 4(2) (c) of the Education Reform Act.
As I said on 21st June, I see no need to do so. Assessment and testing are part and parcel of the national curriculum. They must address the statutory statements of attainment laid out in the curriculum orders for each subject, which are themselves the subject of widespread consultation. The principle of assessment in the national curriculum is enshrined in primary legislation in the Education Reform Act.
The assessment orders themselves bring into effect arrangements for assessment and testing at each key stage and for each subject as determined by the Secretary of State. Their substance is inevitably detailed and technical. They cover issues such as the relationship between teacher assessment and national tests in each subject, the means of arriving at an overall subject result, arrangements for pupils who are disapplied from part of a subject and the way to deal with pupils who are absent from a test paper. Essentially, they are concerned with operational decisions about how and when assessment and testing should take place.
For the sake of clarity, I should add that the assessment orders do not address the tests themselves; that is, their format, how many papers there should be, and the style and content of particular questions.
I do not see that Parliament needs to concern itself with scrutiny of such operational decisions. As I said on 21st June, Parliament has had no control, for example, over public examinations such as the GCSE and A-levels which are of at least equal importance for the pupils taking them.
1288
We have taken pains to consult those affected about these operational decisions. The assessment orders for 1991, 1992 and 1993 were themselves subject to consultation. The orders for 1994 will be framed in the light of the review of the curriculum and assessment framework being conducted by Sir Ron Dearing after extensive consultation. As part of his review, Sir Ron has consulted widely on those matters which the orders will cover. That is surely the right way to go about framing the assessment orders and for consideration of the largely technical and mechanical matters which they cover. Against that background, I see no need for the kind of parliamentary scrutiny that the noble Earl envisages.
The effect of subsection (1) would be that the tests themselves could no longer be published separately but would have to form part of the order itself. That would be a strange procedure indeed. The tests are taken "unseen" by pupils. They need to remain confidential until taken by pupils. There is nothing in the amendment to suggest that the papers would be samples. They would be the tests themselves that are going before pupils. To include the tests for each subject as part of the order would obviously destroy the concept of "unseen" tests. I have difficulty in imagining how this Chamber, even with the expertise holed up here, could deal sensibly with the individual questions in those tests that would be asked of children at all the different ability levels. A practical consequence is that the orders would be remarkably large, running to several hundred pages.
I cannot see that it is proper for Parliament to exercise scrutiny of those technical matters as the amendment proposes. It is also the case that it is simply impractical for Parliament to consider the tests themselves at each key stage and for each year as the amendment envisages. I would ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 64. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who is not in her place, that there should be all necessary consultation before changes to the national curriculum are introduced. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are committed to consulting widely, and will continue to do so.
I cannot accept the amendment since it is unclear that it adds much to my right honourable friend's duty under this clause to consult. I can, however, give the House assurances that, wherever possible, we intend to follow the procedures set out in Sections 20 and 21 of the Education Reform Act. Where we need to proceed more quickly, and use the flexibility introduced by this clause to hold only one round of consultation, we intend to consult at least as widely as the minimum required in the Education Reform Act, and would expect to consult more widely, along the lines of our current practice for the first stage of national curriculum consultations.
In addition, I can assure the House that we will allow adequate time for consultation, appropriate to the organisations which we consult on any particular

1289
proposal. We recognise that if schools themselves are to respond, they need time fully to consider documents and to discuss them before doing so.
We do not intend to bypass consultation. But where there has been extensive consultation on broad principles, as part of the Dearing Review, there may be—I only say "may be" —no need for the full two-stage consultation process. We intend to respond to teachers' concerns effectively and quickly following the results of the Dearing Review. That is the purpose of the clause. I hope that noble Lords will accept my assurances as to how the Government intend to proceed and will not press the amendment. I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has introduced an important point.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply which was careful, detailed and considered. I shall not pretend not to be disappointed, but neither shall I pretend to be surprised. First, I owe the House an apology for my absence on 21st June. I was in the chair at my seminar, listening to a paper attacking my own work with some vigour and feeling a momentary sympathy for the Minister.
The Minister argues that the amendment deals with detail, that the matter is technical, and therefore Parliament should not be concerned with it. That detail or technical matter is in danger of bringing the whole process of state education to a halt. We can cope with that type of trouble one year, but if we have to do it again, it will be a serious matter indeed. I cannot help but feel that when Parliament sees something of this magnitude going wrong it will not take kindly to being told that it is merely technical and a matter of detail. When schools are not working, that is a little more than a matter of detail.
The Minister said that she could not see that Parliament needed to concern itself with the matter. I am afraid that I can see that Parliament needs to concern itself. She said that she saw no need for parliamentary scrutiny; that the processes of consultation were sufficient. It is fair here to say that we judge by results. This year's results do not appear to bear that out. If in a year's time the results again do riot bear it out.. then Parliament would be deeply concerned indeed.
The Minister says that Amendment No. 64 adds nothing to the Secretary of State's duty to consult. But he has not been very good at that duty so far. The Secretary of State will have to understand, if he is to consult adequately, that, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, once said to the House, consultation is a two-way process. Until it is understood that it is consultation between two codes of values, between which some accommodation must be reached, consultation cannot be successful.
The magnitude of this issue is such that I would be entitled to divide the House. On the other hand, I cannot see that I advance an argument for consensus by doing that. So, under the circumstances, I shall beg leave to withdraw my amendment. But if we are here again in a year's time, I shall not.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 62:
After Clause 240, insert the following new clause:
Sex education
(".—(1) In section 2(1) of the Education Reform Act 1988 (content of curriculum), after "school" in paragraph (a) there is inserted—
"(aa) in the case of a secondary school, provision for sex education for all registered pupils at the school;
(ab) in the case of a special school, provision for sex education for all registered pupils at the school who are provided with secondary education".
(2) In section 114(1) of the Education Act 1944 (interpretation), after the definition of "Senior pupil" there is inserted—
""Sex education" includes education about—

(a) Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome and Human Immunodeficiency Virus, and

(b) any other sexually transmitted disease".

22
(3) After section 17 of the Education Reform Act 1988 there is inserted—
"Exemption from sex education.
17A. If the parent of any pupil in attendance at any maintained school requests that he may be wholly or partly excused from receiving sex education at the school, the pupil shall, except so far as such education is comprised in the National Curriculum, be so excused accordingly until the request is withdrawn."
(4)The Secretary of State shall so exercise the power conferred by section 4 of that Act to revise the National Curriculum as to secure that the subject of science does not include—

(a) Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome and Human Immunodeficiency Virus,

(b) any other sexually transmitted disease, or

(c) aspects of human sexual behaviour, other than biological aspects,

and sections 20, 21 and 232(4) of that Act (procedure for making orders), and section 241 of this Act, shall not apply to any order made only for the purposes of this subsection.
(5) The governing body of every maintained or grant-maintained school and, in relation to pupils who are provided with secondary education, the governing body of every maintained special school shall—

(a) make, and keep up to date, a separate written statement of their policy with regard to the provision of sex education, and

(b) make copies of the statement available for inspection (at all reasonable times) by parents of registered pupils at the school and provide a copy of the statement free of charge to any such parent who asks for one.

(6) In relation to any county, or controlled, secondary school, and in relation to any pupils who are provided with secondary education in a maintained special school, section 18 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (policy for curriculum in county etc. schools), shall have effect with the omission of subsections (2) and (6) (c) (i) and of the references to the matters mentioned in subsection (2) of that section.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in bringing forward this amendment we are seeking to achieve two objectives. First, we want to ensure that sex education is placed firmly and unequivocally within the curriculum of all maintained secondary schools. Secondly, we want to give expression to the right of parents to play an important part in determining how their children should be educated in this particularly sensitive area of the curriculum.
I shall explain briefly how these provisions will operate. In primary schools, the position will be

1291
similar to the current one: it will remain the responsibility of governors to decide whether they wish to offer any sex education and, if they do, what it should cover and how it should be taught. There is, however, one important change. If parents do not wish their children to receive some or all of the sex education offered by a primary school, they will have the right to withdraw their children from that provision.
In secondary schools, sex education will be offered to all pupils. That provision will include education about sexually transmitted diseases including HIV and AIDS. It will be for governing bodies to decide, within that broad requirement, the content and organisation of sex education in their school. Parents will have the right to withdraw their children from some or all of that provision.
There is an important proviso here which I should like to stress. Some aspects of what might generally be termed sex education—broadly speaking, the biology of human sexual development and reproduction—will continue to form part of the national curriculum. The parental right of withdrawal will not extend to these aspects; nor will governors have any discretion to allow children to be withdrawn from them. I hope the House will agree with our view that it would be quite wrong to legislate for the possibility that some children might leave secondary education without a clear knowledge of the basic biological and physical facts of life. But beyond those aspects, parents will be able if they wish to withdraw their children by specifying that they do not wish them to receive sex education or, if their concern extends only to certain aspects, by specifying those aspects. I should make it clear here that we do not think it appropriate or practicable to require parents to justify their request or to oblige governors to decide whether to grant these requests. If parents feel strongly enough to make such a request, that in our view is sufficient.
I hope and believe that there will in practice be very few such requests. We are often told that the great majority of parents want their children to receive sex education at school. By ensuring that it is available in all secondary schools this amendment will meet the wishes of these parents. Moreover, I very much hope that, as happens in the best cases at present, schools will seek to involve parents closely in the process of drawing up their programmes of sex education. This will do much to keep the number of withdrawals to a minimum. And I must emphasise here that the provisions of Section 46 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 will continue to apply in full. All sex education in schools, whether or not it forms part of the national curriculum, will have to be taught in such a way as to encourage pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life. It will not be as at least one lobbyist group put it to me; "Don't let spiritual and moral values get in the way of safer-sex education".
I know that some concern has been expressed about the position of children whose parents exercise the right of withdrawal but fail to make suitable alternative arrangements for their children to learn
1292
about these important and sensitive matters. I have to say that I do not think that that is a very great risk. Parents are unlikely to go to the trouble of withdrawing their children without having thought through the issues. In most cases I believe that they will have a very clear idea of the alternative approach that they intend to adopt. It is, after all, the most discerning parents who take the step of withdrawing their children from any part of school education. But as a safeguard we intend to issue guidance which will encourage schools to offer help, advice and information to parents who are exercising their right of withdrawal. I should like to take this opportunity to point out—and I believe that schools will also wish to make it clear to parents—that this right carries with it a corresponding responsibility. Parents should think very carefully about how they intend to ensure that children are not deprived of information and understanding which will be of increasing importance to them as they approach adulthood.
In conclusion, perhaps I may once again acknowledge—as I have done many times before in discussion of these issues in this House—that we clearly recognise that this is a topic on which there are widely differing but equally strongly held views. I do not imagine that this amendment will satisfy everyone. I do, however, hope that the House will recognise that it represents a sincere attempt to remove existing sources of confusion and distress and, at the same time, to ensure that all our children receive necessary information and guidance in the way that is best suited to them.
In moving the Government's Amendment No. 62 I set out fully our thinking behind the decision to confer on parents a statutory right to withdraw their children from lessons on sex education. In doing so, the Government have responded to the concerns about sex education and education about HIV and AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. We believe that individuals should have the right to act on strongly held beliefs in this difficult and sensitive area. We wish to respect the right of parents to decide for themselves whether their children should receive sex education at school. The right of parental withdrawal is respect for the right of parents to ensure education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. This accords with Article 2 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I am told that I must not respond to Amendments Nos. 62A, 62B and 62C. However, I intend to respond to them because I believe that time will be saved and that it will help the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, to understand my response to this cluster of amendments. I believe that they are unnecessary. In practice, I find it hard to imagine a child who is of an age and has reached sufficient maturity to decide that he or she wants to attend sex education lessons being prevented from doing so by his or her parents asserting the right of withdrawal. We believe that those parents who are sufficiently concerned to be considering exercising the right of withdrawal will take full account of the child's views.
Amendment No. 62A would be difficult if not impossible to implement. It would be unreasonable to require governors or head teachers to make judgments about whether the pupil was of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision. What would the test be about the understanding of the teaching of HIV and AIDS, for example? Schools would need to apply a common set of criteria, and I would have thought it impossible to draw up a universally acceptable set of criteria to adjudicate on whether a pupil has sufficient understanding to make an informed decision. And Amendment No 62B would be unworkable. The age of sexual consent is, of course, applicable to girls; none applies to boys.
I have already explained and made clear that we expect requests from parents to withdraw their children from sex education to be kept to a minimum given the mechanisms that enable consultation between governors and parents to take place on the formulation and implementation of sex education policies, and the guidance which we are proposing to give schools on this subject. In those circumstances, we believe that it is not necessary to hedge the provision on parental withdrawal with provisos of this kind.
With those reassurances I hope that the noble Baroness will consider that it is important to have this debate but that at the end of the day she will not wish to press the amendments.
I fully appreciate the thinking behind Amendment No. 62C but I have to tell the House that it is also unnecessary. Section 1(2) of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 already requires the Chief Inspector for England—
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I passed a message to the Minister's colleague to inform her that I want to move Amendment No. 62C separately. It is not an amendment to the Minister's amendment; it is a separate new clause.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I had not been informed of that prior to speaking to these amendments. Of course, if we are now in the business of decoupling Amendment No. 62C, which is a great pity because we are to have a debate about sex education, it is unfortunate that we shall have two debates on sex education. It might have been a little more courteous to have told me before I stood to address these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 62, Amendment No. 62A:
Line 22, at end insert ("provided that the request is in accordance with the pupil's own wishes if the pupil is of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, in moving Amendment No. 62A I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62B. I have tabled these amendments because I am extremely anxious about children's rights. The noble Baroness in moving her amendment spoke several times about the rights of parents but I wish to speak a little about the rights of children.
I am also concerned and somewhat surprised that Amendment No. 62 has been tabled to the Education Bill at this stage. I am surprised because it is, after all, only a short time since there were major revisions to the sex education provisions in schools, which are being worked effectively in those schools. Any new revisions must necessarily destabilise, confuse and overburden school systems, which are already grappling with a difficult subject in difficult circumstances.
It was only in August 1992—not yet one full school year —that there was a revision of the science orders in the national curriculum to include HIV and AIDS. A full school year has not yet elapsed in which one can see how well those are working. It is also less than two months ago when, in this House, the noble Baroness, winding up in Committee the debate on an amendment including some of the same provisions tabled by my noble friend Lord Stallard, argued and argued forcefully that existing legislation contained sufficient safeguards for parents. She said that at col. 1115 of Hansard.
It was only in April that the Department for Education issued its revised circular on sex education emphasising the importance of working with parents and of achieving their co-operation and not giving them the opportunity to opt their children out of sex education altogether. As I understand it from looking again at that document this afternoon, the consultation period on that extremely important revision document ends on 16th July. I do not know what is the status of that document now and I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me in her reply. This is a matter which is being taken very seriously by those working in the field and it is extraordinary to believe that the Department for Education now considers it dead.
As I said, the draft circular spoke of the importance of developing a partnership with parents because—the noble Baroness referred to this in moving the amendment—it recognised the importance of parents in the sphere of sexual health education. I do not believe that anybody in this House would disagree with that. The vast majority-96 per cent.—of parents want sex education in schools. Therefore, as the noble Baroness said, the number who will opt out of the new provisions will probably be a tiny minority.
My fear is that that tiny minority may be precisely those most in need of sexual support and education within school rather than in their home. Those children may be unwillingly opted out and may be opted out in circumstances which are detrimental to their well-being.
In Committee, I spoke briefly about my experience with Moslem girls in London who came to me when I was director of the National AIDS Trust to speak about an AIDS project which they were doing at school and which they felt unable to discuss with their parents. However, I am encouraged to hear today that the representative body of Moslem parents says that it has no general desire to opt its children out of sex education and, therefore, will not take advantage of the amendment.
On the other hand, I am disturbed by the NSPCC's view in relation to the government amendment which stands before us this evening; namely, that those who have been involved in sexual abuse may opt their children out of sex education at school because of the fear of disclosure. That is not a wild red herring but comes from the NSPCC—a very authoritative source. It reflects precisely the anxieties which will arise if, as the noble Baroness said, parents are not required to give any indication of their reasons for opting their children out of sex education.
In this day and age the rights of a child must be recognised. The language of my Amendment No. 62A, which the noble Baroness queried, was taken specifically from the Children Act 1989, which refers in various different clauses to personal decisions about young people and children. Examples are clauses concerning their health and property. That legislation uses the phrase:
"of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision".
That is the exact phrase that I used in my amendment. Your Lordships may say that it is vague but I assume that it is workable because it is already included in government legislation, and very important legislation; namely, the Children Act.
The Children Act respects the autonomy of young people but the United Kingdom is also a signatory to the UN's international convention on children's rights, which gives entitlement to education and information that enables the child to lead a responsible adult life. The European Court has now ruled to give young people a right to education in this area.
I am concerned also about, and draw the attention of the House to, the entitlement which exists under existing educational legislation in this country and which speaks of ensuring:
"education in sexual matters sufficient to ensure that their children's health is not impaired".
All those pieces of international and national law simply reflect the realities of young people's lives in the last decade of the 20th century. Young people achieve independence and autonomy early. They lead lives which their parents may not know about, may not wish to know about and may not contemplate. To ignore that fact is simply to ignore the realities of life. The children may not be leading lives which any of us would necessarily wish to repeat. They may not be leading lives which, as parents, we should commend. But we must acknowledge that they are becoming sexually experienced at a very young age and that they seek to experience their own autonomy.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and on Report the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to the generation gap which exists in the House on this issue. I entirely support their view. Those of us in our forties, fifties and sixties who have real involvement with young people today and who have real experience of schools and the way in which young people live their lives, particularly in some of the more deprived areas and areas of social concern, know that some of the facts which I shall give to the House are correct.
Let us list the basic statistics which we know about young people's lives. Thirty-five per cent. of young
1296
people under the age of 16 have had full sexual intercourse. Fifty per cent. have had full sexual intercourse by the time they are 18. One-third of those young people do not use contraceptives in a new sexual encounter with a new partner. Twenty per cent. of HIV infection in this country is among young people aged 15 to 25. This country has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in the developing world. We cannot ignore those facts. They are not anecdotes. They are not wild stories from pressure groups. They are not lurid tales from the tabloid press. They are responsible facts. Most of them have been produced by the Government's work through the Department of Health and the Health Education Authority.
All of that argues the case for more, not less, sex education. That will improve matters. Less will make things more difficult. If those parents are allowed to withdraw their children from the schools, we shall see a threat to what has been increasingly good sex education in schools. We have seen the development of cross-curricula activities. Again, if I may, I should like to quote the Minister's remarks in Committee. In referring to the threat to cross-curricula activity if parents were allowed to withdraw, she said:
"We took the view that to concede a right of withdrawal from lessons would work against the interests of securing an effective, broad education for every child … Schools' programmes of sex education are often part of their wider programmes of personal and social or health education"— [Official Report, 10/5/93; col. 1116.]
I entirely agree. But why has that position been changed in just six weeks? I fear that what we shall see if parents can opt out is a return to one compulsory lesson. However, sex education should not be allowed to be reduced to just one lesson. It is not an event; it is a process. In summing up the debate in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, precisely reflected my thinking in terms of the broad and general approach that there needs to be to the subject.
Finally, I should just like to point out that it is sometimes suggested—and, indeed, it was suggested in our earlier debates on the subject—that concern about parental withdrawal and concern about children's rights is simply a concern of what has been described as the "AIDS industry". In speaking to her amendment, the Minister again spoke somewhat pejoratively of one lobby group. That is an element that has crept into our debates.
However, since the Minister's amendment was produced, I have received a considerable number of letters, telephone calls, and so on, from people who do not represent such groups that are spoken of so pejoratively. For example, the 15 organisations of the Women's Health and Screening Delegation to the Minister of Health have described the amendment as a retrograde step. They represent five million women. Among those organisations are, the Mothers' Union, the National Council of Women of Great Britain, the National Federation of Women's Institutes. The Townswomens Guild and the Young Women's Christian Associations.
I have also received some considerable help with my thoughts on the matter from members of the Sex Education Forum. That consists of 30 organisations,

1297
including the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council, the Jewish Marriage Advisory Council, the Methodist Church Division of Education and Youth—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for sitting down. However, I wonder whether she will comment on my conversation this morning, not with the lobby group that I mentioned earlier but with members of the Townswomens Guild. When asked whether they had read the amendment, they said "no", and when asked whether they had read the Hansard report on the debate they said, "no". All they had received was information from another lobby group which was wholly inaccurate. When I had the time to explain precisely what the amendment sought to achieve, a lady actually said to me, "That is precisely what we would have supported had we known it in the first place".
I suspect that many of the women's groups that have written in have done so on the basis of some pretty scurrilous information that has been flying around about the amendments which is wholly inaccurate. Frankly, I would not use such information in the debate because many Members in the Chamber are in receipt of such correspondence and have spoken to some of those people who speak from a point of ignorance on the matter.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I cannot of course produce any quotes from the Townswomens Guild because, I admit, I have not spoken to that organisation. However, I have with me a letter from the chairman of the Women's Health and Screening Delegation. She states that she speaks for her members—it is possible that she is not appropriately briefed, but that would surprise me because she is a very responsible person—and says:
"In our view, allowing parents to withdraw their children from sex education lessons and/or cutting out all reference to sexually transmitted diseases in the national curriculum would be a retrograde step. We would urge the Government not to implement the proposed amendment to the Education Bill"
I report that comment to your Lordships in good faith. Of course, I should be very happy to allow the Minister to see the letter. I have absolutely no reason to suppose that the chairman of the Women's Health and Screening Delegation does not think she accurately represents her members.
If I may, I should like to continue with my speech. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to challenge the Sex Education Forum's response. However, I must point out—as I was about to do before she intervened—that it includes the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council, the Methodist Church Division of Education and Youth and, again, Relate. I believe that all of them are serious and responsible organisations. If the Minister wishes to challenge their view, that is a matter for her. I am simply reporting what has been given to me by representatives of those organisations in signed and serious letters.
In conclusion, I feel that those people represent a wider, a more respected, a more usual view of what both parents and young people want in the country.
1298
By introducing the amendment, I am worried that the Government (in the form of the Department for Education) are breaking the very effective consensus which has existed on health education and sexual health education in the country.
Several years ago the Department of Health produced an advertisement about HIV and AIDS which became famous. The advertisement stated, "Don't die of ignorance". I thought we had moved beyond that but this government amendment suggests that we have not. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I welcome Amendment No. 62, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. believe your Lordships' discussions on this subject in all the different stages of this Bill have been marked by thorough debate. I am sure the solution that the Government are now proposing is the right one. thank the Government for listening carefully to the views that have been expressed in this House.
Sex education is a vital subject and one which I believe needs to be tackled sensitively in every secondary school. Thus I welcome the move to give sex education a special place in the curriculum, but education about sexual matters, and especially sexually transmitted diseases, takes us into some very personal and difficult areas. That is why it is right that all such education should be subject to the moral framework required by the 1986 Act. To be successful, sex education needs to be a partnership between parents and schools. I think it is absolutely right that parents can, in extreme circumstances, remove their children from sex education lessons. I do not imagine it will happen often but by giving parents this new right the Government are saying, "You have to share the responsibility for this important area in your child's life". I hope that as a result of this amendment the quality of sex education will be improved and that the lives of all our children and grandchildren will benefit as a result.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as someone who has never had any children I feel considerable hesitation in joining in this discussion. However, to me this government amendment is totally unreal. What does the noble Baroness think will happen when children are withdrawn from a class on sex education? I can think of nothing which will motivate them more strongly to find out what is being said. Instead of their finding it out and being told properly by the people who are giving the instruction, they will receive garbled versions from their companions who have attended the class. They will certainly not sit outside, or wherever it is they are sent, and not ask their companions who attended the class what it was all about. For heaven's sake, if it is a matter of sex education they will especially want to know what has been said.
It is an absurd idea that one can stop children finding out about this matter by taking them out of a class where sex education is being taught, as it is a matter in which they are all profoundly interested. I should be extremely surprised if the excluded children

1299
were not listening at the keyhole. If they are not, they will certainly find out what has been said within 10 minutes of the class finishing.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I rise to support the new clause moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I have listened carefully to the speech made by my noble friend Lady Jay. I may touch on her speech as it contained a number of inaccuracies. I welcome the constructive and helpful new clause which the Minister has moved. I believe it meets the concerns which I and others have expressed in this House over the past 18 months since the rather hasty decision of a previous Secretary of State to include education about sexual matters in the context of education about HIV and AIDS within the compulsory national curriculum. I believe the Minister has listened carefully to the representations that have been made. She has been patient in considering the concerns on this issue and the views of all of those in this Chamber, and many outside. She has produced a new statutory framework that will be better for children, parents, teachers and governors—indeed the whole school community and society at large—if people will consider honestly what is in this new clause.
I believe, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, struck the right note in his speech on Report on 21st June when, in the light of his immense knowledge—I pay tribute to his knowledge of all the issues surrounding education about HIV and AIDS —he confessed that many groups would feel that the package (that is how he referred to my amendments, which have now been embodied in the Government's proposals) on aggregate,
"will produce more sex education than at present, including HIV education".—[Official Report, 21/6/93; col. 136.]
That is said by a man who is an expert on this subject. He saw the amendment, before it was tidied up and in its present form, as resulting in more sex education, not less, and certainly as resulting in more information about HIV being given. I consider that to be the case. I suggest that the fears that have been raised in some quarters will not be realised. For example, Rachel Thomson, senior development officer at the Sex Education Forum, suggested in the Guardian on 29th June that the changes would undermine a cross-curricular approach to sex education and were undemocratic because they met the needs of a small minority. I greatly respect much of the work that the Sex Education Forum has done, in particular its bringing together of people of different religious persuasions to look at sex education issues. Much has been achieved in relation to the interface between morality and sex education. However, I believe that she is mistaken in her understanding both of the impact of the amendments and of the support for them.
It seems to me, and it has been confirmed by educationalists with much more experience of curricular matters in school today, that rather than undermine a cross-curricular approach the new statutory framework will make it easier. HIV/AIDS education was tied in to a small part of the national curriculum in science and linked with other factual
1300
scientific issues such as human reproduction. By taking it out of the national curriculum we have created the opportunity for greater cross-curricular co-operation and greater emphasis on the all important relational aspects of sex education. I believe that it will also highlight the need for more training on this issue through giving sex education a distinctive place within school life. I urge the Government to give greater priority and funds to training on this issue. On that point I agree with Rachel Thomson.
However, Rachel Thomson also argued that this issue is being "engineered" on behalf of a small number of people in the Plymouth Brethren. On that point I wish to take issue. That is not because I am a member of the Plymouth Brethren. I am certainly not at this moment. She says:
"We are, however, aware of a well-organised lobby which has targeted the Department for Education for some time "on behalf" of the Plymouth-Brethren".
That is completely inaccurate, as everybody knows, as well as being ill-informed. That becomes evident after even elementary research into the statement.
Rachel Thomson goes on to say:
"This very small fundamentalist Christian sect is opposed to the provision of sex education in schools".
The truth is that no one from the Plymouth Brethren has lobbied me, or anyone else in this House, about ending sex education in schools.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. I have been lobbied by the Plymouth Brethren.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, no one has been lobbied by the Plymouth Brethren to end sex education in schools. They have been lobbied in relation to the various amendments which have been put down, but they have not been lobbied to end sex education in schools. Anyone who says that they have been is not telling the whole truth.
Anyone who wants to know more about the matter should note what a noble Lord on the other side of the Chamber—the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine—said about his own research into the Plymouth Brethren after he had discussed this and other matters with them. After he had researched the matter he explained to the rest of us that if the Brethren are to be referred to, they adhere to the scripture in Romans, chapter 16, verse 19, in which the apostle Paul says:
"I would have you wise unto that which is good and simple concerning evil".
The incidence of HIV and AIDS among them is nil.
Rachel Thomson said that the campaign of the Plymouth Brethren now appears to have been successful. That puzzles me because a few sentences earlier she said that they were a small fundamentalist group opposed to the provision of sex education in schools. She now says that the campaign has been successful. It has been so successful that sex education is now to be made compulsory in schools. What kind of success is that?
That lady is the same lady who was quoted earlier by my noble friend Lady Jay as the director of the Sex Education Forum.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I did not quote Miss Thomson.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, Miss Thomson is the director—or whatever—of the Sex Education Forum. She was the girl who wrote the article in the Guardian. She also sent out a brief in conjunction with another lobbyist called Ceri Hutton. Ceri Hutton is from the National Aids Trust and Miss Thomson is with the organisation which my noble friend Lady Jay mentioned.
Miss Hutton was interviewed by Capital Gay. She is a member of the National Aids Foundation which is supported by that long list of organisations which my noble friend Lady Jay, read out. They support the National Aids Trust, of which Ceri Hutton is the general secretary. In a report to Capital Gay newspaper, she said:
"There is no way that religious or moral belief should get in the way of safer sex education".
We could quote to each other all night from those two people, the same kind of material that I received from the Townswomen's Guild as well. Like the noble Baroness, I telephoned them and had much the same conversation, although I did not know that she knew them. I was told the same. The people there had not read it but had received it from that organisation and those who work in it. I say no more except that it does not make matters better that people should work in that way.
It seems to me that those people have misjudged the breadth of support at Report stage from all sides of the Christian Church and others for the suggestion that has been engineered on behalf of a small number of the Plymouth Brethren. The main briefings I have received are from Christian Action Research and Education, CARE, a mainstream Christian lobbying group with over 60,000 members throughout the United Kingdom from many Christian denominations. I checked its credentials which are meticulous and positive.
Another key benefit of the new statutory framework is that it will clear up the confusing dual system that we have at present where some sex education in secondary schools is compulsory and some is not. I have gone through this umpteen times. Some of it is directly under the control of the governors; some is not. We shall now have a unitary system with compulsory sex education subject to the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 on the content and moral framework. There seem to be objections to making sex education compulsory, which surprises me. The draft guidelines which the Department for Education issued, attempting to square the circle on the previous arrangements, will now, we hope, be rewritten. Here I agree with my noble friend Lady Jay. I believe that department officials will find that they have a much easier task given the new framework.
I wish to refer to the opt-out provisions offered to parents under the new clause. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford kindly supported the approach that I took at Report stage. However, he rightly raised proper questions about how the withdrawal provisions would work. Those have been repeated tonight. I hope that he can be reassured about his anxieties. I have given them much thought
1302
and have discussed them with a number of people. First, he wondered how withdrawal could happen if sex education came up on the spur of the moment in a classroom in response to some issue that was being discussed. I understand that. He mentioned that particularly in the context of the primary school, arid I would not wish teachers to be fearful on the point. They will need to answer questions as they would normally anyway, as they arise, in an appropriate way. That can usually be done without trespassing into more sensitive areas. I have great faith that the vast majority of school teachers know exactly how to answer questions which may arise at any time anywhere, in the same way that parents would if the questions were asked at home.
I doubt that many parents, if any, would wish to exercise a blanket right of withdrawal from all sex education. The evidence is that few exercised that right when it was available on request under the 1987 guidelines. Thus I do not think that teachers need worry about straying a little into sex education when dealing with other lessons. However., there is need for a school policy to guide teachers and inform parents. That is what this is about, so far as I am concerned.
The right reverend Prelate was also worried that if sex education was so bad that parents wanted to withdraw their children from it, then surely the education should be improved rather than the children withdrawn. I accept and understand that view and have much sympathy with it. I am personally very much in favour of education on AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. I believe that it can be done in a responsible way which will satisfy the vast majority of parents. Indeed, I perceive the granting of this withdrawal option as giving parents an ultimate sanction that enables them to discuss with a school ways of improving the sex education programme. A few parents may exercise the right—
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be kind enough to give way. We are at Third Reading. The general subject was discussed at great length in the earlier stages. It has been the convention of this House at the later stages, particularly where the Government have agreed to consider and bring back a different response, that speeches might be limited to perhaps four or five minutes. There are a number of noble Lords who wish to speak. I wonder whether noble Lords would agree that that is a fair reading of our convention.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am not in any position to comment on that convention. It is the first I have heard of it. I was coming to the end of my remarks anyway.
A few parents might exercise the right to withdraw children from all sex education. But it is more likely that some parents, if they are concerned about what is happening at the school, will discuss it with teachers, governors and the head. The result will be improved education rather than the withdrawal of the child. In my view, withdrawal is and always should be the very last option after all other avenues have been explored.

1303
Finally, the right reverend Prelate was concerned that in these issues the classroom would always be better than the playground, and if children were withdrawn they would hear a distorted view of sex education in the playground. That point was mentioned again by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I am convinced that only the most responsible parents will consider withdrawal; and they are the ones who will ensure that their children receive the information that they need.
I was interested to read a report of a conference at Leeds Castle in 1992 on why the AIDS message was not getting through. The conference was sponsored by the National AIDS Trust and the King's Fund. One contributor to that conference reviewed interviews that had taken place with teenagers on this issue and discovered that they would prefer, ideally, to receive education from their parents or from a doctor, and not from a peer group or the mass media. That view did not come from me. Whether or not it is unbelievable, that came out of a 1992 conference at Leeds Castle sponsored by the National AIDS Trust. It is clear, however, that children welcome their parents talking on this issue. We must build co-operation between parents and professionals at school and in the health service.
I understand that the concern among professional AIDS educators is that it is not the lack of information about the AIDS issues, but that young people are not changing their behaviour as a result of having the information. That point also came out at the conference. Surely that argues in favour of a properly thought out programme of sex education which addresses the moral and behaviour issues. A new statutory framework will encourage that. I must draw my remarks to a close—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I do not apologise. I am lectured all the time by all sorts of other people. I am entitled to make just a few points in return against a very powerful lobby. I draw my remarks to a close by again thanking the noble Baroness for all the hard work that she has done, and by encouraging those who are worried by these proposals to see them as an opportunity rather than a threat. I ask the noble Baroness whether she might be able to give us any indication this evening of the timetable for implementing these changes, and when the national curriculum science order will be changed. It would also be helpful to know what the Government propose to do about the draft guidelines that they have already issued. Will a new draft now be circulated for consultation based on the new statutory framework? I hope that the Government will move quickly to carry through the excellent arrangements that they propose this evening.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, (a) I shall be brief; (b) I do not belong to a pressure group; and (c) I speak out of great concern and care. I am a current member of the Health Education Authority and I am a former teacher.
1304
I am worried about parts of Amendment No. 62. I understand the concern that lies behind it, but in my view in its present form the amendment would create more problems than it would solve. Let us keep clearly before us the education format of 1988 which placed a statutory responsibility upon schools to provide a broad and balanced curriculum which prepares pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life.
I welcome the Government's intention to make sex education compulsory for secondary school pupils. All children have that entitlement. I think particularly of teenage girls—that subject has already been mentioned. The number of teenage pregnancies is rising alarmingly at the moment.
However, I do not welcome the Government's intention to remove references to sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS and HIV, from the programme of study for the national science curriculum. How can reference to AIDS, HIV and sexually transmitted diseases be removed from the national science curriculum when human biology and sexual development remain?
A good teacher will encourage pupils to ask questions. If those questions concern AIDS, HIV or sexually transmitted diseases, is the teacher to say, "I am sorry but I cannot answer that question. I am not allowed to answer it now", so losing the opportunity to impart possibly life-saving information to a pupil who asks for it? Pupils do not learn in an orderly and patterned way. Teachers can teach but there is no guarantee even with modern methods that the pupil is listening and learning. Every opportunity for ensuring that the pupil learns must be grasped.
Various questions of sexual behaviour can arise naturally in English, history and even Latin lessons. It is important that they be answered, there and then, naturally. Education for life, including some sexual aspects, is delivered in many lessons in many ways.
What we need in our schools is much more help for teachers in the form of initial and in-service training, and teaching materials that are sensitive and appropriate. I can recommend the National Curriculum Council's curriculum guidance booklet No. 5 on health education. It emphasises at key stage 3 the need to discuss moral values and to explore those held by different cultures and groups. Moreover, the Health Education Authority at the moment plans to publish in the autumn a new publication entitled Sex Education, Faith and Values, which will provide guidelines for those involved in school sex education to help them develop programmes that are sensitive and respect the beliefs and values of parents and the community. I beg the Government to think again before removing AIDS and HIV from the subjects of the science curriculum. Could there be further consultation about it?
My only other point concerns the right of parents to withdraw their children from receiving sex education at school. I return to the school's statutory responsibility to prepare the child for adult life. We have already heard that the overwhelming majority of parents-96 per cent. —support school sex education. So we are talking about 4 per cent. of parents who

1305
might want to withdraw their children from receiving sex education at school. The children of those parents are then at risk. There is no way of knowing whether the parents will instruct the children at home. In fact, all the evidence shows that parents find it much easier to discuss sexual matters with their children when the subject has already been raised at school.
I do not believe that parents have the right to deny their children access to basic information any more than access to basic skills. The amendment has been developed too hastily; it needs further consultation.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, this is the first opportunity that I have had to speak in the debates on this long Bill. That is not because I have not been interested or have desired to do other things. But 1 and other elderly Members of your Lordships' House have been excluded from taking part in debates on this important Bill simply because of the hours which the House has kept on the Bill right from the beginning. There was a Committee stage of seven days on none of which did the Committee rise before midnight; on two nights it rose at 3 o'clock in the morning. At one stage on Report it rose at 4 o'clock in the morning. That is not the way to conduct business in your Lordships' House. If that situation is not remedied, then there will be excluded people who are present, if not for their physical strength, at least for their experience and wisdom.
I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few minutes. I make a strong plea to leave matters as they stand. It is fortuitous that we are discussing this subject on this Bill at this time. It is only because we have a Bill on the structure of the education system that we are discussing religious education on SNEs and sex education for people covered by Amendment No. 62. We are dealing with those matters only because the Bill offers the opportunity to those who wish to raise them on every conceivable occasion.
We have been over the ground before. We are dealing with old experience—though some aspects of it may be new. But surely nothing has arisen in the existing situation that demands attention at this time. The system should be allowed to settle down and teachers given the chance to absorb the complex changes in their lives as professionals in our education service. There is no doubt that at the present time they are under the weather and are finding the strain considerable.
I echo every word uttered just now by the noble Baroness. I plead for some qualification of parental responsibility; I have suffered from it. As a boy I was the subject of a claim for an exemption from compulsory vaccination. My brother and I forwent compulsory vaccination for 16 years.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for giving way. I hope that he will accept, with respect, that I understand the point he has made about the lateness of the hours. But there are a large number of Members in this House who have doggedly sat through every minute of the Bill to 3 o'clock and 4 o'clock in the morning. I know that they would like to speak on the amendment. It will not be long before somebody will call the
1306
amendment to an end and they will not have been given an opportunity. I believe that their determination and patience should be rewarded by being allowed to speak on the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I have not been on my feet for more than three minutes. I claim the right to put my point of view in just the same way as my noble friend Lord Stallard, who spoke at length. He spoke at length also on an amendment at Report stage.
This ground has been covered by noble Lords on both sides of the House. I am saying that some qualification should be imposed upon parents in regard to their responsibilities. I do not say that we should veto their decisions. But they should receive counselling on the consequences of the decisions that they are about to take. I was excluded from vaccination for 16 years until I joined the Army because my father refused on conscientious grounds to have me vaccinated. I was refused a tonsilectomy when I was nine. The result is that I had to have one when I was 90. The consequences of parental irresponsibility can last a long time, my Lords!
There should be some counselling if parents are going to take the view that they do not want their children admitted to this knowledge. Have noble Lords on both sides of the House realised how a pupil feels if he is the subject of parental exclusion from certain parts of the curriculum? "Why can't I go there, Mum? What's happening that I can't go in that class?" It is a discrimination that school children do not like. It is much better that parents should riot be allowed to enforce it without consultation.
I am sorry, but I think that there is every reason for leaving religion and sex education alone in this Bill. Let us go along and give the existing system a longer try before we seek to amend it. We have no right, as the noble Baroness said a few moments ago, to deny children information which it may be essential for them to have to lead happy and healthy lives. Unless they have information and knowledge, they can fall into the trap of temptation that surrounds them. The temptations are far more powerful than the equipment that they may have to resist them.
I would oppose Amendment No. 62. If it is carried I should like to see the amendment of my noble friend Lady Jay accepted, but I think that the best thing would be to let the system go on longer before we begin to tamper with it again.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, my name is attached to two of the amendments that we are discussing. This is the third time round on this issue and basically we have a merry-go-round with two horses bobbing along. One is the parents' right to remove a child on moral grounds. The other horse happens to be the child's —the young person's—right to information.
We have heard already in the discussions today the fact that there are limitations to parental control and parental rights regarding special educational needs. The parent is not always right. Indeed, the parent is sometimes wrong. No matter how well intentioned,

1307
mistakes are made. We are also talking about an issue which it requires considerable courage to face up to. Are parents who do not feel that they want their child to receive this information, on whatever grounds, no matter how deeply felt, likely to be able to discuss this at home? Is it likely? I would suggest that it is not. I agree that it would be beneficial if all this was done at home, if all parents were well enough informed to be able to discuss this at home. But they are not. They are not even prepared to do it except in a certain number of cases.
The first of the amendments to the government amendment uses a term which has already been used in government legislation. If for one piece of legislation the Government can come up with a definition of sufficient clarity for people to make an informed decision, they should be able to do it for another. How can they possibly not do so unless they are going to reform the initial piece of legislation? With regard to the second amendment, Amendment No. 62B, when a person is over the age of 16 and is entitled to indulge in sexual activity of a heterosexual manner, surely it is absurd in the nth degree to deny that person information on something on which he or she can go and do the practical—no theory, but you can do the practical. That is insanity. I suggest that we strongly consider whether the Government amendment is appropriate. I said at Committee stage that the Government should stick to their guns because I thought that they had got it right. If we decide to approve the measure, I suggest that either or both Amendments Nos. 62A and 62B be passed.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, we should all be most grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for bringing forward this amendment after the discussion we had at Report stage. The issue is not whether there should be sex education in schools, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, implied in her speech—we all agree that we need sex education in schools—but how best that can be done.
It is a question of the balance of advantage to the children. It is a difficult judgment. There is the balance between the potential damage which can be done by too little instruction as against the potential damage which can be done by giving sex education which is unsuitable because of content in relation to the state of the child's development. If good sex education suitable to the child is given in schools there is no problem. Most of it will be good sex education. It is only in a minority of cases that it will be unsuitable. In the case of good education the parents will be satisfied and there is no problem.
But if in carrying out their parental duty—we need a little more stress on duty compared with rights—parents believe that the education being given is unsuitable in relation to their child, then caring, loving parents will want to remove their child and provide the instruction themselves. Because they are caring and responsible they will do it.
I totally disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that there is a danger that the wrong sort of parents will take their children away. The other kind of parents who are not responsible will be only too
1308
pleased to leave instruction to the school and absolve themselves of that responsibility. They will not want to take their child away.
I also strongly believe, as I believe we all do, in the value of the strong family. One pillar of that is to encourage strong, parental responsibility. For all those reasons, on balance—and it is a clear balance to me—I support Amendment No. 62 as it has been put forward by my noble friend Lady Blatch.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I speak as a Christian when I say that when one looks hard at what is happening in our society something is very wrong. We have the terrible tragedy of unwanted pregnancies and teenage abortion. I feel that the message that the safest sex is having one partner bound by the sacrament of marriage is hardly ever heard. The Churches should be getting that message across, but they seem to be so often silent over sexual matters. The problem of sex should be shared between the Church, parents and teachers. The subject needs sensitivity and growing young people need to be prepared for life. It can be a matter of life and death.
I am concerned that teachers may be gagged in helping children who may be abused by their own parents. Teachers may provide the only opportunity which the children will have of confiding in a trusted adult. Children are very often abused by family members—fathers, uncles, stepfathers, brothers and even grandfathers. Will this amendment restrict help coming from teachers to children? What happens if the abusing parents withdraw their children from sex education? That point has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington. I, too, press the Minister to answer that point. We must try to get this matter right.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I wonder whether I might respond to the challenge of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that the churches are quiet over this issue. I hesitate to speak because, as the French say, there are three sexes: men, women and clergymen. When preparing people for marriage, I have sometimes wondered whether my job is to try to turn night owls into homing pigeons.
I should like to try to stand back a little from a debate which is necessarily heated because we all feel passionately about this issue. I wonder whether, by standing back a bit, we can embark on what I would call some cool analysis. It seems to me that the government amendment achieves certain gains and we need to register that point. First, it secures that sex education in all secondary schools will be compulsory. That is a great gain because it is not the case at the moment. Secondly, it ensures that so far as can be achieved, sex education will be unified and drawn together in one operation, if I can use that phrase. Thirdly, it will ensure that all sex education takes place in a moral context. It will, I hope, ensure that our sexuality is considered as part of our creation and in terms of the sustaining of personal relationships. That is the context within which we need to understand it. The other factor to be borne in mind is that human

1309
reproduction and its implications will remain in the national curriculum. We seem to lose sight of those basic facts in our passionate concern to press our case.
When this matter was discussed at previous stages, I expressed my considerable concern (which remains) about parental withdrawal. I gave three reasons then which I shall now argue at length. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has already mentioned them. First, I do not think that sex education is always predictable in the context of a school. Therefore, it will be extremely difficult in practice to allow for withdrawal provisions. One can only he assured of that if there is a refusal to respond to problems, questions and comments as they arise. Secondly, giving parents the right to withdraw their children means that many will withdraw them rather than insist on improving the sex education that is given in schools. Thirdly, it can be argued that, although one can withdraw children from the classroom and what happens in it, one certainly cannot withdraw them from what they pick up behind the bicycle shed. They will pick that up anyway. We must not mislead ourselves about that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, was absolutely right when she reminded us of the generation gap. I think that we need to bear that in mind because—I have said this before—I do not honestly believe that parents are always the best people to teach or even to discuss with their teenage children their developing sexuality. At that age, the emotional undercurrents are often too strong to be managed in that context.
On balance, I support the government amendment but I am ambivalent on this issue and, to that extent, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is right that I am not as clear-cut as I would wish to be Although I would go along with the government amendment, I like the amendments to it even if not, perhaps, in their precise terms.
However, to leave the amendments on one side, surely what we want to achieve are the gains in government Amendment No. 62. If there is to be a right of parental withdrawal, I can see that that would be acceptable at primary level, but I cannot believe that it is sustainable or acceptable at secondary level —and certainly not at the age of 16-plus when children are able to get married, with their parents!' consent. To deny children access to sex education in any form at that stage seems a contradiction in terms.
The phrases in the amendments may not be the right ones. Although it is used in other legislation, I am not happy with the phrase,
"if the pupil is of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision".
I see the point of that, but it would land schools in impossible situations. How are they to make that decision? The Minister made that point. schools have problems enough in this area without trying to get them to adjudicate between parents and children who are at loggerheads.
I wonder whether we are at the stage where we should have a cooling off period and perhaps return to this after further informal consultations. If we are to press ahead with the amendments, I hope that the general agreement might be that we should accept Amendment No. 62 but qualify the "withdrawal"
1310
amendments along the lines that I have been bold enough to outline. I hope that the noble Baroness who says that the Church does not give a lead in these matters will now at least accept that some Church leaders do give a lead in some contexts.
10 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, this is a complicated—
The Earl of Perth: My Lords—
Noble Lords: The Earl of Perth.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure that there will be an opportunity for all noble Lords who wish to speak. Perhaps we may have, first, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, from the Cross-Benches, and then the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, could speak immediately afterwards.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the Minister. I know that if she were here the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, would also support it. Unfortunately she has gone, and quite rightly gone, to Khartoum in relation to a serious issue that has arisen in the Sudan.
My belief is that moral and family values are an essential part of sex education. The amendment gives an opportunity to promote them. I shall not speak long because there are many other noble Lords who wish to speak. We have heard a number of arguments on one side or the other. At earlier stages, we heard a great deal about the corruption and abuse being peddled in certain cases to children. That is something against which I am sure almost all your Lordships, if not all, want children safeguarded. The amendments go a long way towards avoiding that potential damage.
Am I right in thinking that under the amendment it will be possible for a parent, or whoever is the appropriate person, to complain if the matter being taught is corrupting—if that is the correct word to use? If the complaint is upheld, can the necessary, appropriate action be taken to put things right? Of all the arguments advanced, the most important point is to sustain moral and family values while at the same time ensuring that children receive a proper sex education.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, this is a complicated amendment which has a simple purpose. That purpose is to eliminate the compulsory teaching of the facts about HIV, AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases to every young person in this country. That is the sole purpose of the amendment. The rest of the amendment, as indeed is some of the discussion that we have heard on the three occasions that we have debated this subject, is just so much camouflage to disguise the true intent.
Of course, teaching young people about sex, sexuality and sexually transmitted diseases is a highly sensitive matter, and something which should rightly be of great parental concern. There is room for legitimate differences of opinion about sex education. Some who are in favour of sex education in schools might feel that young people withdrawn from such

1311
classes would grow up less well rounded and less secure human beings. Others who are against such education may believe that young people who are withdrawn will benefit from a stronger moral lead given at home.
Those are differences of opinion to which the Government have been rightly sensitive. But the space for differences of opinion shrinks to nothing in the age of HIV and AIDS. The risk faced by young people who do not learn the facts about HIV and AIDS is not the risk of an emotionally stunted life nor the risk of moral confusion. The risk that they face is death. AIDS kills; it kills with certainty and it kills the young. And AIDS is catching. Therefore, the risk is not confined to those who are denied the facts about HIV and AIDS by the amendment. The ignorance of the few is a threat to all.
Let us remember that the HIV virus usually lies dormant in an individual for many years after infection before the person develops full-blown AIDS. Those who do not know the facts cannot even suspect the truth. They can be the unsuspecting means by which the virus is spread. That is why it is vital for all that everyone knows the facts. But will the young people who as a result of this amendment are withdrawn from classes about HIV and AIDS learn the facts?
On Report I asked noble Lords who proposed a similar amendment three questions which I shall now ask the Minister. First, is she certain—I repeat, certain —that parents who withdraw their children from classes will themselves be in possession of the full facts about HIV and AIDS? Secondly, is she certain that they will keep themselves up to date on the progress and characteristics of the epidemic. Thirdly, is she certain that the parents who withdraw their children will actually teach them the full facts about HIV and AIDS in a clear and unambiguous manner? If the Minister cannot answer "yes" without equivocation to those three questions she must in all conscience withdraw her amendment. I suggest that in this area which is so clouded by fear, prejudice and misinformation the Minister cannot answer "yes" to those questions.
The Minister and other noble Lords have argued that parents who withdraw their children from education on HIV and AIDS are likely to be the most conscientious and caring parents. Of course, some of them will be but I suggest that some of them will be the most frightened and ignorant parents. The Minister's remarks which pretended that all parents will be conscientious are just another piece of camouflage.
There remains a further puzzle about the amendment. In the White Paper, The Health of the Nation, the Government declared that:
"HIV infection is perhaps the greatest public health challenge this century".
Why, therefore, when the Government have spent millions of pounds in trying to inform everyone of the facts about HIV and AIDS, are they now prepared to
1312
undermine that information programme by eliminating the most cost-effective and most comprehensive means of providing those facts; namely, through the national curriculum?
I conclude by suggesting to those noble Lords who are thinking of voting for the amendment that when in future years they open a newspaper and read about a youngster who has just died of AIDS, or about the rising HIV epidemic, they might stop and wonder whether that boy or girl would be alive that day if, on 6th July 1993, they had voted against Amendment No. 62.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I support the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and I disagree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, have said.
I wish to add only one simple point to the debate. Do the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, really believe that a parent would withdraw a child from sex education, knowing, as the right reverend Prelate said, that it would be talked about in the school playground or the bicycle shed, without thinking that that would be in the child's best interests? It may be that in some schools parental choice should be exercised and that family life should come first. It may be that a school is going to the dogs and, therefore, the parent would wish to have the right to withdraw his child from such education. I am not saying that there should be compulsory withdrawal. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in Committee gave parents the right to choose. I believe that that is important and I ask your Lordships to support that right to family life.
Earl Russell: My Lords, some 25 years ago I was asked by a teenager to define maturity. I said that maturity was a stage at which in a debate about parents and children one began to think of the parents as "us". Listening this evening to the Minister on the rights of parents, I began to think that that definition was premature. I began to think that one does not reach maturity until, in a debate between parents and children, one thinks of the grandparents as "us".
Having reached a definition of maturity which leaves me still short of it, I can say that on the rights of parents I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Nobody is infallible and parents are no exception. The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, asked whether parents would take a decision without it being to their child's advantage. I should say that they would not take that decision without believing it to be to the child's advantage. I do not believe that parents are infallible in their decisions about what is to their children's advantage. I have certainly not been infallible in that regard and I should be surprised if the noble Duke had been infallible in that capacity. I am sure that we have both made mistakes; everybody has.
On these Benches we feel a considerable suspicion of arbitrary power. Anyone in a position of authority may possess arbitrary power. A great deal of the debate has been about AIDS, but there is also the question of contraception. It will not have escaped the

1313
attention of my noble kinsman Lord Henley that during the weekend there has been a great deal of debate about single parents. In fact, the problem that we have here is riot a large part of that issue because out of 845,000 single parents, only 45,000 are between the ages of 16 and 19. We shall never stop that altogether because it has happened in every century, but I am sure that we shall agree that that figure of 45,000 is too high.
I do not know how many of those single women became pregnant out of ignorance. I listened to the statistics quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and I found them telling. I am certain, however, that far more of those young people became pregnant out of ignorance than they did out of a desire to obtain a council house.
I have here an article from the Guardian reporting a case in March of this year in which a 16 year-old girl came home early from school with pains in her stomach. She got into the bath and gave birth. The girl later said that she did not know that she was pregnant. She said that it was very strange. That sort of story has gone on for centuries. However, in this century we have the knowledge to make it happen rather less frequently. I think that we should use that knowledge. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, quoted very appositely the maxim: "Don't die of ignorance". I say that I do not think we should be born of ignorance.
Having listened to the noble Baroness in Committee and having heard the reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, a year ago, I wonder whether there is in the Government's concession an element of desire to appease the Right. If that is sot they should remember the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Healey, that offering defence cuts to the Left is like throwing herrings to a sea lion.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I should like to tell my noble friend that I share the unhappiness with the proposed new clause which was expressed so eloquently a short time ago by my noble friend Lady Brigstocke. I think that both points—that is, removing the teaching about sexually transmitted diseases from the compulsory section and giving parents the right to withdraw their children from sex education—seem to me to be somewhat dangerous steps. I find myself in very close agreement with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford in saying that there are, indeed, some positive virtues in what we now have before us in Amendment No. 62. However, it is not yet quite right.
I must tell my noble friend that I shall probably feel constrained to vote against her amendment. I believe that the dangers have been made clear in the debate. The health trust that I chair had a board! meeting last Friday. We were told that the most rapidly rising group of abortions is as a result of teenage pregnancies. I believe that we have heard much about that this evening. If her amendment is carried, I beg my noble friend between now and the point at which the Bill returns to another place to consult again widely to see whether she can persuade her right honourable friends in another place to table a further
1314
amendment. I thought that the suggestion of confining withdrawal of children to primary schools was a very wise one. However, we must keep the sexually transmitted diseases in the compulsory section of the national curriculum.
In earlier debates there was much talk about what I can only describe as thoroughly undesirable and irresponsible teaching material which is available in some schools. I beg those who have any influence on the people who prepare and disseminate such material to try to persuade them of the damage that they cause. The right to opt out and the threat that parents may want to do so comes as a direct result of the dissemination of that undesirable material.
In conclusion, perhaps I may quote from the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford on Report. I thought that he put it absolutely splendidly when he said that,
"if the teaching is so unsatisfactory that parents want to withdraw their children from it, then it may be better that the teaching should be criticised and improved, rather than sidestepped. We shall not improve the teaching which ought to be given if we merely pull our children out of it"—[Official Report, 21/6/93; col. 130.]
They seem to me to be very wise words. However, I have to say that the proposed new clause is taking a blunderbuss to hit the target. I am very unhappy with it. If my noble friend can tell me that she will indeed consult between now and when the Bill returns to another place, then perhaps I may reconsider my position.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken speaks with the authority of a former Secretary of State who carried responsibility for these matters. As a former Secretary of State myself I must say that I agree with every word he said. I also agree with every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, said. It is unfortunate that we have this amendment before us at Third Reading. If I had to make a choice between obtaining small gains or taking the great risks that are involved in this matter, I know that I must choose to reject the thought of the risks that are before us. We are faced with an enormous danger in terms of AIDS. and HIV. I plead with the Minister to accept the advice of her noble friend, to consult, to think again and to allow some opportunity for a little more wisdom to be brought into the debate.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, the amendment of the noble Baroness is an honourable discharge of the undertaking she gave at an earlier stage of the Bill. For that reason I support it and if she divides the House I shall follow her into the Lobby. I do not agree with what has been said against the amendment. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, was exactly the same as the one he made on an earlier occasion. We hear too much about HIV and AIDS. I am told there is now an antibiotic resistant syphilis germ on the loose. One can open any newspaper and read a great deal about AIDS. I shall follow the noble Baroness into the Division Lobby, and I shall oppose the two amendments to her amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I qualify as a mature person in the terms established by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is worth mentioning the kind of lessons

1315
from which I would like my children to have the right to withdraw their children—my grandchildren. First, I would wish my children to have the right to withdraw my grandchildren from lessons which are taught to them when they are emotionally or physically insufficiently mature to take them. We should remember that children mature at different rates within groups intellectually, morally, physically and emotionally. They do not mature at an equal rate. Secondly, I would wish my grandchildren to be withdrawn from lessons in which sexual activity was taught as a subject in a moral vacuum as a purely mechanical, biological function because that is true of animals but not of human beings. Thirdly, I would wish them to be withdrawn from lessons about sexual congress—
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I would rather not give way as I shall only speak for another few minutes. Oh, very well.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I just wanted to make the point that Amendment No. 62 will leave sex education in the national curriculum consisting purely of biological functions. The situation the noble Lord wants to achieve, where reproduction is discussed within a moral framework, is being ruled out by the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord has interrupted me to no purpose because he has misread the law as proposed which requires sex education to be taught in a moral context. He will see that that is the case if he reads the measure. As I was saying, the third kind of lesson about sex that I would wish my grandchildren to be withdrawn from would be that containing a moral dimension with which the parents profoundly disagreed and regarded as likely to mislead or corrupt their children. I believe there are lessons so taught.
This amendment would give my children the right to withdraw my grandchildren from those three kinds of lessons. I heartily welcome that. I would also, however, wish all young adults to be aware of the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases of the sort we have been talking about, including those referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I believe that the state of our press is such that it is impossible to become a mature person without being aware of those diseases. However, I ask my noble friend, if it is practicable, to take the advice of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding to ensure that this information can be given.
Lord Judd: My Lords, this has been a significant debate. Great passion and sincerity have been shown on all sides of the House. I hope therefore that I shall be forgiven if, for a moment at the beginning of my remarks, I concentrate on a drafting point. Having decided to legislate on this sensitive and controversial issue at a very late stage in the passage of the Bill and before the outcome of the Department for Education's own consultation on its draft circular on sex education
1316
is known, I fear that the Government have produced an amendment which appears to have some potentially serious flaws in technical terms. Can the Minister explain the position in relation to primary schools? The amendment, in my view, does not make their position clear.
Subsection (5) of the new clause appears to include primary schools and therefore seems to make the provision of sex education in all maintained or grant-maintained schools, including primary schools, compulsory. However, subsection (6), which amends Section 18 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, excludes any reference to primary schools. The implication is that all except grant-maintained primary schools continue to be covered by that section, which allows governing bodies to decide whether or not they wish to provide sex education as part of the curriculum. Can the Minister explain when she replies to the debate how a primary school can be required under subsection (5) of the new clause to provide sex education and at the same time be allowed under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to determine whether sex education should be included in the school's curriculum?
We have all been impressed by the sincerity and firmness with which my noble friend Lord Stallard and those who agree with him have pursued their cause. However, I suggest that there is a need to distinguish between the regulations and the content. If the content is not fulfilling the objective of the regulations—and I believe that some of it has been unacceptable—it must be changed. However, that does not of itself invalidate the regulations.
This debate has underlined one overriding reason why we should be very careful about the change now proposed by the Government. There is no known cure for HIV or AIDS. Therefore, it is vital that children are educated to avoid contracting the disease. If tuition on HIV and AIDS is removed from the national curriculum and included as part of sex education within the rest of the secular curriculum, then parents who have objections to sex education as a whole will, in effect, be faced with withdrawing their children from education concerned with HIV, AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. The children's consequent ignorance will not only endanger them as individuals but highly significantly, and I could not agree more with my noble friend Lord Eatwell, could endanger other people.
Incidentally, it has been pointed out that the amendment affects only the science national curriculum order and not, for example, English or history. Presumably, it will still be in order to teach about the Reformation, Henry VIII and sexually transmitted diseases in such contexts but without authoritative scientific background for the children involved. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said earlier in our debate, speculation will only intensify very rapidly.
Can the Minister clarify whether she sees the right of parents to withdraw their children from sex education as consistent in all respects with the principles behind the Children Act 1989 with its recognition of children's right to have their wishes

1317
considered? In 1976 a European Court ruling about sex education in Denmark upheld young people's right of access to information and education in this sphere. Can the Minister give your Lordships' House a firm assurance that the Attorney-General has been consulted specifically about the implications of what she now proposes in terms of our obligations as a nation under the European Convention on Human Rights, to which she herself referred? What did the Attorney-General say? It is important for your Lordships' House to know, before any vote this evening.
Children do not exist in a shielded environment. They grow up attacked. from every direction by the cynical, vicious, commercial exploitation of sex. There is a desperate need for them to have reliable, authoritative information with which to cope with these cruel pressures. Amid the cult of selfish individualism—dare I say it, not least in some religious quarters, no less than elsewhere—there is, of course, a profound need to develop a balanced attitude towards sex in the context of sensitivity, social responsibility and respect for the integrity of others. On that, I believe, there is widespread agreement in this House.
Before I conclude, perhaps I may quote, amid all the mass of material sent to us all, from a communication which particularly impressed me. It came from the British Medical Association and I should like to quote it all, but obviously shall only use some. This is what the BMA said:
"There are also substantial practical dangers attached to a statutory right for parents to withdraw their children from sex education. It is now generally recognised that the most effective and appropriate method for delivering sex education is via an integrated cross-curricular approach. This may mean that discussion of sexual behaviour and relationships takes place within several different subject areas, but always within the policy framework laid down by the school's governing body. It is clearly impractical for a child to be withdrawn from sex education classes by their parents. Thus, the objections of a very small number of parents could undermine the quality of the education provided to all children in the school."
Perhaps I may quote two other brief passages from that communication. It continues:
"Another practical difficulty arises in dealing with questions which pupils may raise spontaneously. Teachers need to have the confidence that they can respond to such questions as they arise, within the framework of the school's policy, and again this is not readily compatible with a statutory parental right of withdrawal. It might even be that a child whose parents had withdrawn him or her from sex education would ask a teacher for information or guidance, potentially relating to a serious problem such as pregnancy or abuse. Would teachers be expected simply to refuse to help a child in such a situation?"
The communication concludes with this observation:
"The existing law and the carefully prepared draft circular which was recently issued for consultation by the Department for Education provide a good framework for ensuring that the issues surrounding sex education are sensitively handled and that parents' views are taken into account, and avoid the difficulties associated with these latest proposals".
That is from the British Medical Association.
Far better than making the priority to put the right of parents to withdraw their children from sex education on to the face of the Bill would be the maintenance of the status quo, at the same time taking steps both to encourage all schools, in full
1318
consultation with parents., to make proper provision for sex education and to re-emphasise the approach adopted in the first circular following the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 which allowed governors the: discretion to permit withdrawal in exceptional circumstances.
These issues strike deep to the heart of conscience and to the heart of honest emotions, and differing views must therefore be respected Votes must obviously be cast according to conscience. Nevertheless, it would be far, far better to keep things as they are, with the provisos that I have indicated. If that is not to be, I commend for serious consideration the amendments standing in the names of my noble friend Lady Jay, and, later in our proceedings, of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, opened this debate by saying that she was surprised that my amendment was before the House at this stage of the Bill. I am surprised that she is surprised about that. Throughout this Bill, this matter has been subject to very lively debate in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, both in Committee and at Report stage, attempted to have amendments discussed and accepted by the House. I concur with the remarks that were repeated by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. I did make those comments at that stage of the Bill. But the noble Lord will agree with me that at that time not only were the amendments imperfect but there was no suggestion that there was any sex education put in their place in our schools. I could not agree with that.
The noble Baroness also asked, and so did a number of other noble Lords, about the status of the draft circular. If my amendment is accepted tonight, that document will have to be withdrawn. It will have to be re-written and modified in the light of the amendment. There will, of course, be extensive consultation. That is what the circular is about. It is out for consultation.
We pride ourselves on being a revising Chamber. This amendment is before The House, and it is for this House to decide whether it should be accepted, just as it will consider the amendments of the noble Lords opposite.
I too had discussions with the Moslem community, in the days following the amendments that were discussed at Report stage. I also heard a very sensitive and interesting interview with members of that community this morning on Radio 4. 1 thought that their response to this amendment was an interesting one. The Moslem community welcomed the amendment, and the fact that HIV and AIDS were to be put alongside sexually transmitted diseases and made a compulsory part of the school curriculum. But they also welcomed the right of parents, if they wished, to withdraw their children.
I also spoke to the member of the Townswomen's Guild who signed the letter that was sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and also to me. She told me that she was only in receipt of information that came from the women's health and screening delegation, who incorrectly advised her. On the basis of this incorrect advice she sent a lobbying letter to noble Lords in this

1319
House and Members of another place. When she knew of the intention behind my amendment and its full effect, she said to me—I have to say, informally at that stage—that she thought it was everything that she could have wanted in these amendments. She is now waiting to see copies of Hansard, which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, is sending to her, and copies of my amendment following tonight's debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, read out some depressing statistics about young people in today's world. I have to pose a question in response to that. We should all be concerned about the decline in the personal behaviour of our young people, but could it be a result of some insensitive sex education that has been taking place for years in our schools? How much more effective it might be for this House to throw its full support behind the Government's proposals to underpin all education morally and spiritually, instead of a myopic view of sex education; that is, the concentration mainly on safer sex and not on a healthier lifestyle.
My noble friend Lady Brigstocke, with great sincerity and feeling, asked why we do not stand by the national curriculum as it was devised in 1988. I tell my noble friend that HIV and AIDS were not part of the national curriculum in 1988. They were only slipped in to the national curriculum in this last academic year, and only became effective from 1st August 1992, a mere 10 months ago. They are compulsory—which I believe is quite extraordinary—only for 11 to 14 year-olds. We all know that there was some fairly insensitive sex education given in our schools to young children of 11 and 12 years.
The noble Baroness amused us all with what she felt was the informal way in which young people would receive their sex education if they were withdrawn from school. I believe that schools are capable of handling this issue very sensitively. As the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said earlier, when the informal question arises spontaneously in the classroom, that can be coped with. It is possible for schools to structure that kind of sex education in a way which makes it distinctive and gives scope for parents to exercise their rights under this amendment.
We have taken the view that it is important that reproduction and biological processes should be part of the compulsory national curriculum. But I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that this kind of sex education would cope with the distress of the young girl who produced a baby in the bath and had not even known that she was pregnant. We were talking about sex education as it relates to reproduction and not to some of the deviant behaviour which is involved in the other kind of sex education which has more to do with lifestyle.
I enjoyed momentarily the exchange between the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the right reverend Prelate. I do not intend to enter into that debate, except to say that I believe that it would be helpful for the Church to be more overt in producing some moral guidance for our young people and not only from the pulpit, although that is of course important. The Church has fought all the way through the Bill for an
1320
involvement with schools and local education authorities. It has a passionate interest in education. Let us see some of that interest manifest itself in a practical way, with practical guidance and a serious moral and spiritual lead for our young people.
An interesting point was raised about 16 year-olds. I shall ask the House tonight not to accept any of the amendments to my amendment. But I believe it right that my honourable friends and colleagues in another place should think about the issues that relate to 16 year-olds. An interesting point has been made. I wish to repeat that it was 11 to 14 year-olds for whom HIV education was made compulsory. I find that a strange phenomenon.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, was wholly patronising about criticism of those Members who brought the amendments in good faith to the House at Report stage. I do not believe that they had a hidden agenda. I responded in equally good faith by bringing this amendment to the House at Third Reading. It is consistent with the aims of those previous amendments. I have no hidden agenda.
I was asked whether I could give unequivocal answers to three questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I hope that I can paraphrase them. I wrote them down as quickly as I could. First, was I certain that parents who withdraw their children will always have the facts? I cannot be certain. Secondly, will those parents who withdraw their children necessarily know the consequences? I cannot be certain about that either. Thirdly, will they necessarily teach their children in the most effective way? I cannot be certain about that.
I have promised that we will make available to the schools proper guidance about working with parents who wish to exercise that right. But I cannot also be certain that every single teacher of sex education will teach it in an equally sensitive way. As I said, we have a moral decline. Is it possibly because of some of the sex education that has been going on in schools? Sex education has been so effective that it has done very little to reduce the numbers of young people indulging in sex under the age of 16 and the number of pregnancies of girls under the age of 16.
My noble friends Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Elton asked me to think again. I shall ask the House unequivocally to support my amendment. I believe that it is for my colleagues and colleagues of noble Lords opposite in another place to think about this amendment. That is the democratic process, and that is the course of action that I wish to recommend to the House.
I was also asked about unsuitable literature. The most unsuitable literature is very often distributed to schools by the very organisations which have been so actively opposed to these amendments in this House tonight and which have been lobbying very hard to persuade people to oppose my amendment.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was confused about primary education and the effect of these amendments. At the outset I said that the amendments do not impact on primary education except in so far as in primary education as it is at the moment under the 1986 Act the governors are free to

1321
determine whether sex education is taught. Where the governors take the view that it should be taught, we are allowing parents the right to withdraw their children. But if the school takes the view that it should not be taught, that is the governors' right under the 1986 Act. If the noble Lord wishes to amend the 1986 Act, he is free to do so.
I was asked whether I saw the right of parents to withdraw their children from sex education in schools as being correct, and whether it should override the rights of children. We cannot on the one hand encourage parental responsibility, which we should all like to do, and then take away that responsibility in an area that materially affects their spiritual, moral and sexual development. How can we deny parents their responsibility in that instance?
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, raised the issue of parents complaining about the use of inappropriate materials. It is an important point. The statutory mechanisms and safeguards for dealing with complaints about teaching approaches or materials are already in place. Section 23(1) of the Education Reform Act 1988 gives local authorities initial responsibility for dealing with certain complaints against themselves or the governing bodies of maintained schools, except for grant-maintained schools, which are covered by Section 55(5) (e) of the 1988 Act. Once the local authority complaints procedure has been carried through, the complainant, if not satisfied, may take the complaint to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State under Sections 68 or 99 of the 1944 Act.
The parental right of withdrawal is not in breach of the European Convention as was suggested. The Kjeldsen case did not address those issues. It was concerned with the contention that compulsory sex education breached parents' rights to have their children educated in accordance with their own religious and philosophical convictions. It is not, therefore, a relevant commentary upon the matters we are discussing tonight. And it is not usual to reveal the sources of legal advice.
Sex education, as a result of my amendment, will be a central and mainstream subject. Sex education will now be taught as a mainstream and compulsory subject in the curriculum, with HIV and AIDS, together with other sexually transmitted diseases as part of sex education which deals with lifestyle, sexuality, personal hygiene and so forth, and taught appropriately and sensitively in schools teachers. I believe that is a package that addresses all the concerns of this House and I hope that noble Lords will follow me into my Lobby tonight on my amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I should like to reply briefly to the comments on the two specific amendments which I tabled on the question of parental withdrawal. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for suggesting that she will take back to another place the question about 16 year-olds. I accept that assurance and hope that there will be a successful outcome of it.
I must return to the point I made at the beginning of the debate, that I am frankly concerned—and that
1322
concern was reflected in the contributions of many noble Lords—about the potential breakdown of what I see as having been a successful consensus on health education and education about sexuality which has been developed extremely well in our schools over the past few years.
I was particularly interested in the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. speaking as an ex-Secretary of State for Health, the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, speaking from her background as the headmistress of a well-known and successful girls' school, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford speaking for the Churches. That is precisely the kind of consensus which effectively produced a successful change in sex education in our schools and which successfully led to some of the facts on which we can congratulate ourselves, such as the low HIV rate in this country.
But we do need—and I do not intend to repeat the statistics that I mentioned at the beginning of the debate—to keep up our vigilance about those matters. Putting the teaching of HIV and AIDs in the national curriculum was a sign of that vigilance. 1t is extraordinary that the Minister should use words such as "slipped in" and "strange phenomenon" about a piece of legislation which was only recently introduced by her predecessor in her department at the wish of her government. I do not see HIV and AIDS being in the national curriculum as something "slipped in" or "a strange phenomenon". I regard it as centrally important and something from which parents should not be allowed to withdraw their children. However, I understand that the noble Baroness will be asking us to give our opinions on the whole package, as she described it. I therefore seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 62A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 62, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 62B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 62, not moved.]
10.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 62) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 131; Not-Contents, 33.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Aberconway, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Ackner, L.

Caldecote, V.

Annaly, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Arran, E.

Carnock, L.

Ashbourne, t.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Astor, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Attlee, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Clanwilliam. E.

Beloff, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Belstead, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Biatch, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Blyth, L.

Coleraine, L.

Boardman, L.

Colwyn, L.

Borthwick, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Craig of Radley. L.

Brentford, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Brightman, L.

Cranborne, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Bruntisfield, L

Cumberlege, B.

1323

De Ramsey, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Denham, L.

Liverpool, E.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Long, V.

Dundonald, E.

Longford, E.

Eccles, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Elles, B.

Lyell, L.

Elton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Falkland, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Ferrers, E.

Fitt, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Mancroft, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Marlesford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Monson, L.

Goschen, V.

Mountevans, L.

Grantchester, L.

Moyne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Munster, E.

Guildford, Bp.

Norfolk, D.

Halsbury. E.

Northbourne, L.

Hampton, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Onslow, E.

Harlech, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Harvington, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Peel, E.

Henley, L.

Pender, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Perth, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Howe, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Reay, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Renton, L.

Kimball, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Romney, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

St. Davids, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Leigh, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

1324

Seccombe, B.

Swinton, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Tebbit, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Torrington, V.

Stallard, L.

Trumpington, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Stewartby, L.

Vivian, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Strange, B.

Wharton, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Kennet, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lockwood, B.

Craigavon, V.

McNair, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Eatwell, L.

Northfield, L.

Ennals, L.

Parry, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rea, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Russell, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Judd, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Kagan, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
11 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 62C:
After Clause 240, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of S.2 of Education (Schools) Act 1992
.—(1) The Education (Schools) Act 1992 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 2, there shall be added at the end—("(e) the extent and quality of sex education given at the school in accordance with the Education Act 1993."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can promise your Lordships that this will be a fairly brief coda to the previous debate. I asked for my amendment to be uncoupled from the grouping of amendments which was originally published because it is, in fact, a separate new clause and addresses a rather different problem from the question of parental withdrawal, which was the core of the previous debate.
When the Government accepted the principle of the amendment moved on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, there was some uncertainty - and even a division of opinion among those of us interested in the matter - as to whether this would lead to an aggregate increase in sex education in schools. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, who is no longer in his place, referred to that.
I was rather inclined to the former view because it was estimated in an HEA report of March 1993 that only 60 per cent. of schools nationally are teaching sex education that is "informed by a policy". A further 19 per cent. were preparing a policy statement. But even with the prospect of an increase to, say, 80 per cent. the problems of funding, teacher training and timetabling (together with opposition to any sex education policy at all by 4 per cent. of schools) made it certain that there would always be significant lacunae, or gaps, under current arrangements. Therefore, 100 per cent. coverage of secondary schools, even allowing for some withdrawals, could be seen as an improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, mentioned my view on that and I accept entirely what he said. But doubts then crept in as to how it would work out in practice. These doubts are not wholly dispelled by the new clause which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, which has now been incorporated into the Bill. Some words of subsection (5) have been lifted from Section 18 of the 1986 Act. They would oblige schools to,
"make, and keep up to date, a separate written statement of their policy with regard to the provision of sex education",
and to,
"make copies of the statement available for inspection—by parents—free of charge".
However, experience under the former regime—as I suppose that I should now call it—was not encouraging. Research suggested that the statutory requirement on school governors to produce a sex education policy (whether positive or negative) was not fulfilled by approximately 30 per cent. of all schools. There is no indication in the Government's new clause of how the new regime is to be monitored and no requirement for it to be included in any inspection. If this is to become mandatory, we surely need to know if and how that is being done. That brings me to "where" and "when". If three or four
1326
parents withdraw their children from sex education then, as was brought out in the previous debate, it will be impossible for teachers to mention sex across a wide range of subjects and the school may be forced to cannibalise sex education into short, one-off lessons for which there may be little or no room in the timetable. At present, governors are expected to negotiate a sex education curriculum in close consultation with parents. That was the flavour of the month, if I may call it that, in Mr Forth's draft circular to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, referred and which the Minister has told us is, in effect, to be replaced by a new document.
I turn to my amendment. The new clause introduces into Section 2 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 the very simple requirement that among the matters about which the chief inspector must keep the Secretary of State informed will be,
"the extent and quality of sex education given at the school accordance with the Education Act 1993",
which is what the Bill will shortly become. Why is that necessary and desirable? If HIV, AIDS and other sexually transferable diseases (and education about them) are to be taken out of the national curriculum and included in a discrete subject area with a parental right of withdrawal comparable to that for religious education, it only seems reasonable that that should be liable to monitoring and inspection in the same way as religious education. When the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, first introduced his amendment which, in effect, the Government have taken up, he drew the strong parallel between religious education and sex education.
If we do not have inspections of some sort or another, how can we ensure that the new subject is developmentally appropriate for the age groups concerned and meets the general requirements of the 1986 and 1988 Act as regards the moral. framework? We need to know whether a school has a. policy; what that policy is; how many parents have withdrawn their children and why. It might well be on religious grounds, but it might also be that the material is ill-chosen and that some guidance is required. That is why the quality of the education is important. But the document Framework for Inspection of Schools which I have, and to which I thought the Minister would refer, although I do not believe that she did, makes only one mention that I can find of sex education. It is on page 16 where we are told that an inspector's report should have investigated whether the governors,
"have agreed policies for SEN, sex education, equal opportunities and other statutory functions".
SEN means special educational needs.
The reference there to sex education presumably reflects the not very well observed requirement for a statement under the 1986 Act; that is to say, under a non-mandatory regime. I suggest that at the very least we need something more positive here. I gather that the document is under revision. So can we be assured that the revision will set out clearly the governors' responsibilities under the new clause of the Bill? For example, does national curriculum guidance five on health education at key stage 3, mentioned on page 16 of the document, which was commended in the Forth

1327
circular, still represent the approach expected of schools? If so, when and where will that be indicated? Will it be in the revised circular? The Minister has told us that we are to have a revised circular. Or will it be in the revised Framework for Inspection of Schools?
I hope that I have shown that the new clause raises several questions about the implementation of what is, in effect, a new policy. We are entitled to an assurance of proper inspection before we can feel fully confident about it. The Minister herself referred to it as a mainstream and compulsory subject, something to which she has accorded considerable status. Surely it deserves no less than to be inspected properly along with other subjects.
We had a bird in the hand before, and it is not yet clear to me what we have in this bush. So if the Minister can give me any assurances on those queries, I shall be more than grateful. I can tell her that I am seeking information. I want to know how the Government plan to handle this matter. I do not propose to push the amendment to a Division. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I appreciate the thinking behind Amendment No. 62C, but it is unnecessary. Section 2(1) of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 already requires the Chief Inspector for England to keep my right honourable friend the Secretary of State informed about, among other things, the quality of education provided by schools, and the effect of that upon the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at those schools. The extent of sex education provided in the school is for the governors themselves to determine.
We did not prescribe separately and specifically for religious education in this section of the 1992 Act. Similarly, there is no need to prescribe separately for sex education; it already has to be covered in Ofsted's inspection reports of schools. General inspections must include coverage of the way a school promotes the moral development of pupils across the curriculum. All Section 9 inspections will be conducted according to HMCI's published Framework of Inspection. The registered inspector will state his or her 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.
This public, open reporting will provide a sound basis for parents and others to judge the spiritual and moral ethos of a school. The governing body is also required by the 1992 Schools Act to include an update on the progress that it has made in implementing their action plan in their annual report to parents. This will ensure that a school's performance is kept constantly under review. The annual parents' meeting itself will give parents an opportunity to question governors about their decisions. Indeed, the first port of call for the inspectorate on arrival at a school is the parents and to talk to them about how they perceive their school.
I hope that the House will agree that there is no need to write a specific requirement on the quality of sex education into the 1992 Act as an additional duty;
1328
it is already adequately covered. With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will not press his amendment. If he were minded to and if the House were to accept it—which I am sure it will not—we would have to include other issues which must be covered by the inspector. It is much better that the inspector is responsible for inspecting all education which takes place in our schools.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may ask a question. The House has just passed Amendment No. 62. I remain somewhat sceptical as to whether it will be workable and whether it will be incorporated in the Bill. However, let us consider that it is. Will the Minister say whether the present system of information-gathering will provide information about the number of children who are withdrawn from the new compulsory sex education classes? It would be useful to know how great a percentage of parents do so.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not able to enter into that kind of detail at this stage. I do not believe that it is envisaged that schools will report on which children withdraw from sex education, in the same way as we do not ask how many children withdraw from religious education, as they are allowed at present.
It will be a compulsory subject in the curriculum and it will be necessary for the registered inspectors to comment on the policy of the school which they are inspecting, the effectiveness of that policy and the outcomes of that education for its children. It may well be that if a significant number of children are withdrawn in a school a comment would be included in the report. Every single report will be made public.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I understand from the Minister's reply that she does not want to put anything relating to this issue on to the face of the Bill. I said in my opening remarks that I did not intend to press the amendment. However, perhaps I may take the opportunity to ask her a question. I received a draft circular issued by Mr. Forth on 22nd April. The Minister said that that had been issued for consultation and that as a result it may be revised. When can we expect that and will it give guidance on the issues that I have mentioned?
There is in addition the document entitled Framework of Inspection, which I understood was due to be revised. Will any opportunity occur in that document to draw the inspector's attention to this particular area, which is only cursorily mentioned at present? If the Minister can reassure me on those two points I shall be more than happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my amendment was accepted by the House only a matter of minutes ago. It must go before another place for approval and the Bill must receive Royal Assent. It would be inappropriate for me to start to write the new circular. That circular will be withdrawn. Comments on it will be extremely valuable because quite a lot of that circular will find its way into the new circular. But the circular addresses the quality of sex education in our

1329
schools, the framework within which it is taught, the way in which it will be taught and the way in which those parents who exercise their right to withdraw their children will be counselled. It would be wrong for me to go into more detail and to pre-empt the circular. It will be out for consultation and the noble Lord will have an opportunity to respond to it at that time.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, in view of the acceptance of the government amendment, will the consultation period on that document be extended? I believe that we were due to respond to it by the end of July.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the consultation period is almost up. That will be the end of that circular. The comments on it will be considered carefully by my department because some of them will be appropriate to the new circular. I cannot give a specific date for the re-issue of the circular.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lord, I thank the noble Baroness and—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that this is Third Reading; we are not in Committee.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I had just risen to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 63 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 241 [Temporary procedure for making certain orders]:
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Clause 243 [The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 150, line 19, leave out from ("persons") to end of line and insert ("who appear to him—

(a) to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of education, or

(b) to have held, and to have shown capacity in, any position carrying responsibility for the provision of education.

(4A) Where in carrying out his functions under subsection (4) above the Secretary of State proposes to appoint a person who appears to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of education, he shall have regard to the desirability of including persons engaged in the provision of primary or secondary education.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the appointment of members is central to the success of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State takes his responsibility in making those appointments very seriously indeed. As I have said in this House on previous occasions, we think that the Bill as currently drafted already provides for the assurance we would all want to see, that no future Secretary of State could possibly appoint a set of members who between them had no knowledge of or experience in education.
However, it has become clear during the Bill's passage through Parliament that some noble Lords, and in particular the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, feel
1330
that the formulation as at present in the Bill should be spelt out in more detail. We always try to meet such concerns when we can. I am here to please. Therefore, this amendment closely follows the wording suggested by the noble Earl. I beg to move.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for this amendment. It is, as she says, similar to the one that I brought forward on Report following a certain amount of encouragement in Committee. In correspondence since then she indicated that she was prepared to accept it with the minor revision that I proposed, because I believe that subsection (4) as drafted is too weak for the job. The new wording, although a little different from mine in shape, has the same effect in strengthening the provisions on the face of the Bill for this most vital curriculum body, and I warmly welcome it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 67:
After Clause 258, insert the following new clause:
("County, voluntary and grant-maintained schools. teachers' qualifications
In section 218 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (school and further and higher education regulations) after subsection (3) there is inserted—
"Additional provisions in relation to qualified teachers.
(3A) In exercising his powers under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above in relation to making provision in respect of qualified teachers by or under regulations, the Secretary of State shall have regard in particular to the desirability of securing that a qualified teacher possesses—

(a) a degree awarded by an institution of higher education, or

(b) a qualification awarded on the successful completion of a full-time course of education or professional training of three years or more years (or as the case may be, its part-time equivalent)

such that his degree or, as the case may be, his qualification is recognised under the European Community Council Directive 89/48 (on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration)." ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, sometimes wish that I had the eloquence of Pericles or the voices of men and of angels because I might then he able to hold enough Members of this House at this late hour to discuss the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and myself. However. I notice that both the Chamber and the Galleries have largely emptied, the fascinating subject of sex education having passed beyond our purview.
The fact that this amendment is about a matter as important to the standard and quality of education and to the prospects of our children as any subject which we have discussed so far may have escaped the notice of some people who would otherwise be in the Chamber. I do not apologise for detaining the House for a few moments—I shall be brief—on what I regard as one of the most important aspects of primary education at present.
The amendment is concerned with the circular recently issued by the Secretary of State with regard to the qualifications required by primary teachers. Some will be aware that that circular, which the amendment addresses, suggests that there should be a special qualified teacher qualification for teachers of children between the ages of four and eight—what is called key stage 1. It suggests that there should be a one-year course of training for teachers in that category—that is, teachers of infant and reception classes—and that that one-year course should be restricted to mature students over the age of 26 with some experience of young children. It also says that the qualifications for the course, apart from the one year of training, should he the requirements for advanced or higher education; maybe two A-levels at some level like D or E. As I understand it, the requirements laid down for the course--and I have the circular with me—are that there should be 18 weeks' training in school as a minimum, which, I estimate, leaves not more than 22 weeks of training in a college of education, assuming a 40-week year. It is possible that it will be a 44-week year, but the differences are not of great significance.
It is strange to me that the proposal for a one-year course, which means a dramatic decline in the qualifications of the teachers of our youngest children —noble Lords will know that, at present, the minimum period of training for teachers is a three- or four-year course—should be put forward by a Secretary of State who in his circular says that the Government wish:
"to ensure that newly qualified teachers are fully equipped to contribute to high-quality teaching and improved standards of achievement in primary schools".
I may be very simple minded, but I find it hard to imagine how reducing the requirements by two-thirds or three-quarters will produce an improved standard of education in our primary schools.
I absolutely agree that it is important that teachers should have experience of working with young children. I believe that so strongly that, when I was Secretary of State, one of the things that I went out of my way to accept as part of the qualifications for a teaching course was the experience of being a married woman who had raised her children. I yield to no one in believing that experience is a major qualification for teaching. But experience is a complement to education and training, not a substitute for it. It is the combination that creates such a powerful argument for quality in the training of young children.
I believe the latter so strongly that I am a trustee of the Learning by Experience Trust. It attempts to assess the quality of experience, not only for teachers and managers but also for people in many walks of life. I know from that experience that you cannot just make a rough estimate of the quality of experience; it requires very careful assessment of what people have learned. As noble Lords may know, some people learn a great deal from experience while others learn relatively little. You cannot assume that the simple passing of time brings wisdom with it as an automatic by-product.
Secondly, one of the most crucial areas of education—indeed, perhaps the most crucial—is the
1332
education of very young children between the ages of four or four-and-a-half when they enter infant school and seven or eight when they leave. That is not an easy area of education; indeed, it is a very difficult and challenging area. One educationist after another and one teacher after another will tell all of us that the teaching of reading and mathematics to very young children is an extremely skilled occupation. It is not something that you can do because you once brought up a child, though I believe that that is useful experience. Children learn 80 per cent. of all that they ever learn before the age of eight. That represents the crucial building blocks of a child's values, of its morality, of its education, of its thirst for knowledge and of its curiosity.
Thirdly, as noble Lords have already emphasised at length in debates on the Bill, one of the most crucial aspects of being an infant teacher is that that person is the one who will pick up special educational needs and children's disabilities, such as early deafness, the inability to handle words properly and dyslexia. If these things are picked up early, they can be remedied, but if they are left to run on they may become major handicaps throughout someone's life.
As chance will have it, only an hour ago I received a letter from a teacher, Mrs Diane Wilcox of Southgate. I should explain that I do not know Mrs Wilcox. She has written to me out of the blue. She states:
"I have been an Early Years teacher for 11 years and a parent for just over 8 years … A wide and varied curriculum needs to be planned both daily and throughout the Early Years covering the core subjects and all other aspects of the curriculum".
I commend this thought to the House—
"A far greater degree of contact with parents is expected at this level than at any other and this requires skills in counselling, advising and working together as partners … The early detection of problems like ear, eye and speech defects which if undetected could prove detrimental",
is one of the things that Early Years staff have to be trained to spot and to detect at an early stage.
Finally, Mrs. Wilcox points out that teachers are,
"increasingly required to train as well as teach with NNEB students, Articled teachers schemes and work experience students".
If teachers do not have first class training how can they hand on training to others?
Given this situation and given the fact that, according to the most recent report of Ofsted, 73 per cent. of our primary school teachers are, as they leave training, teaching to
"either a satisfactory or better standard"—
which is, incidentally, a higher standard than for secondary school teachers—I cannot understand why the Government are advancing this extraordinary scheme at this time. I shall mention four practical, rapid disadvantages of it. The first is inflexibility. These trained Early Years teachers will not be qualified to teach any pupils except those in the early years. We are assured of that in the Secretary of State's circular. So what happens in a small school when the junior teacher is ill? He or she would normally look to the infant teacher to help out, but what can be done when this infant teacher is not qualified to teach any other age group than pupils up to the age of eight? In the school which my daughter attended there were five

1333
classes and three teachers. How could a teacher possibly have filled in at that school if he or she had been trained only to teach the youngest children in that school?
The second disadvantage is that the scheme is a major barrier to promotion. Teachers who have received training to teach a particular year will be most unlikely to be promoted to posts of responsibility, let alone to deputy headships and headships. They will be blocked at an early stage in their career. What incentive is there for the people of excellent quality we want to enter infant teaching to go into such teaching if there is little or no prospect of them ever advancing, however dedicated and excellent they are, from that relatively humble position?
Thirdly, we have been engaged—I thought across the parties—over several years now in improving the quality of our teachers. In 1972 the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, announced in a circular that teaching would now be an all-graduate profession. That publication was entitled Education, A Framework for Expansion. The noble Baroness, then the Secretary of State for Education, declared, as if on a banner, that it was one of the major purposes of the Conservative government of that time to create an all-graduate profession. Five years later, when I was Secretary of State for Education, I laid down a requirement that all teachers needed to have a minimum qualification in Maths and English of at the very least a GCE at pass level or a CSE at level 1. That was later accepted by the government of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher —then Mrs. Margaret Thatcher—who included it as a requirement for GCSEs in 1984.
From 1972 onwards governments of both parties have consistently attempted to raise the qualifications for our teachers. They have done so with their eyes open, in the belief that that was the single greatest contribution they could make to the raising of standards. That did not divide one party from another.
My fourth objection, which is a very serious one, is that none of these infant teachers will be able to teach in any other school in the Community because of the terms of the 1989 directive which laid down that the Community would not recognise, for the purposes of teaching in any other Community country, any teacher who qualified in under a three-year course. My Lords, I appeal to your sense of patriotism. Do we really want to be a country whose teachers are not accepted in any other country of the Community—in Greece, in Portugal or in Italy—because they are inadequately trained? Is that good enough for our children when it is not good enough for the children of Greece or the children of Italy?
Lastly, I turn to expert opinion. The Secretary of State referred to the support of the Chairman of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, Sir William Taylor, as if he were in support of the scheme. On the contrary, Sir William Taylor's CATE said that the scheme will blight the future prospects of those who take part and damage recruitment to the rest of the profession by ending all-graduate status,
1334
and it will be difficult to pack enough learning into a one-year course. That is the view of the chairman of CATE, who was appointed by the Government.
The Council of Local Education Authorities—including its Conservative members—said just a few days ago that this would be:
"a second, subsidiary grade of teachers".
The Early Childhood Education Forum's chairman said:
"The changes present a very real threat to the quality of young children's learning".
Finally, the chairman of the National Association of Infant Teachers, Professor Gamage, said that it will mean a second-class training for infant teachers.
Why are the Government putting out a circular against which so many expert voices have been raised. which is incompatible with the directives of the Community and the broad effort supported by all parties to raise the quality of teacher education and which has nothing to do with raising the standards of the teaching of our infants? There are only two possible conclusions. The first is that it is to save money: that one pays a lower salary to a teacher with a one-year training than to a teacher with a three or four-year training. Oh, not right now. I understand that very well. But I ask how long it will take before a teacher with a one-year training is paid less than a teacher with a three or four-year training. It runs in the face of all experience to believe that that issue will not at some point be raised by local education authorities and grant-maintained schools trying to keep down their budgets.
If that is not the reason—and I still do not know what the reason is because there is no shortage of primary school teachers; we have more trained teachers than we can supply jobs for, so that is not the reason—there is only one other possibility. That possibility is that the Government want to split off the training of teachers from higher education institutions and universities which provide the training or teachers with some of the enrichment, the intellectual breadth from which teacher training benefits so greatly.
Why do I say that? I say it for two reasons: first, the Government propose that the prime course for secondary school teachers shall be a three-year Bachelor of Education degree and that much of the time shall be spent in schools. I have no great objection to that; I think that teachers learn a lot from learning and practice in schools. What I fear, however, is that the Government in their circular propose to finance the training of teachers in schools by taking the money from the higher education institutions, thereby fundamentally undermining the best work that they do.
If noble Lords do not care to listen to me—because after all they know that I have a point of view which has been established over many years—let me conclude by quoting the words of a distinguished former editor of The Times Educational Supplement —no socialist he—Mr. Stuart Maclure, who referred in a recent article in that educational supplement to the unrelenting attack of this Government on the professional status of teachers. He said that we must fight this with all we have, we must block this iniquitous plan. He went on:

1335
"We owe ourselves and our pupils nothing less".
I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. It is tremendous to have her powerful experience and passion with us in this House.
Teacher education is certainly at the crossroads. Never has it needed more clear support by all the community in order to secure the best for students of education and for pupils in our schools. Recent proposals have, I suggest, shown how slim the Government's commitment to a graduate profession for teachers really is. By proposing to dilute the qualifications and status of nursery and infant teachers, the Government are all too obviously signalling the end to teaching as an all-graduate profession.
The first significant step was taken in that direction in 1989 when the Government introduced the licensed teacher proposals. Now we have the most disturbing proposal of all: that to teach five and six year-olds it will be enough just to be eligible to go to university and to have experience of working with children. Such a proposal flies in the face of reality. The early years of a child's education are the most important. Those years are the bedrock upon which all academic and social progress is built. Teachers in this sector should therefore be particularly carefully prepared for their immense responsibilities. The Government, however, seem incapable of recognising that fundamental priority. The Government's new proposals for the reform of primary and initial teacher training are designed clearly to achieve training on the basis of minimum investment, a response—as I think the noble Baroness has already indicated—to the short-term demands of the current economic circumstances facing the Government.
However, getting teacher training right is a vital long-term investment in our economy. The successful education of pupils now and into the future depends on the Government getting that policy right. A five-week consultation period at the end of the school year on policy of this magnitude is woefully inadequate.
Successful teaching of young children at school demands complex moral and intellectual choices—and we have been debating some of them tonight—and the need for teachers to understand how children learn; how to differentiate and match activities to children's ability; how to extend children's ability to take on greater challenges; and how to pinpoint and seek support in responding to the problems encountered by children with learning difficulties.
Meeting these priorities requires a highly qualified teaching profession, and I emphasise the word "profession". It is a profession with a critical awareness of its own practice, a high level of confidence and understanding of the process of learning and of the skills needed in handling subject knowledge and in teaching it to pupils. An education service of quality will always, I suggest, depend upon
1336
well motivated, properly qualified and trained teachers with time and resources available to them to fulfil their professional role.
It is widely recognised that the work of teachers is becoming more difficult all the time. The break-up of communities and families, the explosion of knowledge and the competition of television have all contributed to demand for higher levels of skill and competence from teachers. It is therefore dangerously irresponsible to propose reducing the level of qualifications required to enter teaching at this juncture. It makes no sense to reduce entry qualification for primary teachers at a time when we know that more than ever primary education is fundamentally important if standards of education in general are to be raised.
It is for these reasons that we argue that an all-graduate teaching profession is critically necessary. It need not be inflexible. Overseas teaching qualifications can be taken into account; prior learning and experience can be accredited, but the standards should be retained, not least as a guarantee of quality for parents.
At this point perhaps I may deal with an argument which previously I have heard the Minister use. I want her to know that on one point I strongly agree with what I believe she and the Government seek to do. I believe that it could be a tremendous regeneration of education to have more people coming from outside the profession, with wide experience of the world as it is, into our schools to stimulate our children. I applaud that endeavour. But that is not instead of professional qualifications. It would be absolute madness to bring those people in and then hamper their contribution by not enabling them to have the preparation, the training and the professional standards of their own contribution ensured.
The Government's proposals deny this status of profession. As Robin Alexander, Professor of Education at Leeds University, wrote in The Times on 7th June:
"if one sees teaching as a demanding and sophisticated activity, requiring considerable reserves of knowledge, understanding, skill, creativity, and empathy, and if one believes that children in schools, no less than students in universities, need to be challenged by the liveliest minds and keenest imaginations then higher education becomes central to teacher training".
I warmly support the amendment of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on two points that she made in her opening speech: first, about the importance of teachers—they are the key to the educational service and success—and, secondly, on the importance of early education. However, that said, I am afraid that I must part company with what she had to say on this particular amendment.
I have not the slightest doubt that the main routes to education will continue to be the ones that they are now: through the B.Ed degree and through the PGCE course. I might just say, in parenthesis, that I think it will be extremely important that both courses maintain a high and relevant standard. I regret to say —and certainly I know from my own experience—that a great many of my husband's pupils who read

1337
chemistry refused to go into teaching because they thought the PGCE course was so poor. I have heard it laughed at by a great many other graduates. It is not something which I think is good, but it is something which the educational world needs to address.
My understanding is that the Government are proposing another route into teaching. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has already referred to one—namely, the licensed teachers—which was greatly criticised at the time but which brings into teaching men and women who have had wide experience of life arid have something to contribute to all sorts of courses, particularly in technology. It seems to me quite wrong not to accept these people into teaching.
As for the other proposals, the idea that the teachers will be unqualified is simply not true. They will have to do a course. One needs to ask what they will bring to teaching. In the first place, they will be older people, with a minimum age of 26. I believe that that is very valuable, because they have had experience of life. I am not at all against young teachers. But the young man or woman who has been through school, gone straight into some kind of training course and comes out at the age of 22 has had no experience of life and no real experience of children. And one thing that one does need and from which one benefits is the experience of knowing children—on the matter of discipline, if nothing else. It is a quality which itself is or extreme value.
I believe, although I realise that it is a matter of opinion, that the idea that they will be unable to identify children with special educational needs is quite untrue. I should go so far as to say that they would probably be much more likely to identify them because they will have had experience of life and of children, the children of their friends and so on, unlike young teachers who will not have had that experience.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that on this side of the House we in no way disagree with the very valuable point that she makes about experience? With great respect, that is not the point at issue, which is whether somebody with experience will not benefit by having, in addition to that experience, an adequate training course. It is not a choice between a training course without experience and experience without a training course.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I entirely take the point that the noble Baroness makes. As I understand the matter, there is no question about them not having a proper training course. It is quite untrue to say that the whole object of the exercise is to save money. It simply brings into the teaching profession people with a different background who, I believe, will have something to contribute. To rule out the proposal for that reason would be quite wrong. The hour is late and I shall not pursue the argument. However, I believe that it would be quite wrong to think that we would be admitting to the teaching profession people who are unqualified and unsuitable. They have much to contribute.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in Glasgow they have a definition of an atheist: one who is neutral at a Rangers-Celtic match. Similarly, it might be a definition of one who is non-political: that he is neutral during a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff.
Recently, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, moved an amendment to delete the educational competence of the European Community from the Treaty of Maastricht. This House rejected that amendment by an overwhelming majority. I feel that we should pause to think a little longer about the indifference shown by the Government to the European Community Directive 89/48. That does not even arise under the Treaty of Maastricht. It is part of the harmonisation of professional qualifications which is a necessity for freedom of movement.
Exactly a week ago today we approved a power in the Treaty of Maastricht which was put there at the recommendation of our own Government. It provides for those who ignore European Community directives to be fined under the authority of the European Court. It would be a little foolish of the Government, having insisted on putting that power in place, to volunteer to be the first government to suffer under it.
I listened with care to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I was interested in what she said about another route. But that particular route has been regarded, by everybody with any competence to pass judgment on it outside the Conservative Party, as an inadequate one. I am sorry if it causes offence on the other side of the House when we suspect that cost cutting is the real motive. But we have such long experience of damage caused by government cost cutting. I speak not from listening to any pressure group but from personal experience. Having been 10 times burned, we are rather inclined to fear the fire.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I have several times warned in this House about the damage that is done to education by swingeing criticisms of the teaching services of this country at almost every level, often based only on senior common room gossip. We have sat through a number of debates when the teachers have been criticised for almost everything that has gone wrong with education over the past 25 years. We have heard again tonight a total dismissal, apparently echoed on the Front Bench, of the training of graduates in teaching, which has done tremendous work for the education process over the years.
It is a frustration to me that, after 32 years in the classroom and eight hours on these Benches tonight, we have to truncate our remarks arid cut short our contribution to what is, as has already been said, the most important part of the debate. If the teaching service of the country in a democracy is disillusioned, then that democracy is in danger. We have a disillusioned teaching service, and part of that disillusion has been brought about by baseless criticism.
That is not to say that there is no criticism to be made of all aspects of the teaching service, properly focused, in order to improve it. My experience is that there is scarcely a teacher in Britain today who does not feel that his or her basic education could not be

1339
improved by further education. Most teachers are convinced that the speed of change and the changes with which their children will have to grapple challenge them to further education.
On this very day my daughter, after 17 years in teaching special education, collected her special diploma for education of those specially in need from a university extension course that she attended in her spare time. I want it to be understood that the majority of the teachers of this country are good teachers who understand children and are urgent in their desire to help those children with the moral, spiritual, physical and educational demands that are made on them.
Why do we not say that more often? At a time when we have painfully and painstakingly, through the education system of this country, provided a teaching service that is basically all right, why do we suddenly assume that people can come into it simply because they passed chemistry at Cambridge or at a red brick university? Instead of dismissing what is provided, why do they not accept the challenge of further preparation for the specific task of bringing their fine minds and their good education to bear on younger children?
Let us not repeat those rumours. Let us prepare the system. Let us not make it seem easy to teach four to six year-olds, as though anyone could take up that job: they intended to go in for chemistry but they did not like the system of education so they took the cheap option and taught somebody's four year-old child!
I urge the House to place emphasis on the fact that anyone who goes into the classroom, bringing new experience, also takes the hurdle. I understood the noble Baroness to say that there will be a requirement for the education of people who have taken a degree who come into the classroom to teach at that level. Let us hear what that requirement is. Tell us whether it measures up to the old standards. I went into teaching after the war, at the time of the emergency, when it was necessary to give our classrooms new teachers and we introduced a scheme called the "emergency teachers scheme". Women of wartime experience, of industry and of the services came into the classrooms. They had one year's preparation in a training college in order to do that, and almost all of them felt that they needed to continue their education. So we evolved for them in-service education.
Only today a local authority in Wales announced that it is contemplating cutting £17 million from its education budget. What will that mean? It will mean that in-service continuing education and other aspects of the education service will be threatened. Where will the cuts fall? They will fall on the new people who are coming into the education service—"We do intend that they should qualify, but we cannot manage it just now".
I feel deeply and strongly about this issue. I urge the Government to be careful to ensure that any structure that they propose is adequate and meets the needs of the classroom teacher, because even at this time
1340
teachers are dissatisfied that they cannot, in in-service education or in extension courses, get the opportunities that they need.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I once carried out a big test on the teaching of mathematics in primary schools. I found that more than 50 per cent. of the teachers who taught mathematics in primary schools did not have O-level in mathematics themselves. That demonstrated to me that teacher training had to be improved. It may be thought that the universities can do it —and perhaps they can—but my experience is that they do not do it at all well. Today there are more university graduates without a job than ever before and the position is worse still in America. They are not being trained to do the things that we need in our society. If we want better leaders in our society—whether it is in a primary school or in No. 10 Downing Street—we had better not rely simply on universities.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the time I have spent in the House I do not believe that I have ever witnessed such misinterpretation and such fertile imagination used on a document. Before I go any further, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, a direct question. Where is her evidence for saying that we would settle for Grades D or E at A-level for those coming in?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat what I said to the noble Baroness. If she checks Hansard she will find that this is what I said. The circular which I have beside me states that the qualifications are those required for entry to higher education. The lowest level qualifications required for entry to higher education are Grades D or E at A-level. I therefore inquired whether those would be regarded as adequate qualifications. The only information given in the circular uses the phrase,
"the qualifications required for entry to higher education".
That is the point I was making.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think that we should both read Hansard tomorrow because I was listening very carefully when the noble Baroness made the comment.
Perhaps I may start at that very point and give some of the background of teachers coming into the system right at this moment. First, between 35 and 40 per cent. of our teachers in primary schools are graduates, which means that around 60 per cent. of our teachers in primary schools are not graduates. At least 15 per cent. of entrants to primary PGCE courses are social studies graduates, which is about the same proportion as mathematics, science and engineering graduates combined. The average A-level point score —I ask the noble Baroness to note this point—for entry into primary BEd courses in 1991 was 10.6, just slightly better than a C and a D. So we are not getting in quality people anyway.
The noble Baroness made reference to a rough estimate of who who received qualified teacher status. Again, that is a gross misreading of the document. No one is going to make a rough estimate about awarding qualified teacher status to a mature student. I ask the noble Baroness, who I assume has read the document,

1341
to turn to the annexes and look at the competence expected of newly-qualified teachers; the requirements of courses of initial teacher training; other responsibilities of institutions and schools; criteria for initial teacher training in the primary phase; aims of the initial teacher training; competences expected of newly-qualified teachers; the whole curriculum; the content, the planning and the assessment; the subject knowledge and application; assessment and recording of pupils' progress; teaching strategies and pupils' learning; teaching strategies and teaching techniques; further professional development; requirements of courses for initial teacher training; directed time for curriculum and subject studies. I could go on and on with a great deal of detail which sets out the importance of the course content and the qualifications which teachers need before receiving qualified teacher status.
Midnight
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked me a direct question and I am responding only to that. I do not want to delay the House. Perhaps I may quote directly from the circular, which states that the Secretary of State,
"wishes to see one-year courses developed for parents and other mature students with considerable previous experience of working with young children (such as nursery nurses who have worked for some time in schools)".
There is no further definition of how that experience is to be assessed or how it is to be measured. The document goes on:
"who have the necessary academic qualifications for entry to higher education".
The noble Baroness will know that among the entry qualifications for at least some parts of higher education are Grades D and E at A-level.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not arguing about that. I am saying that the noble Baroness should read the whole document. She should refer to the back of it and see what is said about the competences that are required for teacher status. It refers to the teaching techniques and strategies and the hours suggested for further study. All of that is wholly ignored by the noble Baroness in her comments.
I agree absolutely with something which she said: my noble friend Lady Young also touched on it. The teaching of reading, particularly at Key Stage 1, is probably one of the most important skills for a teacher. How interesting it is that so many young teachers coming out of higher education, having been taught to teach, have not been taught to teach reading. That is a terrible indictment of teacher training at this moment.
Noble Lords will notice in the same circular the increased time which is given during training to be devoted to core subjects, including English, mathematics and science, and the specific time to be devoted to the teaching of reading, which is a very important skill, particularly for people teaching at Key Stage 1. My noble friend Lady Young identified what I believe is a considerable undervaluing of the experience of mature people who bring something different to education.
1342
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that he is not against mature people coming in. That could have almost fooled me after much of what has been said about this proposal. Mature people are coming into training and some on the back of just one-yeas courses are going into secondary education. Some of our technology teachers are learning on the job. Our licensed teacher and articled teacher schemes have been very successful. There have been independent reports on them which have commented very favourably.
The noble Baroness suggested that there were two motives here, and pretty devious ones at that. Somehow, by some kind of sleight of hand—not now, but sometime later—this awful, nasty meaning Government are going to pounce and say, "We've got you in now. We've paid you normal salaries like other teachers and now we're going to lower them deliberately". I find that pretty patronising and quite unacceptable as a criticism.
The other reference was made to splitting up from higher education institutions. Our motive here is to provide for very capable, talented, mature people who could make a very real contribution at Key Stage 1 for our young people, and who cannot afford to go away and spend two, three or four years at teacher training colleges. Why should we not give them the opportunity to come into the profession? Why should we not give a chance to people with Grade A, B or C at A-level and some creditable prior learning experience that is relevant? On top of that they do not do 22 weeks on one course, as the noble Baroness, again rather disparagingly, suggested, but a proper, intensive one-year course with follow-up in-service training in schools. I find it extremely patronising not to give this opportunity to mature people who are capable and talented.
I wish to reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lady Young. This provision will not substitute for the other forms of teacher training. The BEd degree and the PGCEs will continue, as will the articled and licensed teachers. This will be just another route to enable talented, mature people to come into the classroom and teach our young people.
One of the main objectives of our teacher training policy is to attract into teaching mature people with relevant skills —and I mean relevant skills—and experience. We are determined that all those entering teaching, by whatever route, will receive training which is rigorous and relevant to the needs of schools. There is absolutely no question of schools being asked to employ poorly trained teachers. I must also advise the noble Baroness, who was so wrong in almost everything that she said, that there is no suggestion of awarding qualified status to a teacher who has done a training course without experience or who has experience but has not attended a training course. That is a travesty of the circular.
But we question the assumption that the best teachers invariably and only arrive via graduate entry or by long courses lasting three years or more. Ask some of the head teachers in our schools whether their teachers without a degree are necessarily poorer teachers. After all, a high percentage are doing a good

1343
job. The noble Baroness used a statistic, so I advise her that 73 per cent. of teachers in primary schools are doing a good job and that a large proportion—in fact, more than half—are teachers without degrees.
A significant minority, trained through the licensed teacher scheme, do not arrive via graduate entry, but, as recent HMI evidence has shown, their experience of work in other fields is often useful to their work as teachers. Most new entrants to the profession are and will continue to be graduates. But we should remember that many of the best teachers, in both primary and secondary schools, entered teaching as non-graduates. We should continue to provide opportunities to those who are well suited for teaching but who have missed out on a university education.
As has been said, we have recently issued a consultation document—and it is just that—on the reform of primary teacher training. The proposal that some of those intending to become teachers of Early Years pupils should train via one-year specialist courses has aroused controversy. This amendment is perhaps intended to sabotage that idea. As I have made clear, it would affect the tried and tested licensed teacher scheme as well. How sad that we should lose the licensed teacher scheme for the amendment.
The proposal is still out for consultation. Much of the reaction to it has been based on false assumptions. We have heard many tonight. The proposed courses would not replace other routes into Early Years teaching, but would supplement them. The courses would be intensive and longer than the usual academic year—contrary to what the noble Baroness said. Entry would not be unrestricted, but would be confined to mature people (aged 26 and over) with substantial successful experience of working with young children and with qualifications at least as good as those required for entry to degree courses. Indeed, we would expect many entrants to these courses to have better A-level scores than BEd entrants at the moment. Those successfully completing the courses—and I mean "successfully"—would be qualified to teach up to the end of Key Stage 1 and no further. They would be specialists. They would not—like some of those trained through the licensed teacher scheme—be eligible to teach in other EC member states, but this would not affect the eligibility of teachers trained through other routes.
I have two final points. On the point about flexibility, no school is obliged to employ these people. If a school wants more flexibility, it will not employ one of these teachers, but there are schools that would give such teachers an opportunity to teach Key Stage 1. I am fascinated to know how any school copes with five classes and only three teachers. Do two classes each day go without a teacher? That was what the noble Baroness said about her daughter's school.
I ask the noble Baroness to think for one moment and to imagine this scenario. A young person goes to university on pretty low grade A-levels, does a degree in sociology with no thought of the possibility of teaching but, on graduating, finds it difficult to get a job and decides after all to go into teaching. That young person does the one-year, 30-week course,
1344
mostly in a higher education institution, and is then employed in a school, qualified to teach across Key Stages 1, 2, 3, and 4 because, as long as a school will employ him or her, that person is free to teach. I wonder how much better qualified that person is than somebody who has equally good A-levels, who has prior accreditable experience and does an intensified year's course directly related to Key Stage 1 and national curriculum requirements. I think that I would put my money on the second option.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House long, but I must press the amendment. I want to make just two points before I sit down. The first is to repeat that there is no conflict over the value of experience, which I fully appreciate and about which I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and the Minister. That is not the issue before us. The issue before us is whether any proper teacher training can be accomplished in one year at a time when we are asking teachers to understand the national curriculum, assessment and testing—a set of principles which so far are little known to the teaching profession and which teachers now have to learn.
It seems to me ludicrous to believe that in one year teachers, however able and however great their experience, can accomplish all that. I notice in the circular that only 500 hours of direct training is required for this new route to teaching whereas 1,600 hours (nearly three and a half times as much) is required for people going into teaching through the normal routes. I fear that that will undermine the value of teaching, and that is why I must press the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, how many hours direct training are there in the PGCE, which is just a one-year course for someone who has come in, as I say, on the back of a degree taken when they had no idea of teaching?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the BEd of 1,600 hours which I am comparing—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if I may, that is not comparing like with like. That is comparing apples with pears. Let us compare two one-year courses.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am afraid that I will not be lured into that by the Minister for the straightforward reason that a three-year graduate training will give a young woman or young man substantial study experience in the field in which they are teaching. I must reiterate that I believe that a one-year training course is a long step backwards in the qualifications of the teaching force of this country. I believe that the Government will live to rue that step.
12.12 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 67) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 54.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

David, B.

1345

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Parry, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hampton, L.

Russell, E.

Hamwee, B.

Seear, B.

Judd, L

Williams of Crosby, B. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Henley, L.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Astor, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Attlee, E.

Howe, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Blatch. B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mountevans, L.

Caldecote, V.

Norfolk, D.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norrie, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Northbourne, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Renton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Cranborne, V.

St. Davids, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Denham, L.

Seccombe, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Eccles, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Elton, L.

Strange, B.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Goschen, V.

Guildford, Bp.

Trumpington, B.

Harlech, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.20 a.m.
Clause 261 [Exclusion of pupils: funding]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 161, line 10, at end insert:
("( ) For the purposes of this section the permanent exclusion of a pupil does not take effect until—

(a) any review under the articles of government of the decision to exclude him has been completed, and

(b) either any time for appealing under section 26 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 or those articles has expired without such an appeal being made or such an appeal has been finally concluded.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Blatch spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 3 in the name of my noble friend Lord Elton. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 278 [Inter-authority recoupment]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 69:
Leave out Clause 278.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on the last day of our Report stage on 21st June I did not move a similar amendment because there arrived on my desk that very afternoon a consultation document about inter-authority recoupment. It seemed too absurd to discuss that matter before I had had an opportunity to read the document.
I have now had an opportunity to do so and I therefore move the amendment. The history of the clause is that on 2nd February Ministers tabled an amendment in another place to alter the legal framework within which inter-authority financial
1346
recoupment for extra-district/out-county pupils operates. The amendment, which now forms part of the Bill at Clause 278, would remove the automatic recoupment provisions of Section 51 of the 1986 Act and substitute an enabling power for the Secretary of State for Education to define categories of pupil for whom recoupment would be allowed. That would be achieved by regulations on which it would be the Secretary of State's intention to consult closely with the local authority associations and which would be subject to the affirmative resolution in Parliament.
The DFE is seized of the need to continue recoupment where costs are high and the pattern of provision is uneven; for example, in respect of provision for special and hospital school pupils. But the intention is to do away with recoupment for the bulk of school pupils by directing the revenue support grant to the providing LEA rather than the home LEA.
The DFE claimed that late introduction of the amendment, with the details of how it is implemented still to be worked out, was prompted in part by CLEA's representations that automatic recoupment should be extended to under-five's provision. However, that is a disproportionately drastic solution to that problem and is a change of sufficient constitutional significance to have merited consideration on Second Reading, no less than in Committee. In the event, it was not discussed in either forum. The late introduction of the amendment ensured that it would not be debated.
The present position is that outside central London the recoupment arrangements for mainstream pupils in schools—the part the Government intend to replace with grant arrangements are not particularly onerous. Invoices are exchanged between authorities on the basis of a snapshot count of pupils each January and the same count is used also for DFE statistics. Those statistics have to collected in arty event.
The price per pupils is recommended by CLEA on the basis of an estimate of the actual average costs of provision by reference to the Government's public expenditure forecasts and can be reviewed during the year if unforeseen factors change the costs. Government grant, rather than recoupment, would simply be based on a government assumption about the need to spend and so would be less responsive to the actual position.
For most authorities, recoupment covers only a small minority of pupils crossing borders but there are problems in the central London area where the dismemberment of ILEA, creating a large number of small LEAs, has resulted in some areas of up to 60 per cent. of pupils crossing borders. Late payment of bills is a frequent complaint, although that problem could be resolved easily by a regulation requiring 90 per cent. of any claim to be settled within a specified period.
The problem then is that recoupment rates effectively determine an LEA's education budget. That is not changed by switching from recoupment to grant. LEAs are unlikely to increase their council tax to improve facilities in their schools if the benefit is to

1347
go to children and families who do not pay tax in their authorities, irrespective of whether the other income comes from recoupment or from government grant. Government grant is based on past student numbers because they can be more precisely measured than forecast numbers for the year ahead. Cross-border flows can vary significantly from year to year as places become available or schools change in popularity.
A grant system would therefore create problems for an LEA which found itself with a sudden and significant increase in the number of pupils for whom it had to cater because more were crossing a border. On the other hand, recoupment both in principle and in practice is more flexible and better able to cope with such fluctuations and, indeed, with any significant demographic change.
The Government's proposals are unlikely to create any significant administrative saving which, I presume, is one of the reasons or aims behind them. The main administrative burden of recoupment lies with the special education cases which, it is proposed, will continue to be the subject of recoupment between LEAs.
The new clause represents a fundamental erosion of the constitutional principle that LEAs are responsible for their own residents. The clause is drafted as an enabling provision which creates a further centralisation of control as the definitions of what is covered by grant and what by recoupment will be subject to regulations which can, of course, be changed whenever the Government so choose. In any event, it is singularly inappropriate to seek to make a constitutional change of such importance by means of enabling legislation.
However, what is clear from the consultation document is that the Government are still intent on abolishing mainstream school recoupment and that they intend to retain the more difficult aspects of recoupment for special education and hospital schools. Nothwithstanding their intent to abolish mainstream school recoupment, they are engaging in a genuine consultation, presumably because they do not know the answers to many difficult questions. Nine paragraphs of the consultation document end with the phrase, "We would welcome comments".
The introduction of the new system is to be postponed until 1995. In the light of all that, it would seem totally reasonable and sensible to delete the enabling clause which gives the Secretary of State more powers and to leave the situation as it is until the consultation paper has been discussed and the responses received in October. That is what the local authorities want. I hope that that common-sense attitude can be followed and that the Minister will agree to the deletion of the clause. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the clause that we seek to delete reveals in the tell-tale words,
"The Secretary of State may by regulations provide",
that it could lead to the abolition of recoupment by regulation. I agree with the noble Baroness in that I believe that that would be a change of some substance. When considering recoupment one should also take into account cases of people who attend what is in
1348
effect the local school, even if it is not in their local authority's area. I say that as one who has twice lived within 100 yards of a local authority boundary.
If it is to be done by regulations and if it is a convention that we do not vote against regulations, then the last chance that the House would have to vote against the abolition of recoupment would be tonight. I should like to thank the Minister for her letter to me of 1st July in which she said something that I found most interesting. She said:
"Nor do we regard the affirmative resolution procedure as a formality; the clause explicitly requires approval of draft recoupment regulations by resolution of both Houses, and as I understand it the Lords would be entitled to withhold its approval, provided that the Commons did not regard this for any reason as a breach of privilege".
Is the Minister telling us that merely in strict theory, or is she telling us that, within the conventions of the House, we could, without disapproval, vote against regulations to abolish recoupment? If that is what she is telling us, we would have a reason to withdraw the amendment; otherwise not.
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the current arrangements are wholly inflexible. The categories of pupils to whom recoupment applies are presently fixed immutably in primary legislation. There is no possibility of making any alterations to reflect changing circumstances without new primary legislation. For example, the present legislation does not allow local authorities to recoup by right the costs of educating rising fives who lived in neighbouring authorities, even though the law on school admissions obliges them to admit such children on the same basis as rising fives from their own area. The noble Baroness dismissed that as irrelevant but if one cannot even change that it is very unjust on the local authority which is taking the children. Because local authorities cannot get this money back, the present system of inter-authority recoupment provides a perverse incentive to LEAs not to provide any education for rising fives. The Government recognise the problem but when the local authority associations complained we had to point out that we could not make any changes to the recoupment system without primary legislation. Now the noble Baroness plans to abolish the very clause with which we could respond to the concerns of local authorities.
Clause 278 could overcome this sort of difficulty because it would give the Secretary of State power to prescribe in regulations categories of children for whom recoupment would be allowed. Such regulations would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. If we do not take action to change the system now, matters are likely to become even worse for two reasons.
First, the number of pupils crossing LEA boundaries to attend school is increasing as a consequence of greater parental choice. There were some 182,000 pupils at January 1992. The reorganisation of local government may encourage the trend. The process of local authorities sending each other bills and arguing about when and whether to pay them

1349
is liable to occur every time parents decide to send their child across an authority's border even if the school is close to the child's home.
Secondly, the expansion of the grant-maintained school sector makes it increasingly anachronistic for money to pass between LEAs when the main financial relationship is between central government (or the FAS) and self-governing schools. It also makes the process of recouping the cost of providing education even more convoluted as authorities have to recoup from others the cost of extra district pupils in self-governing schools with whom the LEA otherwise has no link. We believe that Clause 278 is important to allow these changes to happen. Otherwise we are in an absolute stalemate and no change whatever can be contemplated.
Baroness David: My Lords, it seems odd that the Minister says that our amendment is unjust to authorities but it is CLEA which is asking that this clause be deleted. The problems are not so great except —as that body admits—in London, the former ILEA area. Some 114 of 116 local authorities belong to CLEA and it is CLEA that is asking for this clause to be deleted. That constitutes a large proportion of authorities that are agreed on the matter. The consultation clearly shows that the Government do not know what is the best thing to do as they have said that they would welcome comments on nine paragraphs in the document. The Government do not know what to do.
If the Minister does not agree to delete the clause, I hope she can give me an assurance, considering the number of outstandingly difficult problems which are to he resolved—and which CLEA agrees must be resolved—that the Government will keep an open mind on whether or not to abolish mainstream school recoupment in 1995, or indeed at any other time, until they have had a chance to reflect on the situation. Will the Minister give me that assurance? If so, I will be inclined to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the only assurance I can give is that there will be no change before a regulation comes before the House under the affirmative resolution procedure. Both Houses will have an opportunity to comment at the time.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am asking for an assurance that the Government will keep an open mind about what should happen in the future.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the consultation document is out at the moment and the consultation time is not up until October. We are receiving comments in from that consultation. When those comments come in we will consider them and the regulations will be drafted in the light of those comments. I cannot possibly pre-empt what that might be at this stage.
Baroness David: My Lords, I suppose that is the best I shall get. If the regulations are to be made in the light of the comments on the consultation paper, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 280 [Grants by Secretary of State in respect of aided and special agreement schools]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 173, line 26, at end insert:
("( ) No such requirement as is referred to in subsection (8) above may be imposed where any payment is made in respect of grant under this section if —

(a) the grant is made in respect of the provision, alteration or repair of premises for a school or proposed school, and

(b) any freehold interest in the premises: in respect of which the grant is made is, or is to be, held on trust for the purposes of the school.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 292 [Corporal punishment]:
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 179, line 30, after ("degrading") insert ("or was not consistent with the pupil's human dignity, or involved physical or mental violence").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 71 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 72A, which is consequential on Amendment No. 71. In doing so I am very glad to have the support of two noble Baronesses in this House. If the hour were not so late a third noble Baroness, the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, who supported amendments through the earlier stages of the Bill, would also be present.
The purpose of the amendment is to add the obligations and implications of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to the clause which was introduced in this House by the Government which limits corporal punishment and is now part of the Bill. The wording of the amendment is taken from two articles in the United Nations convention. If the amendment is accepted it will have the effect of ending corporal punishment in independent schools, just as it has ended in state schools. It would mean that this country would be honouring its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Government introduced the clause which I seek to amend so as to ensure that any corporal punishment given to fee-paying pupils in independent schools does not breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The clause uses the words "inhuman or degrading" from Article 3. That is the test. At Report stage when 1 raised the implications for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, responded by saying:
"We do not believe that this convention creates obligations as regards the use of corporal punishment in schools which go beyond those imposed by the European Convention on Human Rights".—[Official Report, 21/6/93; cols 105–106.]
I shall seek to show that if we are 10 honour the convention, as we have already agreed to do, then my amendment is necessary.
I was more than a little surprised by the Government's response. Therefore, I have taken informal legal advice. Following that advice, it seems to me that if the Government wish to meet their international obligations they have no alternative but to agree to my amendments, which would bring the Government into line with the United Nations convention.
That convention is the first international instrument which applies specifically to children—children being defined as anyone under the age of 18. The convention refers to school discipline, in Article 28.2, which states that:
"States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child's human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention".
Article 37 of the convention reflects and adds to the wording of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, stating that:
"States Parties shall ensure that:
(a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
Article 19 of the United Nations convention provides an additional protection:
"States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child".
I could rehearse many more arguments, but due to the lateness of the hour I shall confine myself to the United Nations convention. Article 2 emphasises that states parties must "respect and ensure" the rights in the convention to all children,
"without discrimination of any kind".
But, as I indicated, the current law on corporal punishment discriminates against pupils in independent schools whose education is not supported by the state. So does the clause which I seek to amend. My amendment has the advantage of removing that discrimination.
The preamble to the United Nations convention recognises the:
"equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family".
It goes on to emphasise that:
"childhood is entitled to special care and assistance".
In a number of ways—and I have illustrated all those which I find relevant—the United Nations convention insists that particular standards for treatment of children are required, beyond those required by the European Convention on Human Rights. That is the object of the amendment. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has been fully covered by myself and if the Government are to implement their international obligations, of which the United Nations convention is one, they should use the opportunity presented by the final stage of the Bill in this House to take, in the words of the convention,
"appropriate legislative action to comply with the Convention as enjoined by Article 19 of the Convention".
It would have the happy result that all school pupils in this country are protected equally from corporal punishment. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has explained the purpose of the amendment. It does not take a lawyer to tell us that hitting children with gym shoes or canes is a form of physical violence. The UN convention obliges us to protect all our children without discrimination from all forms of physical violence. If the Government wish to take that obligation seriously, they should abandon this squalid last-ditch defence of institutional corporal punishment.
During the first debate on the issue in Committee, I raised the bewildering divergence of policy between the Department of Health and the Department for Education. That was on 10th May, at col. 975 of Hansard. At Report stage, I asked the Minister to explain the divergence. That was on 21st June, at col. 103. I ask again: why does the DFE persist in defending some level of corporal punishment of some pupils in some independent schools, both day and boarding, when the Department of Health has implemented its policy, through the Children Act, that corporal punishment has no place in the child care environment outside the family home?
In previous debates, I also mentioned the views of David Jewell, a former chairman of the Headmasters' Conference, and Master of Haileybury College. I have been shown a copy of a letter he sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on 2Ist June. In it, he indicates that he was dismayed by the vote not to extend abolition to cover all independent school pupils. I quote from it:
"I understand that the principal reason for the loss of the vote was that the Government wishes to continue to insist that parents should have a right to choose a school which still uses corporal punishment. I know of no reputable independent school which does, and I cannot believe, therefore, that any parents who wish to choose a disreputable school should be encouraged to do so by the Government … I am convinced that the independent sector does not want the right to use corporal punishment, and does not want discriminatory legislation in relation to it, and I believe all my colleagues would prefer the simple and straightforward solution of extending the existing legislation to apply to all pupils. I do hope we can end this wretched practice once and for all".
It is not quite too late for the Government to think again, to consider seriously their obligations under the UN convention, to listen to influential voices from the private sector, and to come up with the only principled solution. The nearest they can get to it now is by accepting the amendment which we propose tonight.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, is bracketed with Amendment No. 72, which deals with Scotland, I should like to make a few comments on Amendment No. 72. I divide my remarks into two parts, the first being the substance of the amendment and the second being the manner of the delineation of the reference of the amendment.
On the basic question of the amendment, it appears to me that there has been no consultation whatever in

1353
Scotland about this late addition to the Bill. I do not believe that the private education sector in Scotland will he any more enthusiastic about this clause than are their colleagues in England. It is absurd to go to these lengths to try to preserve the possibility of corporal punishment in a few private schools. Frankly, I had thought Scotland had got beyond that debate. Recently our courts have convicted parents who use implements to hit their children, and the Scottish Law Commission has recommended in its Report on Family Law, which was presented to Parliament in May last year, that it should become a criminal offence for anyone to strike a child with an implement or in a way which causes, or could cause, injury or significant pain or discomfort lasting more than a very short time.
The Government should think again before the final stages of the Bill and come back with the principled solution of extending abolition to cover all pupils, which would satisfy the private sector and the overwhelming majority of those involved in education. This clause can only please a very small minority who retain an unhealthy interest in corporal punishment for schoolchildren. For this point I expect the Minister will have his reply ready.
On the second point, which is on the mechanism of this particular clause, I should like to make a few points. When I read the amendment, I went to the Library and looked up the references. I looked up the 1980 Education (Scotland) Act which this amendment amends. I found that there was no reference in the 1980 Education (Scotland) Act to Section 48A, to which the amendment would refer. Section 48A of the Education (Scotland) Act was nowhere to be found in the Library. So as a raw amateur in terms of legal matters I tried to dig a little further. I found that the section of the 1986 Act which has a reference to this particular amendment does not appear to have been brought into force under the powers given to the Secretary of State for Scotland in Section 66(3).
Therefore, it seemed to me that, as worded, Amendment No. 72 attempts to amend a section never implemented of the original Act; namely, the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. I raised the matter with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate who, with his expertise, was able to examine it. Few Members of this. House have sufficient training and experience to do that. He was able to dig out, headed "Education, England and Wales; Education, Scotland" the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (Commencement No. 2) Order 1987. Buried within it was an interpretation:
"In this Order 'the Act' means the Education (No. 2) Act 1986".
Let me make a plea. How does the ordinary Member of this House, who has not had a strict legal training, find his way through all that. I thought that I had found something irregular. However, a statutory instrument, pushed through the House, probably at a time not unlike the present hour, in the middle of the night, clears up the whole matter. I feel that that does riot encourage someone who wishes to be enthusiastic about his work in this House to continue.
I make two points. One is the substantial point on
1354
the issue of the amendment. The other, possibly of more importance to Members in the long run, is how we are to understand what is happening when we have amendments so abstruse as the one before us. When Members go the Library—your Lordships' House has a Library which is generally considered to be extremely good in legal matters—they find that the paper work is almost unintelligible. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for having helped me. Without his help I should have been totally lost.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has taken advice from my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. I shall come back to that point later. We have had a full and informed debate on the issue of corporal punishment in independent schools on previous occasions. I must stress that we are talking only about independent schools.
The Government's position, which centres on parental choice —I repeat that to the noble Baroness, Lady David—is well known. I should say in passing that I do not believe that the remarks that the noble Baroness quoted from the Master at Haileybury are relevant to the argument. The views of other head masters in the independent sector are not necessarily relevant to what individual schools might wish to do. As I said, I believe that this is a matter entirely for parental choice.
However, as we said earlier, in recognition of concerns expressed in Committee, we brought forward at Report a government amendment which the House accepted. The effect of that amendment, which is now Clause 292, is to ensure that corporal punishment cannot be justified if the punishment is inhuman or degrading. It thus ensures that any punishment given does not lead to a contravention of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The amendment now proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, to Clause 292 and the amendment in respect of Scotland tabled in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser, to which I shall speak in a moment, seek also to take account of Articles 28(2) and 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We are being asked to write on to the face of domestic legislation particular words taken from those articles.
We do not believe that this is an acceptable way to implement the United Kingdom's international obligations. One cannot expect the proper meaning of those articles to be deduced by domestic courts in that way. The references to "human dignity" and "mental violence" are insufficiently precise as they stand to be used in domestic law. Taken literally, the amendment would seem to contradict Section 47 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 by prohibiting corporal punishment altogether, which, as I said earlier, is not our intention.
In the Government's view, as regards the use of corporal punishment in schools the convention does not impose any obligations which go beyond those imposed by the European Convention. Punishment which is not consistent with the pupil's human dignity and physical violence constituting inhuman or

1355
degrading treatment are already covered by Clause 292 for England and Wales, and by Amendment No. 70—which I shall come to in a moment—for Scotland.
Clause 292 and the proposed amendment for Scotland represent a genuine recognition by the Government of the strength of feeling on this issue. They are a pragmatic compromise, recognising the views of those who wish to see corporal punishment retained while, on the other hand, ensuring that punishment is not administered in a way which would be inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights. We see no need for further amendments in relation to the United Nations Convention. I hope therefore, after I have spoken to the Scottish amendment, that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
I take this opportunity to speak briefly to the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser. As we have said before, Amendment No. 72 fulfils the Government's commitment to bring forward at Third Reading a parallel provision of Clause 292 for Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, complained of the lack of consultation. As I am trying to make clear, the amendment seeks to ensure that the concession that we brought forward, to ensure that our law was consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights, covered not only England and Wales but also Scotland.
I am glad that the noble Lord consulted my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. I understand that he is worried by the mechanism by which our amendment achieves exactly what it is supposed to achieve. I intended to explain that I understood, as did my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, that the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 and Commencement Order No. 2 1987, did exactly that. But my noble and learned friend, in private, had already told the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that that was the case.
The noble Lord then asked how people were ever supposed to be able to interpret statutes of Parliament or Bills as they went through this House. At this hour of the night that goes slightly beyond the Bill before us and no doubt is a matter one can consider at a later occasion. However, I imagine the noble Lord simply consulted the Queen's printer's copy of the Bill. There are certainly commercial publications to which the noble Lord could turn which give the Act, the Act as amended, and the Act as amended by further Acts and so forth. If he went to those he may have greater luck in finding his way round the Acts of Parliament and the various orders resulting from them. That is certainly the process I recommend to him. As I said, how we draft Acts of Parliament is something beyond what we should be discussing at five minutes to one in the morning.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House longer than is necessary. But here we have a clause in an English Bill which refers to a Scottish Bill. When one refers to the Scottish Bill one must then refer to a later Scottish Bill and there is still nothing in that. It was only because
1356
of the skill, ability and training of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, and the fact that I asked him, that he was able to dig out a statutory instrument which dealt with the whole matter.
It is becoming almost impossible for ordinary people—and we are supposed to be representative of ordinary people—to understand what is happening. The noble Lord tells us that publications are available to tell us these things. Perhaps in a quieter moment he can give me a note of a quick way I can find my way through the provisions. I will be happy to go through the process I tried to go through in attempting to find my way about the statutes. Perhaps the Minister can tell me which commercial publications I could use to understand the process better. I was appalled at the difficulty I had in trying to understand what was happening in regard to a small Scottish provision buried in an English Act.
1 a.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, I note the noble Lord's concerns. I cannot deal with them at the moment. I think that they go far, far wider than what we are now discussing. If the noble Lord will bear with me, I am certainly prepared to write to him in greater detail on how we interpret Acts of Parliament. All I am saying is that we sought to bring forward an amendment to deal with that simple problem of bringing Scotland into line with England. I hope, having said all that, that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. I should like to take up the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, about the complexity of this legislation and ask the Minister whether he would say a word about the request that he considers issuing a Keeling schedule. The request came not only from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, but from myself and one or two others. It is extremely complex for anyone to get at the law as it now is. If we had a Keeling schedule it would be easy for anyone to see what the law actually is. It would be at the back of the Bill in a schedule. Would the Minister care to comment on that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, again with the leave of the House—I remind the noble Lord that it is Third Reading—I am sorry that it has not been possible to produce a schedule along the lines that the noble Lord and others requested at an earlier stage. The department will need to write to all independent schools to notify them of the changes which have been agreed under the Bill. I can assure the House that we shall take all necessary steps to draw the provisions to the attention of those affected by them. There are, as I said earlier, commercial publications which produce consolidations of education legislation. The Government's intention, on top of that, is to produce a consolidation Education Act at the first convenient opportunity.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply. There is nothing much more to say except that the Government have left the House with a choice of either the House, the Government and the country being in breach of the United Nations Convention or of accepting my amendment. It is far too late at night to press this matter to a Division but I think that it is rather shameful that we should remain in breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 72:
After Clause 292, insert the following new clause:
Corporal punishment: Scotland
.—(1) Section 48A of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (corporal punishment) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after "pupil" there is inserted "to whom this subsection applies" and after that subsection there is inserted—
"(1A) Where, in any proceedings, it is shown that corporal punishment has been given to a pupil by or on the authority of a member of the staff, giving the punishment cannot be justified if the punishment was inhuman or degrading.
(1B) In determining whether punishment is inhuman or degrading regard shall be had to all the circumstances of the case, including the reason for giving it, how soon after the event it is given, its nature, the manner and circumstances in which it is given, the persons involved and its mental and physical effects."
(3) In subsection (5) for the words preceding paragraph (a) there is substituted "In this section "pupil" means a person for whom education is provided at a school or for whom school education is provided by an education authority otherwise than at a school.
(5A) Subsection (1) above applies to a pupil-"
(4) In subsection (8) (a) for "(5) (a) (iii)" there is substituted "(5A) (a) (iii)".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 72A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 72, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 72 agreed to.
Clause 293 [Provision of goods and services by local education authorities]:
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 180, line 10, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we come again to the question of what goods and services local authorities may supply to grant-maintained schools. We had a long and convoluted debate in Committee on a rather more radical amendment which I had put down on the subject. I think it would help if I summarised the common ground that emerged from it. I will be as short as I can, but it is important, and it is not entirely easy to take short cuts.
The usual interpretation of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 is that it does not allow an authority to retain staff and operate services which go beyond what it requires for the efficient exercise of its own functions. Within that margin (which is not easy to define) it can trade, and will continue to be able
1358
to do so under the Bill which is before us. If it has spare capacity, it can still use this to provide services to anyone; for example, to grant-maintained schools.
While some who had misunderstood the position were reassured to be told this in Committee by the noble Baroness the Minister, because they had feared that Clause 265 (as it then was) would put a stop to all trading with GM schools after two years, most of us, I think, were not reassured. For the problem of the margins of trading remained.
It seemed to us, even after the noble Baroness had expounded at great length on the subject, that as more and more schools opted out, sooner rather than later you would find yourself as an LEA retaining more staff than you needed for your own schools and would be legally obliged to start winding down your services. We are talking here of such things as extra-curricular music, out-of-school drama, the schools library service, outdoor centres, in-service training and advisory work which is so important to professional development, as well as the more central services such as the personnel and legal departments. As these services wind down, the diseconomies of scale will adversely affect not only the GM schools—which., we must remember, are on record as very much wanting to be able to go on buying from LEAs—but the local authority schools as well.
The noble Baroness sought to make a distinction concerning those services which were school-specific, notably the LEAs' advisory service. But it is not only those services which will be affected as schools opt out. If 60 per cent. odd of your local authority payroll are in education, there is no way you will be able to justify to the District Auditor and the courts retaining any significant capacity for the grant-maintained sector once a sizeable chunk of schools has left your control. Education is such a large part of a local authority's manpower that the margins will soon shrink whatever the services you are looking at; the notion that you can hang on to your present capacity until the point when just about all schools have opted out (which is what the noble Baroness seemed to suggest) simply cannot be right.
Interestingly, the thrust of the noble Baroness's counterpart in Committee and on Report in another place was not at all to take the reassuring line that the noble Baroness has done with your Lordships. Mr Forth's approach was not, "Don't worry, it may not happen for ages": it was, "We want to see a profusion of other providers in the marketplace"—and, by implication, as soon as possible. This makes me wonder how much the Government actually believe that the LEAs will be able to go on supplying their services to all-corners.
I will not elaborate on all the arguments we put forward in Committee. Competition is acceptable, but we believe, with the heads of grant-maintained schools, the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations, the Girls' Schools Association and others, that LEAs should be able to join in too. They have their long-established expertise which we know schools want to profit from and, they should not have to break up teams into money-orientated units to

1359
supply it. Children deserve the best, from whatever source, and this should be the overriding consideration.
There may turn out to be a thriving market in school services, including in rural areas where profits will be thin, but, then again, there may not. Schools may or may not be able to band together into co-operatives: my own experience of voluntary co-operation, where the agendas are all slightly different among schools, is not encouraging. Under the guise of a two-year liberalising clause this is at bottom another anti-LEA measure, designed further to break up the local community network of schools.
What we propose in this amendment is very simple: it is to leave out the two-year restriction in Clause 271(4) so that LEAs will not be debarred thereafter from offering their services to anyone who will buy them. Schools want this. The Secretary of State will still have to sanction it (subsection (1)). The geographical limits will remain. If there is to be a marketplace, LEAs will then sink or swim with the rest. Above all, the widest possible choice will remain open to teachers and children. This is how it should be. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I very strongly support the noble Earl in this amendment. The Government claimed that it will be possible for LEAs to arrange for the division of goods and services to grant-maintained schools which wish to buy such through the establishment of arms-length companies in succession to the in-house services provided by local authorities directly. That may be possible in some cases, but none can guarantee that such companies will flourish in the medium to long term. If they fail and a vacuum is left, is it really sensible to legislate in terms which would prevent the local education authority from offering help and support to grant-maintained schools which they repeatedly say very much want to keep these services?
I do not understand what the Government would be losing by accepting this amendment. Nobody can be sure that the private sector will be able to provide the full range of services in all parts of the country two years after the orders are triggered. When one thinks of the library and museum services, the peripatetic music teachers and on, one realises that there are so many services to be provided. Certainly, there are examples of Government action on the basis of promises which have not been delivered as expected.
If the Government were to accept the amendment, future Secretaries of State would be able to discontinue public service provision if they were satisfied that the private sector could provide all that was needed on reasonable terms. That would be a simple matter of unmaking the relevant order, but at this stage, with so many uncertainties ahead, to tie the order-making power in primary legislation to a two-year limit has to be unwise.
I very much hope that the Government can accept the amendment, which does not derail their basic policy but allows the extension of public service
1360
provision in the event that things do not turn out as they currently assume —and they simply cannot be sure that they will turn out like that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the underlying point behind this amendment is exactly the same as the underlying point behind the amendment moved yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. The case for one amendment is as strong as for the other.
Lord Judd: My Lords, this Bill has consistently revealed the Government's contempt for LEAs, their democratic role and the services that they provide. Our amendments endeavour to highlight the value of LEA services, which are often those that the schools would be hard pressed to find in the private sector, but those are precisely the services which the Government seek, through what is now Clause 293, to deny some schools even when those schools wish to continue to purchase them.
Recent evidence of what has happened with the inspectorate eloquently underlines the reality. The responsible private sector is simply not geared to answer many of the educational needs of schools. One trembles at the thought of the irresponsible cowboys who nevertheless may well yet emerge from the wings.
Dogma has repeatedly blinded Ministers to the obvious. Surely the aim of education should be to ensure the broad development of children. Such development must include the opportunity for character-building outdoor activity, sport and creative, artistic and cultural pursuits, of which music is a magnificent example. Services reliably and imaginatively provided specifically for schools by LEAs promote just those objectives. What is more they are cost effective services because they are provided for the majority of schools in the area.
In music, on the basis of the LEA commitment, we should all be proud that our schools lead Europe, if not the world. The anxiety—despair even—at what the Government are about to do cannot be exaggerated. I have received many communications and should like briefly to quote from a letter that I have received from the county of Staffordshire —just one of our counties which is involved in teaching and promoting music in schools. This is what the staff, agonising about the situation, have written to me:
"This appalling prospect could result in the loss not only of instrumental lessons for 10,000 children, but also the disintegration of the Bands, Choirs and Orchestras of the County's nine Music Centres, as well as the six award-winning groups f the County Music School".
The letter concludes:
"At this time of economic turmoil and increasing social deprivation we feel most strongly that the service we provide is of value to the wider community to a degree never before appreciated. To risk losing such an important part of our national cultural heritage for want of a two year limit in this clause is criminal".
The staff say that because, as they state:
"The remaining LEA schools would only be able to support a reduced core service which would not benefit from economies of scale and the GM schools would be prevented from employing the services of a quality institution with fifty years experience of educational provision, having only the private sector, motivated by profit, as an alternative.
Although music is now enshrined in the National Curriculum, it is not widely recognized that instrumental

1361
playing is a vital and integral part of the National Curriculum, GCSE and 'A' level syllabi to make no mention of its social, cultural and aesthetic value. A team of professional teachers and instructors who can deliver such a service takes years to establish and yet could be quickly dissolved".
I am sorry to learn that, evidently, no Minister has been able to accept the invitation to attend the National Festival of Music for Youth this very week across the river at the Royal Festival Hall, where 6,500 young musicians are taking part. Many more have participated in the the preceding 40 regional festivals across the land. Music for Youth is the first to acknowledge the enormous part played by the LEAs, their music advisers and peripatetic music teachers in making all that possible. Does the Minister want to jeopardise all that? Does she not appreciate that the quality of music in individual schools is enhanced by the wider, more challenging opportunities which the LEAs covering a whole range of schools and their talent provide?
Similarly, on outdoor activities, many LEAs have established an outstanding record for imagination, standards, professionalism, and most important, for safety. Indeed, there have been some alarming indications in the past year of what can happen outside the LEA service when the priority of safety begins to slip.
In that sphere, we see once more the depressing dangers and social costs of a government mesmerised by their own dogma to the exclusion of common sense. It would be tragic if invaluable opportunities were denied automatically to some pupils merely because the Government are unwilling to see beyond their ideological antipathy to LEAs and to make the Bill's provisions more flexible.
1.15 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, that we discussed the background to Clause 293 at some length in Committee. I doubt that the House would thank me for going over such well tilled ground again at great length and at such a late hour. The noble Earl might enjoy the experience. Other Members of the House just might consider that it was an example of mental violence and report me to the United Nations Convention on Human Rights. But, more seriously, no new points have been introduced tonight. I therefore rest my case as per the record in Hansard.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am sorry, I did not catch the end of what the Minister said because the Attendant was just speaking to me.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I suggested that no new points had been raised in the debate tonight. So I rest my case as per the record in Hansard.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful for that, and for the noble Baroness's brevity. I certainly would derive no enjoyment from going over it again. We debated it at enormous length in Committee. Clearly at this hour of night and with the present attendance it would be a futile exercise to press this to a Division. Were that not so, I would have no
1362
hesitation in doing so, because it is a matter of great importance. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Clause 295 [Power of Secretary of State to direct appointment of members of committees]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 180, line 20, leave out from ("committees") to ("conferred") in line 21 and insert ("wholly or partly for the purpose of discharging any functions with respect to education").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 76, 77, 92. 99, 100, 101 and 104. When I came before the House on Report, I explained that I intended to introduce an amendment agreed with the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Guildford to Clause 295 on Third Reading. As previously put before the House, Clause 295 gave the Secretary of State power to direct the appointment of members to any committees dealing "exclusively or mainly" with education. That formulation did not achieve the intention of the Government which was, and remains, to provide those who appoint foundation governors for voluntary schools with the same rights as they enjoy currently on existing local authority education committees under the new arrangements made possible through Clause 294 of this Bill. With the freedom authorities will have to discharge their education functions in committees dealing with other matters when the Bill is enacted, it is right that those who appoint foundation governors for voluntary schools, including most particularly the churches, should not be disadvantaged. As the right reverend Prelate will be aware from our discussions, the arrangements safeguarding those interests will be embodied in the direction or directions 'to be made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Your Lordships have my assurance that we will consult fully about the terms of the direction to ensure that it serves the Churches' essential interests, in particular in strategic planning of local school provision.
Clause 295 amended here (together with a number of consequential amendments) has the agreement of the right reverend Prelate and reaffirms the rights to representation and voting which would otherwise be lost to the Churches. I believe that these are helpful amendments which should find support in all corners of the House and I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for these amendments. I should have preferred a different solution but we have discussed the matter fully. I am not dissatisfied with what she has now put before us and I am grateful to her for the time that she has given to this matter.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 296 [Exceptional provision of education in school or elsewhere]:
[Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.]
Clause 299 [Orders, regulations and directions]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 80:

1363
Page 182, line 40, at end insert:
("( ) Before making any regulations under section 55 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) a body appearing to him to be representative of the Church of England,

(b) a body appearing to him to be representative of the Church in Wales, and

(c) a body appearing to him to be representative of the Roman Catholic Church,

in matters relating to the provision of education in grant-maintained schools having foundation governors.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 304 [Index]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 81:
Leave out Clause 304 and insert the following new clause:
Index
(". The expressions listed in the left-hand column below are respectively defined by or (as the case may be) are to be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of this Act listed in the right-hand column in relation to those expressions.

Expression

Relevant provision

admission for nursery education (in Part II)

section 153(5)

admission to school (in Part II)

section 153(6)

alterations

section 303(1)

appropriate appointing authority (in Part V)

section 204(2)

appropriate authority (in Part V)

section 204(2)

appropriate diocesan authority (in relation to a Church of England, Church in Wales or Roman Catholic Church school)

section 303(1)

authority responsible for election arrangements under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (in Chapter V of Part II)

section 79(2)

capital grants

sections 82(1) and 88

the chairmen's panel (in Part III)

section 177(2)

change in character of a school (in Part II)

section 102(1)

character of school (in Part II)

section 153(3)

child (in Part III)

section 154(5)

Church in Wales school

section 303(1)

Church of England school

section 303(1)

contract of employment

section 303(1)

core governor

section 121 and Schedule 8

date of publication of proposals (in Part II)

section 153(7)

date of implementation of proposals for acquisition of grant- maintained status

section 36(2)

date of implementation of proposals for establishment of new grant-maintained school

section 53

dissolution date (in sections 110 to 115)

section 110(6)

education associations

section 218(2)

eligible governor (in Part II)

paragraph 4 of Schedule 7

employed, employee, employer

section 303(1)

employed to work at a school (in Part II)

section 153(9)

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 304 of the Bill lists terms used in the Bill. For each of those terms it specifies the relevant clause which defines the term or which states how the term should be interpreted. Amendment No. 81 simply updates the index to incorporate new terms to be included in the Bill since it was introduced. This is purely a technical amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I think that this is a useful amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, for once I can say that I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
[Amendment No. 81A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 81, not moved.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Distribution of functions where order made under section 11]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 82 to 84:
Page 195, line 9, leave out from ("if") to end of line 17 and insert ("he is provided with board and lodging at the school or otherwise than at school and either—

(a) the school is named in the statement and—

(i) the responsible education authority are satisfied that the necessary special educational provision cannot be provided for him at the school unless the particular board and lodging are also provided, or

(ii) the responsible education authority are satisfied that the necessary special educational provision cannot be provided for him at the school unless board and lodging are also provided and that it is appropriate for him to be provided with the particular board and lodging, or

(b) the school is not named in the statement but the responsible education authority arc satisfied that the necessary special educational provision cannot be provided for him unless board and lodging are also provided and that it is appropriate for him to be provided with the particular board and lodging").

Page 195, line 32, at end insert:
(".—(1) Where a pupil in the area for whom a statement is maintained under section 168 of this Act is attending a maintained or grant-maintained school and is provided with board and lodging at the school or otherwise than at school, then—

(a) where the board and lodging is provided by the responsible education authority, the authority may remit the whole or any part of the charges payable to them under this Schedule in respect of the hoard arid lodging,

(b) where the board and lodging is provided by the funding authority or another local education authority or at a grant-maintained school or a school maintained by another local education authority, the responsible education authority may pay the whole or any part of the charges payable to the funding authority or any local education authority or governing body under this Schedule or the existing charging provisions in respect of the board and lodging, and

(c) in any other case, the responsible education authority may pay to the person providing the board arid lodging the whole or any part of the fees in respect of the board and lodging.

(2) In this paragraph the "responsible education authority", in relation to a pupil, means the local education authority responsible for the pupil for the purposes of Part III of this Act.").
Page 195, line 47, at end insert:
("—(1) Section 193 of this Act shall have effect as if for subsection (5) there were substituted—
"(5) If—

(a) within the period mentioned in subsection (3) above, the parent applies to the funding authority, or the local education authority by whom the notice was served, for education to be provided for the child at a school which is riot a school maintained by a local education authority or a grant-maintained school and, in the case of an application to the funding authority, notifies the local education authority by whom the notice was served of the application,

(b) the child is offered a place at the school, and

(c) either the funding authority are required under paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to this Act to pay the fees payable in respect of the education provided at the school or the local education authority agree to pay the whole of those fees under paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 to this Act,

1367
that school shall be named in the order."
(2) Section 195 of this Act shall have effect as if for subsection (3) there were substituted—
"(3) If at any time—

(a) the parent applies to the funding authority or the local education authority by whom the notice was served for education to be provided for the child at a school which is not a school maintained by a local education authority or a grant-maintained school and is different from the school named in the order,

(b) the child is offered a place at the school,

(c) either the funding authority are required under paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to this Act to pay the fees payable in respect of the education provided at the school or the local education authority agree to pay the whole of those fees under paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 to this Act, and

(d) the parent requests the local education authority to amend the order by substituting that school for the one currently named,

the authority shall comply with the request.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Proposals for schools to become, or be established as, grant-maintained schools]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 85 to 88:
Page 199, line 32, after ("election") insert ("or appointment").
Page 199, line 33, after ("held") insert ("or made").
Page 199, line 39, after ("election") insert ("or appointment").
Page 201, line 22, after ("particulars") insert ("prepared or").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Core governors for groups]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 212, line 7, leave out from ("school") to end of line 12.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 19 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 242, line 33, at end insert:
(". In section 55 (transport), at end of subsection (3) there is added "and to any wish of his parent for him to be provided with education at a school or institution in which the religious education provided is that of the religion or denomination to which his parent adheres"".).
The noble Duke said: My Lords, on Report I brought forward an amendment about school transport. The Government kindly said that they would improve upon it. Now they have brought forward this amendment, which a parliamentary counsel has carefully drafted. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford who has helped a great deal in this matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I accepted in principle the amendment on denominational transport tabled on Report by my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. I looked forward to accepting a new amendment on Third Reading provided that parliamentary counsel approved it. I am happy to say that this amendment has that approval and that the Government are prepared to accept it without further ado.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before the Minister sits down will she repeat what she said on Report, that nothing in the amendment increases
1368
expenditure? If the amendment is accepted by the Government —as indeed it has been—and it has no effect on expenditure, why is it necessary to make this change to the Bill? Why is it a consequential provision; in other words, why is it in Schedule 19?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk is that the policy should not change. The situation will stand and local authorities will have to think carefully if they wish to implement any change in policy. However, there is nothing in this amendment which requires increased expenditure on the part of local authorities over and above that which they would incur anyway.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 91 and 92:
Page 246, line 8, at end insert:
("The Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (c. 42)
. At the end of Schedule 1 to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (enactment conferring functions assigned to social service committee) there is added—

"Education Act 1993.

Help for local education authority in exercising functions under Part III of the Act.

Section [Duty of District Health Authority or local authority to help local education authority.]" ")

Page 246, line 36, leave out from ("substituted") to ("conferred") in line 37 and insert (""wholly or partly for the purpose of discharging any functions with respect to education").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 93 and 94:
Page 251, line 4, leave out (' 8, 11, 12, 13") and insert ("8(1) and (2) (b) and (d), 11, 12").
Page 252, line 6, at end insert:
("and that section shall have effect as if the transfer of a school to a new site in pursuance of section 16(1A) (c) of the Education Act 1980 were an alteration of a kind mentioned in subsection (5) of that section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 102 and 103. The amendments in this group are technical amendments. Perhaps I may first address Amendment No. 93. As currently drafted, Schedule 19 provides for all of paragraphs 8 and 13 of Schedule 3 to the Education Act 1981 to be saved from repeal. However, paragraphs 8(2) (a) and (c) and paragraph 13 are now spent. Amendment No. 93 therefore repeals those paragraphs.
I turn to Amendment No. 94. Section 16 of the 1980 Act is amended by the Bill to include a new provision to enable LEAs to transfer county schools to new sites where certain conditions apply without the need first to publish statutory proposals. The amendment secures that the requirement to review grouping arrangements applies whenever an LEA-maintained school transfers to a different site under the new provisions.
Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 are technical amendments which bring the arrangements for charging for copies of the inspection report on a school's denominational religious education or

1369
worship made under Section 13 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 into line with those which apply to the report by the registered inspector under Section 9 of the 1992 Act. 1 beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 252, line 31, at end insert:
(". In section 22 (discipline), in paragraph (a) (ii) after "behaviour" there is inserted "and respect for others".")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 97 to 103:
Page 258, line 1, at end insert:
(". Section 27(4) of the Children Act 1989 (duty of local authority to assist local education authority) is omitted.").
Page 258, line 2, leave out ("the Children Act 1989") and insert ("that Act").
Page 258, line 39, leave out from ("authority") to ("conferred") in line 41 and insert ("wholly or partly for the purpose of discharging any functions with respect to education").
Page 258, line 44, leave out from ("authorities") to ("conferred") in line 46 and insert ("wholly or partly for the purpose of discharging any functions with respect to education").
Page 258, line 49, leave out from ("committee") to ("that") in line 50 and insert ("wholly or partly for the purpose of discharging any of").
Page 265, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) In paragraph 14(4)—

(a) in paragraph (b), for "the prescribed fee" there is substituted "such fee as they think fit (not exceeding the cost of supply)", and

(b) in paragraph (c), after "education" there is inserted "or, as the case may be, who takes part in acts of collective worship the content of which falls to be inspected under section 13".").

Page 265, line 42, leave out ("paragraphs 14(4) (c) and 15(3)") and insert ("paragraph 15(3)—

(a) in paragraph (b), for "the prescribed fee" there is substituted "such fee as they think fit (not exceeding the cost of supply)", and

(b) in paragraph").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 20 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 267, line 20, leave out from ("appointed") to ("conferred") in line 21 and insert ("wholly or partly for the purpose of discharging any functions with respect to education").
On Question, amendment agreed to. Schedule 21 [Repeals]:
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 273, column 3, line 21, at beginning insert:
("Section 27(4).")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. At the Second Reading of this Bill, I had two key messages I wished to convey to your Lordships. The first of those was the importance of the Bill's provisions and the second the importance that I, personally, attach to the role of this House as a scrutinising Chamber.
1370
Your Lordships have devoted over 100 hours to consideration of this Bill. In the traditions of this House, it has been much amended as a result of your deliberations. Many of the government amendments have been tabled in response to anxieties raised by noble Lords in debate, and I pay tribute to your Lordships' powers of scrutiny.
To give an example, we have amended the Bill to meet anxiety expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford that Church schools—whether voluntary or self-governing—should continue to prosper, and to have the full support of the Church education authorities. The right reverend Prelate said on Second Reading that the Church of England jury was still out pending the extent of clarification and assurance offered by the Government. Well, my contention is that we have now met all the significant concerns of the right reverend Prelate and, I hope, of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk.
My noble friends Lord Skidelsky arid Lady Cox have removed a barrier to the early establishment of new GM schools by independent promoters.
The Government have also of their own accord brought forward new provisions. The most important of these relate to the exceptional provision of education in school or elsewhere. 'Those were introduced in your Lordships' House, but they reflected the promise in the White Paper to replace LEAs' existing powers to provide education otherwise than at school. That reflects the importance we attached to securing soundly based arrangements for a vulnerable group of pupils.
This Bill, of course, has been distinguished by its examination by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships' House under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Rippon. It was the first Bill so examined. As a result of the committee's report on the Bill, we have made further amendments. We have provided for regulations governing the publication of proposals for GM status to be subject to the affirmative, rather than the negative, procedure. We have—and I know that this has been particularly welcomed in this House—provided that the code of practice on special educational needs should be subject to the affirmative procedure not only when it is introduced but also, subsequently, when it is amended. I have no doubt that there is a great deal more that one could say, but the hour is late. I am sure that all noble Lords will find the scrutiny committee's study of Bills a valuable contribution to the work of the House. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Judd: My Lords, as at our accustomed hour we come to the final stages of our marathon session together on this Bill, I wish that I could bring myself to wish it well. I cannot and it would be making a joke of our proceedings to pretend that I do. I hope that the amendments which we are sending to the Commons will at least help to balance a few of its worst excesses.
I am glad that this House has put LEAs back at the centre of the stage with key responsibility for strategic

1371
planning of all nursery, primary and secondary education in their areas. I am delighted that we have insisted that nursery education should be available for all children with special educational needs; and even more so that the Secretary of State should review after three years the need to make provision for all children whose parents desire it. I am heartened that the arrangements for overseeing the provision of special educational needs in general have been strengthened. It is also good that we have proposed that the Church, with its rich wealth of experience and commitment in education, should be consulted more fully.
Over the many hours of days and nights that we have debated together, I have honestly come greatly to respect the candour, the stamina, the sincerity and the commitment of the Minister. Her mastery of her brief and of detail is formidable. I wish that we were on the same side; she would make a powerful ally. The sadness—and I really mean it—is that, with all those outstanding qualities, her policy is so wrong. In thanking her for the unstinting way in which she has responded to all the points raised, I must also thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley. He is an accomplished performer at the Dispatch Box. His courtesy and friendliness, even at impossible hours, have been something quite special.
I must also express real gratitude to those who chaired our proceedings—to all the Government Whips, led by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, the Clerks, the civil servants, the Hansard staff, and officials and servants of the House who have made our work possible, on occasion almost until dawn.
On our side, it is invidious to name names. So many people have helped. The degree of sustained interest by professional, educational, parent, governor and local authority organisations has been a tremendous encouragement. I thank them all. I especially thank the AMA for its tireless staff work, the NUT, the ATL, the ACC and all the others. Perhaps I may make special mention of just a few noble friends. I start with my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. He has been a pillar of effective support, good humour and sound advice —constantly telling me when to get up and when to sit down. Then there are my noble friends Lady Blackstone and Lord Peston, with their specialist knowledge and expertise, together with my noble friend Lady David, with her deep commitment to special needs, unstintingly made available despite her sad bereavement earlier in the summer. We congratulate her especially on her amendments; she obviously has the knack.
I should also like to mention my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington who, again with rich experience, has seldom missed a clause, and my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington, with his commitment to the young in hospital. I must also express my thanks to all those noble friends who contributed from time to time. Katherine Quarmby, in the Labour Front Bench research office, has done wonders. Finally, I would mention our own Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Graham, and his colleagues who have attended us so well. They deserve a special tribute.
1372
Elsewhere in the House, all those have have participated should be commended. I particularly appreciated the wisdom of our Liberal colleagues. That was a good experience. I also appreciated the wisdom of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, among others. Altogether, it has been an interesting, if too often frustrating, parliamentary occasion and an unforgettable learning experience for me personally as a relatively new Member of the House.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, sagely underlined the need for long-term education policy to be based upon consensus. He is right. The greatest possible sense of ownership among all concerned— parents, governors, teachers, teacher trainers, lecturers, pupils, educational administrators, inspectors, LEA members and more—is essential.
It is a source of deep concern that there has been a manifest failure to generate any such consensus for the currently proposed legislation. The inexcusable rush on the White Paper last year—with most of the time for consultation falling in the school summer holidays; the use of the guillotine in the House of Commons; the mass of late and hastily tabled government amendments (more than 800 in total) right up to the bitter end of our repeatedly late night proceedings in the House, have all served to accentuate the anxiety.
Many of us are saddened by the social divisiveness of bringing the market ethos into the heart of education, encouraging competition for the easiest pupils while the rest go to the wall, and inevitably demoralising many of the most dedicated teachers working in the most demanding and difficult circumstances.
We are perturbed by the demeaning of education by what in all honesty we fear is the undermining still further of any appreciation of education's own inherent value in a civilised society, and by the way it is increasingly presented as no more than a means to material ends. Those material ends are denied to many of our young in this age of large scale unemployment. We are apprehensive about a "Brave New World" nightmare of quantitative preoccupations to the exclusion of qualitative concerns, knowing—as it has been put—the price of everything and the value of little. It was B. F. Skinner who earlier this century made the point so well when he said:
"Education is what survives when what has been learnt has been forgotten".
There is altogether too much intolerable stress for teachers caused by the cumulative pressures to administer education as distinct from teaching in the classroom. Uncertainty and instability add to that stress and I sense deep misgivings about the unacceptability of a war of attrition with compulsory annual consideration of ballots, if so instructed by the Secretary of State, accompanied by financial inducements, even if all too short lived, to wear down governing bodies into accepting grant-maintained status.

1373
Paradoxically, there is also a real danger that "down the line" grant-maintained schools will find themselves to be increasingly vulnerable small fish in a huge impersonal pond with little muscle to deal with central government. In this respect we should note the nonsense already evident in the budget arrangements for grant-maintained schools this year. These are but some of the genuine criticisms of current education policy and the Bill which remain as strong as ever as it leaves this House and which I just hope the Minister will come to respect.
Perhaps, however, I could conclude with some of the real priorities for education as we see them on this side of the House—priorities which sadly and worryingly have been badly neglected in this Bill, despite being repeatedly claimed by the Government as a blueprint for education in the quarter century ahead.
First, there is the need to enhance the status and self-respect of the teaching profession, as in Scotland, arid to encourage it to play a self-confident, positive arid dynamic part in the development of education policy including, of course, regulations covering admission to the profession and the principles governing training. That is why there is such an urgent need for a general teaching council, as increasingly advocated on all sides of this House.
Secondly, there is the vital priority of nursery education for all parents who want it. This is probably the single most important and cost-effective contribution that can be made to the successful education of our children and to the full realisation of their potential. All the evidence indicates that it will pay for itself within a few years by enhanced talents, a strengthened national economy, greater social stability and less delinquency.
Thirdly, we need testing and assessment which is relevant and school based and which teachers can use flexibly in the context of their creative approach to education—that is, as teachers in the fullest sense, not as classroom technicians—and which measures progress in the development of the child, not least in character and personality. Again, the Scottish model and experience are highly relevant.
Fourthly, we need to understand the significance of education as a preparation for understanding and shouldering the demands and responsibilities of citizenship in an open democracy and as a means of ensuring that rights are fully understood. Fifthly, we should enable pupils on a cross-curricular basis to understand the reality of global interdependence and their place within international society. Sixthly, education should prepare children for the challenge of living in a multiracial society; for example, by understanding religion and religious values rather than being indoctrinated with a particular set of religious beliefs. That is the difference between religious education and teaching religion.
Seventhly, in an age of ruthless commercialisation and exploitation of sex through advertising, videos, television and the rest, education should support children from their earliest years with reliable information about it in the context of social responsibility and respect for others. As we heard
1374
tonight, HIV and AIDS have only served to underline the importance of this. Eighthly, we should make the school a dynamic centre of community life—not least in music, the arts and outdoor activities, for which the local authority should have a continuing support role.
Ninthly, above all, we should enable schools and education to play a lead role in rebuilding a sense of real community and belonging; in other words, of social cohesion. That is an approach to education which recognises the responsibilities of local communities for their children and of children towards their communities, and the indispensability of partnership between local community and Whitehall and hence the key role of the LEA Surely that is particularly obvious at a time when we have just seen the grim consequences of over-centralisation in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
Finally, as the Rev. Dr. Kenneth Wilson, Principal of Westminster College, the education college in Oxford with which I, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, am proud to be associated, recently put it:
"By attending to these three fundamental concerns of self-knowledge, mutual understanding and the nature of the human, there is encouraged the search for justice, truth and beauty. And any education system worth its salt will want to encourage that".
He went on to call for an educational system which enables individuals to contribute, through remunerative employment, to the well-being of society and, equally, promotes the personal capacities of individuals to make and sustain personal relationships through loyalty, courage, affection and mutual concern. He concluded:
"We want an education system which encourages the establishing and sustaining of open, creative, ambitious, critical but supportive communities—international, national and local—both responsive and responsible, which enable the human being to flourish in society".
I settle for that. The sooner we have a Bill which is designed to provide it, the happier I shall be. There is no higher priority. As H.G. Wells so powerfully perceived:
"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe".
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Baroness very warmly. First, I should like to thank her for the incredible endurance she has shown during the progress of the Bill. I take my hat off to her. I should like to thank her for her care, her persistence, her total integrity at every stage, for her skills as a negotiator—manifest in the university amendment, for which I feel particular gratitude—and for arguing her case with as much determination as I do myself. I know where I am with her.
I should like to join the Minister in thanks to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which I believe has done a great deal of good. I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in wishing well to the amendments which have been carried in the Division Lobby. I should also like to join him in our thanks to the servants of the House, and I am sorry that we have kept them out of bed as long as we have.
I should like to thank the noble Lord for his compliments and to reciprocate them. I shall not follow him in extending thanks to other noble Lords

1375
because we would be here all night as I feel gratitude to so many. I should like to mention the work done by Anton Obholzer in our Whips Office, which has been most valuable.
One cannot touch on the Bill without reflecting on the length of time it has taken. I am beginning to think that under this Government education Bills are becoming a cruel and usual punishment. It is perhaps an occasion for remembering the advice given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, that all governments attempt to legislate too much. It is no good saying, "Please, my Lords, it wasn't me". For any part of that length of time which is my fault I apologise to the House. Next time I shall reflect whether we need to table as many amendments as we have. However, I do not believe that that is the only reason.
When one has within one Bill education, religion, sex, violence and special needs it is perhaps inevitable that time will be taken up. It is also worth looking at today's Marshalled List. We had 106 amendments, of which 71 were government amendments. I appreciate that many of those amendments have been concessions and are to be welcomed. A government amendment that is needed is better late than never and one should never say anything which discourages governments from acting on that assumption. But I remember at this stage the point that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has made on many occasions, that a large part of' the consultation process for this Bill was during the school holidays. Listening, for example, to the exchanges between the Minister and the right reverend Prelate, I wondered many times whether what should have been the consultation process has been going on in this Chamber. I think we have done it rather well, but it takes a great deal of everyone's time. I hope that next time we shall have a consultation process which is not confined to the summer holiday and which deals with a number of the matters before they reach the Chamber.
I had not realised before I came here quite how much Parliament is a long-stop in the legislative process. If the long-stop is getting overworked, you do not change it, you change the wicket-keeper and, in extreme cases, the bowler also. Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I am afraid that I cannot speak of the Bill with warmth. The speech which has been in my mind all through the Bill is one delivered in 1989 by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, speaking on the health service White Paper. She said that she feared that the approach would lead to the fragmentation of the service. That is a fear which runs all through government policies for the public services.
I have been reminded many times also of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, last week, moving an amendment to deal with a situation where people run trains, partly over franchised lines and partly over exempt lines on two completely different terms of operation. What I have described as the Balkanisation of the local education service carries some of the same dangers and is the fruit of some of the same policies.
1376
Public services are like dogs. They behave well for those who like them. At the moment, I fear, our public services are dogs in the hands of cat lovers.
1.45 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, this is becoming a little like an end-of-term speech day and I apologise for adding yet further speeches. I ought to say that when I celebrated the end of term, I normally did it by going to the Lamb and Flag. However, I fear that that will long have been closed.
I must put on record the gratitude of the Churches to the Government. Over the past 12 months we have expressed our interests and concerns on matters varying from property provisions and trust funds through to the clustering of small village schools. In almost every case, the Government have listened, discussed and responded positively, as we have worked to secure the continuing partnership between Church and state in education.
I wish to thank the Secretary of State, the Minister and her officials for their courtesy and patience. At times, I have to say that there has been long, tough, blunt talk. I am even on record as having shocked the Minister, but I do not detect that she has had any difficulty in responding with equal firmness to what I had to say. Whatever our disagreements have been and however vigorously they have been expressed, I place on record our considerable gratitude. The way in which the Government have met our anxieties has, I think, done a great deal to secure the partnership between Church and state in education for the years ahead.
I had other comments I should have liked to make, but I wish to restrict myself to one. That is to reflect not so much on the Bill, but, following what the noble Earl said, more about our legislative process.
I am patently not a politician and I sit to one side of both Government and Opposition. Having sat through the long hours into the small hours, I wish I were able to say that whatever the outcome of our debates, at least the processes of legislating are exemplary. But I honestly cannot say that. The Bill will have been put through within 12 months from White Paper to Royal Assent. There was no prior consultation, the Standing Committee in another place, I have to say, hardly did justice to the educational issues in the Bill. We have sat here repeatedly into the small hours of the morning when we have been too weary to give of our best. Negotiations with the Minister and the department have often been compressed into periods too condensed for considered thought. At times we have had to complain that basic communication has not been achieved. Some decisions, I have to say, have been secured as much by party ambush as by reasoned argument.
What is remarkable in all this is that so many people have worked for so long with such skill, stamina and dexterity. I particularly admire those qualities in the noble Baroness the Minister. But it is not a process which leaves me free to turn to Church or nation and say: "We have made some good, some bad decisions, but at least we have given adequate

1377
time and thought and hammered out the best solutions which human minds can manage". The truth, I fear, is that we have hustled it. I have often been more aware of rush than reason, and of weariness than wisdom.
I have to say that. But none of these laconic remarks—occasioned perhaps it being so late in the day, or the night, or the morning; I cannot even work out where we are —must be allowed to detract from my great sense of privilege in having been able to take part in these proceedings, my admiration for those who have given long hours to the work, and the impressive mastery of detail—if I am allowed to use such a sexist phrase—by the noble Baroness the Minister and her colleague. It is on that note of appreciation rather than on any words of criticism that II wish to conclude.
1.55 a.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, we have had a long haul and I too shall cut short what I was going to say. It seems an age now since a flock of Vice-Chancellors wheeled, settled briefly on Clause 1, then flew away to their higher nesting-places. What have we achieved?
I looked back at the closing stages of the Education (Schools) Bill, just over a year ago, and saw that at that time I expressed a hope that we might see a period when educational change was kept to a minimum; when future governments would see the virtue of working with the educational profession and not against it, because only in that way would we see real improvements made. Well, whatever has been achieved in recent months, it is not that. And more is the pity.
We have seen, with this Bill, despite the welcome changes that your Lordships have made to it, a consolidation of the swing of the educational-political pendulum. We now have the authoritarian model with a vengeance. The Government are perfectly right to claim that they have devolved greater power down to school level. But that is only part of the picture. What they are oddly reluctant to concede is that many more powers have gone to the political centre. And that, in a democracy, is deeply disturbing.
All was not perfect when the pendulum was at the other extreme. That was in the days when I went through teacher-training. I was enthused then by a vision of education for which the present Government seem to have no place. It was a vision that was sadly never fully part of the public domain, and so it has too few advocates outside the profession now. But with it there did go a lack of rigour that made me uncomfortable as a classroom teacher. The rigour needs to come back. But the vision needs to stay.
It is no solution to make LEAs the scapegoat for the perceived failings of a system which could have done better, but has not done all that badly in the face of considerable difficulties, which include some 13 years of constant upheaval. I will say no more about the abandonment of so much professional expertise and of the concept of a community of schools, because I have said it all before. It is very sad. Since 1988 the Government have been preoccupied with changing the
1378
system: an approach which looks good politically, which is as old as the Romans, and which is largely irrelevant to the needs of the service. Not all the reforms are bad of course. But the emphasis on the big stick approach, and the lack of consultation, fly in the face of the evidence that we do have about what makes for successful change. That, put briefly, is a matter of shared aspirations and professional autonomy. Above all, the swing of the pendulum will make it that much harder to arrive at the kind of consensus, a marriage of vision with rigour, which offers the best prospect for real educational gain in this or any other country. I fear it may prompt yet another swing when the present Government lose power.
We have had many strenuous debates, some of the very highest quality, and it has been a privilege to be able to take part. I too have been filled with admiration for the skill and stamina of the main participants: the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for his passion and his grasp of the big issues, with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the rest of his very effective and experienced team behind him; the Liberal Democrats for their galaxy of debating talent, among which it was a pleasure to hear again the distinguished voice of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams; my noble friend Lady Warnock, who sadly is not in her place, for her persistent pursuit of justice and common sense; the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, for his coolness and wisdom; and above all the noble Baroness the Minister, whose quickwittedness, candour and encyclopaedic knowledge of her subject have made her, with able assistance from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, an almost faultless performer at the Dispatch Box. As an afterthought, it is a sadness to me, and perhaps symbolic of our attitude to education, that in contrast to the university sector almost nobody from the whole vast area of schools —24,000 of them—finds their way on merit into your Lordships' House. That might be something for a future government to ponder, since it would undoubtedly raise the quality of informed debate to an even higher level.
Baroness David: My Lords, I do not want to talk about the content of the Bill. I want to say something about my dismay and disapproval of the way in which the Bill has been presented to Parliament and the conduct of its passage through this House, which I feel has been a disgrace. I follow up what the right reverend Prelate said.
First, I should like to remind the House that the 1944 Act, the seminal Act which has stood up for 50 years, had 122 clauses and nine schedules. This Bill., for a start, is longer than any previous Bill. It has become longer with every stage that it has gone through. I believe that it started ill thought-out and badly drafted.
When it first appeared in another place, the Bill had 255 clauses and 17 schedules. In Committee 27:3 government amendments were made to it; on Report, 78 amendments. So when it arrived here it had 276 clauses and 18 schedules. In this Chamber there have been 256 government amendments in Committee; 296 on Report and a further 71 today—878 government amendments in all. It is building the Bill on the Floor

1379
of the House. Admittedly, some amendments have been made in response to commitments made, but the majority have been corrections to drafting, second thoughts or bright ideas that have come to the Secretary of State or the department during the passage of the Bill, the most infamous of which was bringing in the universities in Clause Zero at Report stage in another place. We can congratulate ourselves, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on dealing with that as it deserved.
It is not only the insult of having such an untidy and ill prepared Bill presented to us; it is the conduct of the Bill in this House about which I want to complain. The six Committee days originally planned were quite inadequate. Even with a seventh day, sessions ended up in the small hours. It was the same at Report. To allocate only three days, with all that was left over from Committee, together with many new matters brought in, was ridiculous. We finished two successive Monday sittings at 3.15 a.m. and 3.45 a.m. on the Tuesday. We are supposed to be a revising Chamber, as the Minister said. But how can Members, many elderly, be expected to sit up and listen intelligently to arguments in the early hours of the morning? It is no way to legislate about so important a matter as the education of our country's children.
I believe that the result of that method of forcing the Bill through has been counter-productive. People moved their amendments briefly, not putting their arguments fully out of consideration for those brave enough to stay, because they wanted to hear the Minister's replies. Those replies have been of great length and delivered at great speed. So the inevitable happens. The amendment is withdrawn in order for the mover to be able to read and understand the reply and it is then brought back at the next stage. So the forced long hours just do not save time. I certainly intend to ask the Procedure Committee to look at what I believe are abuses of the rights of Members to discuss and give proper consideration to the Bill. We cannot have a repetition of that; I consider it to be grossly unfair to the staff of the House, and it is so unnecessary. We have not sat on Fridays until this week, and debates on Wednesdays could have stopped sooner. Contrast the treatment of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill: that was a Bill of just seven clauses, not 300; it had six days allotted to it in Committee, three for Report, and each day ended at 11 p.m. There seems no equity in that.
We have had 15 education Acts since this Government came to power, and this is the 6th—an average of more than one a year and I am not including Scotland. That large number shows uncertain judgment on the part of Ministers and a total lack of overall vision and intent. I have twice asked whether the Government intend to consolidate the education Acts and have been told that they will, but it has not happened. Consolidation might help the Government to see rather more clearly where they are going, and it would be a good tidying-up job.
The ideology of market forces and hatred of local government colours everything. That is the so-called philosophy behind these Acts. The 1988 Act was
1380
supposed to be definitive. After four years, the criticisms we made on this side of the use—the national curriculum was too prescriptive and the plans for assessment and testing were too complicated and demanding on teachers to work—have been proved right. The result has been disruption and turmoil in schools, so unfair to pupils who only have one school life.
The Secretary of State succeeded in alienating teachers, local authorities, councillors, governors and now parents—the very people about whom he says he is most concerned. Why he remains in his post is a mystery to me.
I suppose I must end on a more conciliatory note. I have the greatest admiration for the stamina of the Minister and her mastery of her brief, which we have all admired. She has shown great ability. I do not know how she managed to stand up to the demands made on her. I thank her for the opportunities she gave to Peers to meet her and discuss points that they raised. Those meetings proved extremely helpful. One wonders whether, if the drafting and meaning of the Bill had been clearer, so many of the misunderstandings which had to be cleared up would have occurred.
I pay tribute also to the other Front Benchers and noble Lords and Baronesses who have endured these long nights and days. I believe that Part III of the Bill has been improved in the course of the discussions. With my interest in special needs, I am extremely grateful for that.
2 a.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise briefly to say thank you to the Minister for something mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady David; that is, the improvements for special needs. I believe in this Bill the Government have taken the opportunity to bring an end to the process of putting in place the special needs structure, the counselling and requirements. Whatever else is wrong with the Bill, that is certainly a great improvement. I thank the Government, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this debate, in the final stages of the Bill, matched our earlier proceedings, if not in length, certainly in vigour and strength of feeling.
I am proud to have played a part in the evolution of the Bill. The importance of the Bill to this House is perhaps best reflected in the number of noble Lords who have contributed to our proceedings. At over 120 I cannot thank them all by name, but by their contribution this Bill has been tested and shaped.
I have been fortunate in the support that I have enjoyed. My noble friend Lord Henley made an enormous contribution. He had to master education briefs at the same time as continuing his responsibilities as a Minister in another department. As though that were not enough, he is also making a contribution to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and I thank him warmly for his support.
My noble friend Lord St. Davids ensured that the interests of the principality have been well served. I thank also my noble friend Lord Astor and his

1381
colleagues from the Whips Office who have supported me on this Bench. I cannot thank all those people enough for the hours that they have spent overseeing the smooth passage of the Bill.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who has done much to ensure that our time on the Bill has been well organised and used to good effect. I must admit that I found him somewhat fearsome at the outset of the Bill, but I thank him for his good humour, courtesy and friendliness, both on and off stage.
I believe that this is the first Bill on which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has served on the Opposition Front Bench. I pay sincere tribute to his effectiveness and constant good humour. It has been a sterling effort for a first Bill. If I look back at the time when I entered the House, there is no way in which I could have performed so formidably. It has been superb. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, has, sadly, been unable to be with us for much of the Bill. His absence has been a sad loss to us all. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, even with some of her difficulties during the course of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have proved more than worthy substitutes, particularly as they have all been involved with other parliamentary business. I express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who has brought her great experience to bear on our proceedings. I know that we shall enjoy a great deal more of her expertise as the weeks and months roll on.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk have represented the interests of Church schools courteously and with determination. I say "with determination" with feeling. I remain to this day embarrassed about my own intemperate outburst to the right reverend Prelate. However, I believe that in the end peace broke out and I thank him most warmly for that. My noble friend the Duke of Norfolk has displayed extraordinary patience. Time and again he suffered the frustration of having his name appended to the last amendment of the day. In his absence, as he is not in his place, I thank him most warmly too.
On special needs, there are too many noble Lords to mention. However, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, on whose Private Member's Bill Part III of the. Bill was drafted, proved a great strength to me during our proceedings—perhaps just a little too strong on one occasion when he carried the whole of the House in another Lobby against the Government. All of us would have to say how grateful we were for the expertise and experience brought to bear by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, who is not in her seat. Not only were we able to update her 1981 Act, which made such an impact in the early part of the 1980s, but we have kept the best parts of it and built upon it. I believe that special needs provision will be improved as a result. We thank the noble Baroness in her absence.
I thank my noble friend Lord Renton, who made so many wise interventions. He has an impressive record in the House both for his contributions to our proceedings and for his staying power. I thank my noble friend Lord Elton, with his experience and his
1382
concern for the pastoral care of young people, and all noble Lords who have been concerned about special educational needs provision. I include my noble friend Lady Faithfull, whom we congratulate today. She is absent from our House in order to be honoured elsewhere. I thank my noble friends Lord Pearson., Lady Carnegy, Lord Renfrew, Lord Lucas, Lord Rennell, and Lady Young, on whom I have always looked as something of a. mentor in these matters. I also thank my noble friend Lady Perry, who today says goodbye to her post as chancellor of her university, and my noble friend Lady 13rigstocke, who has paid great service to the concerns that head teachers have. I believe that the Bill serves their needs rather better now. I thank my noble friends Lord Skidelsky and Lady Cox who together pressed me to improve the Bill in parts.
It is fair to say that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, and I have had our differences along the way but our debate has always been candid both on and off stage and I hope that it was always courteous. I thank him very much for his friendship both in and out of the Chamber. The noble Baroness, Lady David, has always been most constructive, and I thank her too. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and Lady Masham, with their great interest in special needs, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who has been most diligent in following the workings of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who is not in his seat. He has brought his experience to bear on the Bill. I thank my noble friend Lord Peyton, who has given me not the easiest of times on the Bill, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. It was a very eleventh-hour resolution of the issue in which they had an interest, but I thank them for their persistence, their courtesy and always their constructive discussion.
We started at Clause 1 of the Bill and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was right to remind us. of that. There was no malicious intent to impact on the higher education sector and I hope that the noble Earl will accept that. I was grateful for the persistence, collaboration and co-operation of the House in making sure that we put beyond doubt that this 13ill did not impact on the higher education sector.
I owe my own private office a debt of thanks. I am not the easiest person to work for and I thank them for their patience. My officials have given me outstanding service and I thank them most warmly for that. They have also seen many Members of the House during the passage of this Bill. On behalf of noble Lords who have been to my department meeting my officials, I thank my officials again for their constructive help, because many of the changes have been made with their help.
I do not know where or who he is; he is out there somewhere. He is called "Parliamentary Counsel". suspect that he is probably chewing his nails at this moment. We have given him a jolly difficult time. But, with great temerity and not a little courage. I said a long time ago that I would fight counsel if I could and with the support of Members of this House. I have done it and we have won on many occasions. But I

1383
suspect that I shall have some bridges to mend between now and meeting him face to face, when I shall be able to thank him personally.
I thank the Chief Whip, the Leader of the House, the doorkeepers, who have been enormously courteous and patient and, of course, the staff of the House. There are also many other noble Lords whom I have not mentioned specifically who all added greatly to our debates and I do include them in my thanks.
I shall end by quoting my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in his final comment to the White Paper. He said:
"The education system of the 2Ist century will be neither divisive nor based on some lowest common denominator. Diversity, choice and excellence will be its hallmarks, with
1384
each child having an opportunity to realise his or her potential, liberating and developing his or her talents. That is the Government's vision for education in this country"—
and of course I include Wales—
"This White Paper is another important step towards its realisation".
This Bill takes us a further step on that road. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Harris Tweed Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past two o'clock.

  NIGHT FLYING AT LONDON AIRPORTS: CONTROLS
  NIGHT FLYING AT LONDON AIRPORTS: CONTROLS

  LOCAL SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMITTEES
  Lord Trefgarne
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  LOCAL SEARCH AND RESCUE COMMITTEES
  M.25 AND M.4 IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES: RESPONSE TO SACTRA REPORT
  M.25 AND M.4 IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES: RESPONSE TO SACTRA REPORT
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE: ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE: ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT
  CROWN ESTATE COMMISSIONERS AND COASTAL NETTING, SCOTLAND
  CROWN ESTATE COMMISSIONERS AND COASTAL NETTING, SCOTLAND
  A.9 PERTH TO PITLOCHRY ROAD: ACCI DENTS
  A.9 PERTH TO PITLOCHRY ROAD: ACCI DENTS
  STUDENTS AND HOUSING BENEFIT
  STUDENTS AND HOUSING BENEFIT
  NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY: INTERPRETATION
  NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY: INTERPRETATION
  DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE: PERCENTAGE OF GNP
  DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE: PERCENTAGE OF GNP
  ROYAL PARKS AUTHORITIES AND PLANNING LAW
  ROYAL PARKS AUTHORITIES AND PLANNING LAW
  HYDE PARK: CAR PARKING
  HYDE PARK: CAR PARKING
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UK SUBVENTION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UK SUBVENTION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES