Sitting of 10 June 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

      WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time on Thursday 17 June.

      BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
      Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time. Debate to be resumed on Thursday 17 June.
    CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords] (By Order)

      LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time on Thursday 17 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Integrated Administration and Control System
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a further statement on the working of the IACS scheme.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): Some 157,000 applications were received in the United Kingdom by the 15 May deadline. The applications are now being checked to determine eligibility for aid.
    Mr. Hunter: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to her new responsibilities. My question related overtly and covertly to the crushing burden of bureacracy which is gradually suffocating and strangling United Kingdom agriculture. During what I hope will be a long, happy and successful term for my right hon. Friend as Minister, will she make it a priority to deal with that dire problem?
    Mrs. Shephard: I assure my hon. Friend that I will certainly make dealing with that burden a priority during my time at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, however long or short that may be. I am aware that the completion of the integrated administration and control system forms has been a burden for farmers, although they are aware that completing the forms will bring them £1 billion of aid this year. We have received
    418
    congratulations from the National Farmers Union on behalf of farmers for the help and advice that have been administered through our regional offices.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: I also welcome the Minister to her new position in the Government. Does she agree that there has been a good response from the farmers in the United Kingdom? Can she give us an idea of what the response has been elsewhere in the European Community? Is it on a par with the response in the United Kingdom?
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome. I agree that there has been a good and responsible response from our farmers. I am not yet in a position to say exactly how the farmers in the rest of the EC have responded. I shall be able to do so after Monday, when I shall be attending my first Agriculture Council, at which I shall be able to take soundings.
    Mr. Lord: I also welcome my right hon. Friend to her position. There will be no shortage of support from the Conservative Benches for her in her battles against any Euro-nonsense. In the kindest possible way, may I put her on notice that those of us who represent agricultural constituencies will, in time, want clear evidence that farmers in the other 11 countries have had to cope with their problems in the same way as ours have had to do?
    Mrs. Shephard: After thanking my hon. Friend for his welcome, perhaps I may reassure him that one of the first things that I did was to look at the forms that other member states are asking their farmers to complete. They make interesting reading—the German form is thorough and the French form is fearsome; there are appropriate comparisons across the Community. What matters is the way in which the forms are completed and enforcement is carried out.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: I also welcome the Minister to her new brief. What percentage of those forms have contained mistakes? Will her Department be as flexible as possible in dealing with any errors that become obvious to the civil servants?
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. It is too early to say how many incomplete or erroneous forms we have received. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not want to penalise simple mistakes. Farmers must correct their errors before we spot them, but we shall he as flexible as possible.

    Cow and Ewe Premiums
    Mr. Bates: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the implementation of beef suckler cow and ewe premium quotas.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): Most allocations of quota to sheep producers have now been made. Allocations of suckler cow premium quota will begin in the autumn.
    Mr. Bates: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and I take this opportunity to welcome him warmly to his new post. Together with our right hon. Friend, he makes a formidable team, with the formidable task of defending the interests of the British farmer—a task for which they are more than well qualified.

    419
    Is my hon. Friend aware of the concerns expressed by landowners about the implementation of the beef suckler and ewe premium quotas? Is he further aware that the European Council of Ministers recently suggested that it was up to member states to produce measures to protect the legitimate interests of both landowners and tenants? What measures does he propose in this context?
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words of welcome. I will certainly take up his challenge to fight for British farmers and growers and their interests. Those interests, in respect of quota payments, are well served by the fact that they are valued at £495 million. I am aware of the concerns of landowners about this measure. My Ministry has received a legal submission from the Country Landowners Association on the matter. We are studying it carefully; but I trust that my hon. Friend will balance his view against the fact that expenses are involved in the line that he is pushing.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post and I tell him, on behalf of the Agriculture Select Committee, that we look forward to having him before us in due course.
    We welcome the transferability of the sale and lease of these subsidies, but will my hon. Friend also examine the underlying philosophy behind them, recognising that they have a regional element, so there must be some way of attaching them at least to areas, if not directly to the land in question? The interests of landowners, both landlords and farmers, must be taken into account.
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his first, searching question on the subject. Perhaps it is worth bearing in mind that one of the concerns of landowners is that when those with quota move off, that will affect the economic value of the land—but we have tried to take that into account in the construction of the national reserve, for which those without quota can apply when taking over land.

    Food Advisory Committee
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received as to the activities of the Food Advisory Committee.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): The Food Advisory Committee provides an invaluable public service in reviewing and providing expert advice to Ministers on a wide range of complex issues falling within its remit on the chemical safety of food as well as food composition and labelling. I have received no representations about the work of the committee.
    Mrs. Jackson: What are the criteria by which the new team in the Ministry will select people to serve on the Food Advisory Committee? What steps will they take to ensure that the members are independent and free from the commercial interests of the food producers association?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady should be aware that the Government are firmly committed to ensuring that food safety regulations are securely based on the best available scientific and technical advice. To that end, we consult and use a great number of the most distinguished expert
    420
    committees, established by people with a wide range of interests in the food industry. Those interests are all declared—rightly so—in the annual reports. Equally, the hon. Lady will be aware that we rely on their expertise to give us independent advice on how to proceed.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the Food Advisory Committee should be open to all so that we can see its workings and so that those workings are open and available to the public, as a matter of public record?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an extremely important point. The Food Advisory Committee publishes its agenda some time before it meets, and afterwards publishes its deliberations. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that we will do all that we can further to increase its openness. We intend to make sure that everything is available for the general public and consumers to see, to their advantage.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that 10 of the 17 members of the Government's so-called independent Food Advisory Committee are shareholders in, consultants to or employed by major food companies? Is it not also true that a number of those same companies are major contributors to the Conservative party? Has the Minister seen the grovelling leaflet produced by a member of this so-called independent advisory committee who works for the Dunn Nutrition Centre? It states:
    "Important notice. At this moment in our Fund Raising Programme"—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that quotations at Question Time are not in order.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The quote says that it is clearly important not to antagonise any part of the food industry unnecessarily. Is that the voice of independence to which the Government are required to listen?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman's truly fatuous paranoia in these matters amuses and dogs the life of anyone who has anything to do with him. It is important that these independent committees, which are established to provide the Government and Ministers with fully independent, arms-length advice, are experts in the field in which they work. Naturally, some of them work in the food industry. The hon. Gentleman must grow up.

    Liquid Milk
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the United Kingdom percentage self-sufficiency in liquid milk.
    Mr. Jack: The United Kingdom produces sufficient milk to meet its needs for liquid consumption, but not enough to meet the overall demand for dairy products.
    Mr. Winterton: I say to Labour Members that this is indeed the voice of independence. Is my hon. Friend aware that I come from the county of Cheshire, which boasts some of the finest dairy farmers in the United Kingdom, perhaps in the whole of the European Community, and has some of the United Kingdom's finest grassland? Is he aware that we are no longer producing as much liquid milk as this country needs, but that, for whatever purpose, we

    421
    are importing more? Can that be good in the light of a substantial and growing balance of trade deficit? What does he propose to do to allow our farmers, who have the ability to do it, to produce more of the milk that this country requires?
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Dairy producers in my constituency in Lancashire will have listened with interest to his description. They will, however, share common cause with us in their endorsement of the measures in the Agriculture Bill which addresses some of the problems that my hon. Friend underlines. In terms of the balance of payments, the Bill will enable milk to be used for the production of certain British cheeses and dairy products, which will replace those that are currently being imported. Farmers will be well pleased with such proposals.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister recall that about two years ago as a result of dioxin-contaminated milk in the Bolsover area, action had to be taken with Coalite, the company concerned, and an incinerator put out of use? Is he aware that since the new safety levels have been introduced, the Government have decided to allow Coalite at Bolsover to put that incinerator back into use, with the result that, once again, the Government are prepared to endanger food in that area? Will he take steps to ensure that that incinerator is not put into operation?
    Mr. Jack: Incinerators are not directly in my area of responsibility. One of the sadder aspects of the hon. Gentleman's attempt to raise the matter in the way that he has is that he has not taken the opportunity to put on record the fact that we have one of the finest milk supplies with the highest purity levels in the European Community.

    Rural Unemployment
    Mr. Legg: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are being taken to reduce unemployment in the rural economy.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: In the negotiations that resulted in the reform of the common agricultural policy, the United Kingdom was successful in ensuring that the CAP continues to benefit all United Kingdom farmers. That success will help to maintain rural employment.
    Mr. Legg: May I also welcome my right hon. Friend to her new post and hope that her period of office in her new Department is as successful as it has been in other Departments? As unemployment in agriculture is still at about 10 per cent., will my right hon. Friend consider other ways of reducing it, including the production of a consultative paper to consider the abolition of the Agriculture Wages Board which still sets minimum wages?
    Mrs. Shephard: As my hon. Friend knows, the Agriculture Wages Board network is reviewed every five years. It was last reviewed in 1988, so another review is now due. There is to be a fundamental review process with full consultation, and that will be prepared in co-operation with the Department of Employment.
    Mr. Salmond: May I say how disappointing it is that the new Minister chose to answer the question solely with reference to agricultural unemployment? Does she not understand that there is enormous concern in the fishing communities about the possibility of rural unemployment
    422
    arising directly from the days-at-sea legislation passed by her predecessor? Does she acknowledge that concern as represented in the blockades and demonstrations in the past few weeks? As a new Minister without, we hope, the prejudices of her predecessor, will she re-examine that days-at-sea legislation to see whether changes can be made?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, along with the fishing industry, understands that the fundamental need is to rebuild fish stocks. That is universally accepted, but, of course, I am fully aware that there is a lot of controversy about how it should be done. I do not know whether we can avoid unpopular decisions, but I have already met representatives of the fishing industry, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State is engaged in ongoing discussions with them. We are closely in touch, discussing all the background papers and seeing what might be done, but the parameters remain the same.
    Mr. Cash: I hope that my right hon. Friend has a successful period of office in her new job. Will she bear in mind the fact that one of the reasons for increased unemployment in the rural areas is that British farmers have to set aside 19 per cent. of our land, whereas the Germans set aside only 12 per cent? The Greeks and the Italians have just been given an increased national quota without its being referred down to farm level, whereas the United Kingdom has a much tougher regime. Will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to ensure that the British farmer gets a fair deal in the European Community and that we have as level a playing field as possible in agriculture? Surely that will significantly reduce levels of unemployment.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Just answer yes.
    Mrs. Shephard: I am being given a lot of advice today. I am tempted just to say yes to my hon. Friend, because there is nothing exceptionable in what he says. However, when he talks about a level playing field, he should note that the British Government have also managed to insert into set aside a number of environmental schemes that can help stimulate rural employment.

    Slaughterhouses
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to improve welfare at slaughterhouses.
    Mr. Soames: The legislation has recently been extensively updated and codes of practices introduced. The Department now plans to consult interested parties on proposals for the training of red meat slaughtermen and slaughterhouse operators' responsibility for welfare. An EC proposal on the welfare of animals for slaughter is at present under discussion.
    Mr. Marshall: As the Minister is the old hand of the agriculture team, I might have expected a better response to my question. The Minister is aware that there is concern that the present voluntary codes of conduct do not adequately protect the welfare of animals before slaughter. In the light of that concern, is he prepared to think again about the necessity of legislation to impose minimum stunning currents or introduce European directives that would operate throughout the Community?
    Mr. Skinner: Give Alan Clark the job.
    Mr. Soames: It is a bit late for that—and I am not keeping a diary.
    The hon. Gentleman raised an important point and he knows something about this business. The Government have chosen, rightly, to have a code of practice which is applicable to all the slaughterhouses in Britain. The standard of the handling and the welfare of animals in slaughterhouses is a matter of real concern to us. By and large, they are properly and decently handled. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the strength of stunning currents should not be prescriptive as there are too many variables. It is better handled by codes of practice, but I can assure him that my right hon. Friend and I are dedicated to ensuring that the welfare of animals at slaughter is kept very much at the top of the agenda.
    Sir Donald Thompson: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on keeping his job?
    Mr. Lord: There speaks the butcher.
    Sir Donald Thompson: I thought that he was sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord).
    Does my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the codes of practice for the welfare of animals adopted by British farmers are not only models for the whole of Europe, but are copied by the rest of the world?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is, as usual, perfectly right. The standards that we seek to achieve throughout the European Community are those that we have here. Our negotiating stance is entirely to that end. We are pleased that the new presidency document, which is currently being negotiated, is much nearer that point of view than it was previously and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that point to the attention of the House.
    Mr. Tyler: May we on the Liberal Democrats' Bench welcome the two recruits to the ministerial team? We are also delighted to see the Parliamentary Secretary still in his place. We are delighted to see new faces in the team not least because we hope that they will review and reverse some of the disastrous policies of the previous team, especially in relation to welfare. We hope that the team —[HON. MEMBERS: "What has this got to do with the question?"] Will the Minister give an assurance that when he and his colleagues go to the first Council of Ministers on Monday, they will ensure that the levelling of the playing field is a levelling-up of welfare standards rather than a levelling-down to the standards in other parts of the European Community?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He knows perfectly well that the standards in Britain are those that we wish to see exported abroad for the reasons that he states—to have a proper level playing field. There are standards of slaughter in European countries that we wish never to see here. We intend to fight for those proposals and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will be successful in so doing.
    Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend agree that the welfare of animals will not be served if a lot of small slaughterhouses disappear completely because of the charges for veterinary surgeons and other practices on
    424
    which, unfortunately, the Government are making them devote a lot of expenditure? Would he be prepared to meet representatives from the new organisation that has been formed to represent small slaughterhouse operators, especially in the south-west? Would he receive a delegation if I brought one along?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful question. We are always prepared to consider receiving delegations. It is perfectly true that the welfare of animals is important during their transport, especially for animals that are injured. It is right that there should be a proper network of rural slaughterhouses throughout the United Kingdom. With great respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that the picture is quite as black as he paints it. I am certainly happy to discuss the matter with him at any time.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: How can the Minister assure the House that slaughtering codes of practice are being complied with when, on 2 November 1992, on 11 November 1992 and on 11 January this year, Parliament was told, "Information is not available" on compliance with codes of practice? That was an answer given by the Minister himself. Is not it true that although the code of practice requires the use of a minimum of 105 milliamps for poultry stunning, some slaughterers may use only between 70 milliamps and 90 milliamps? Why do not the Government legislate and put all our minds at rest?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is asking a question to which he perfectly well knows the answer. [Interruption.] Exactly. We will study very carefully the Compassion in World Farming report on poultry stunning. We will discuss the report and its implications for the industry before we issue a response. On enforcement, as we have told the hon. Gentleman, and as all my hon. Friends and many Opposition Members who know about the matter accept, animal welfare standards in slaughterhouses are, by and large, of an extremely high standard in this country. The law is enforced by local authorities at district level and Ministry officials investigate, monitor and enforce any allegations of malpractice.
    The hon. Gentleman should also be aware that it is not only for humanitarian reasons that slaughterhouse practice should be right. It is also very much in the self-interest of the slaughtermen, because the meat butchered afterwards is always far better if the animal has been properly and carefully handled. We are mindful of the extremely important requirements, and the hon. Gentleman should not try to play politics with an important matter.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Sykes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress her Department is making in relation to deregulation.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My predecessor invited comments on a list of Ministry regulations in the early part of last year. We are reviewing every one of the regulations for which we are responsible.
    Mr. Sykes: I join my colleagues in welcoming my right hon. Friend to her important position. Despite the disgraceful and callous comments made yesterday by the

    425
    right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), I am sure that my right hon. Friend and, indeed, the whole House will want to express support for the owners of and workers in the hotel that collapsed, whose livelihoods have been put in jeopardy. Will she ensure that red tape does not get in the way of any help that she might give to soften the blow of that catastrophe?
    Mrs. Shephard: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance, in so far as that very tragic matter falls within the purview of my Ministry. I do not think that anyone would want to heap any more difficulty on what is already a tragic situation.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not it true that the Government, who claim to want to deregulate and to take the burden of regulations off people's backs, are actually producing more regulations than ever in the history of Parliament, in the form of statutory instruments? That was certainly true for 1992, and in the current year statutory instruments are being processed through the legislative sausage machine at an even greater rate. When will the right hon. Lady reduce the output of statutory instruments and, in so doing, cease to bypass Parliament? Her Department and others are using delegated powers to bypass this place.
    Mrs. Shephard: Coming from a member of a party that has wedded itself to placing burdens on business, the hon. Gentleman's comments are fairly rich. However, I wish to reassure him. I can confirm that the deregulation plans prepared by my Ministry for food law, pesticides, veterinary medicines, animal health and welfare, horticul-ture and plant protection, fisheries and the common agricultural policy, among other matters, are being placed in the Library as they are prepared. The hon. Gentleman may care to inform himself therefrom.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's early commitment to deregulation. However, will she turn her attention to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and its rules and regulations covering the licensing of new and existing products? They are now so complex that each product costs about £100,000 to license, which has resulted in some well-regarded products disappearing from the market.
    Mrs. Shephard: I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point. As I said to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), the deregulation plan for veterinary medicines is being prepared and will be placed in the Library. I place the highest importance on that work in the Ministry.
    Dr. Strang: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her appointment. I know that she has a long-standing and genuine interest in agriculture. I hope that she will find her period of office both worth while and enjoyable—after yesterday's events, the period may be shorter than she expected.
    Is the right hon. Lady aware that fishing is the most regulated industry and that the purpose of the regulations is the conservation of stocks—an objective which the Opposition support? However, does she understand that fish conservation measures work only with the cooperation of fishermen? Will she abandon the compulsory tie-up regulations, which do not apply to foreign vessels in British waters, will put many British fishermen into bankruptcy and will threaten lives because of the pressure
    426
    on fishermen to remain at sea in dangerous weather? Will she bring a fresh mind to that problem and review the whole of the current policy?
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome, which was, perhaps, a little spoilt towards the end. I remind him that, as I said in answer to a previous question, we all agree that there is a fundamental need to rebuild fish stocks, to which the hon. Gentleman committed himself. He must understand that there are parameters within which we have to work. However, I repeat that I have taken an early opportunity to meet the fishermen to hear their practical concerns. As the parameters are so important, I am not sure how far we can move, but the hon. Gentleman can be certain that I shall listen to the fishermen and, as far as possible, work with them.

    Whales
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many whales were killed for scientific purposes in 1992.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: A total of 425 minke whales were taken during the 1992–93 season, 330 by Japan and 95 by Norway under their scientific programmes.
    Mr. Robathan: Like others, I welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. Will she reassure the House, many of my constituents and others throughout the country that she will continue the admirable and firm policy of her predecessor against the resumption of whaling? Furthermore, will she keep up pressure against countries such as Norway, that wish to resume commercial whaling on a large scale?
    Mrs. Shephard: It remains our policy that we should not begin to consider lifting the moratorium unless stocks are proved to be at a healthy level, until whaling methods are humane and until effective procedures for managing stocks, including thorough enforcement procedures, are in place. I shall be in early contact with Mrs. Brundtland.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I point out to the new Minister that in no circumstances is there such a thing as the humane killing of a whale, and the Government must push that hard at the International Whaling Commission. Will the right hon. Lady also make it clear to the Norwegian Government that if they persist in flouting the IWC's view and world opinion by hunting whales, Norway will not be allowed to join the EC, it will stand outside the ranks of civilised nations and we shall take action against its imports into this country? Nothing less than that is required now so that the Norwegian barbarians understand how strongly we feel.
    Mrs. Shephard: It is, of course, the case that Norwegian whaling would not be compatible with existing EC regulations on whaling and I will certainly lose no opportunity to make that clear.
    Sir Roger Moate: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that enlargement of the Community through Norwegian membership remains an overriding principle and objective of the British Government and that there is no reason why the disagreement over whaling should be an

    427
    impediment to membership any more than bull-fighting in Spain should prevent the Spaniards from being members of the EC?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is right to make the point, but when new members join clubs, they of course have an eye to the existing rules.

    Agricultural Practices
    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals she has to increase the amount of financial support for agricultural practices that protect and enhance the quality of the natural environment.
    Mr. Jack: We have just held consultations on proposals for extending the range of environmental management schemes available to farmers. These would involve increasing expenditure on the measures concerned sixfold to £95 million per annum in 1995–96. That covers the whole of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Dafis: I welcome the increase in payments. However, agri-environment measures provide a mechan-ism for a number of advantageous results, such as the maintenance of satisfactory agricultural incomes, impor-tant environmental gains and a better market balance. Should not the measure be at the heart, rather than at the margins, of agricultural support? Will the Minister ensure that, in future, agri-environment measures will be the centrepiece of the common agricultural policy, rather than the bolt-on element of agricultural support?
    Mr. Jack: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman studies matters carefully and will be aware of our strong support for the EC's agri-environment regulation. He will further be aware that we have just concluded a large-scale consultation exercise, which included a special series of programmes for Wales and the extension of environ-mentally sensitive areas in Wales. All that was available for comment and I am only sorry that his party did not submit a view on it. If the hon. Gentleman studies the document, he will see our commitment to expanding environmental protection in the field.
    Mr. Paice: Is not one of the major moves towards protecting the environment the development of long-term non-rotational set-aside? That policy was initiated by the Government in this country and is now being implemented throughout Europe. My hon. Friend will be aware of the consultation papers issued by his Department some months ago. Many farmers in this country are looking forward with urgent anticipation to the final details of the rules for the non-rotational set-aside scheme.
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to that point. I wish to put on record my appreciation for the efforts of our predecessors in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in making those pioneer moves. We are working hard to conclude the consultation exercise to which I referred. The rules for long-term non-rotational set-aside—particularly the habitats directive—are included in that. We hope to submit out final plans to the Commission in the summer; that will bring us a stage nearer to the answer that my hon. Friend wants.

    Food Labelling
    Ms Corston: to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations she has had regarding the labelling of food.
    Mr. Soames: Representations have recently been sought and received on a variety of proposals to improve food labelling law or guidelines. We take very seriously the need for food to be properly labelled.
    Ms Corston: Will the Minister admit that there is a big hole in the food labelling programme, particularly in animal welfare labelling? Does the Minister agree that shoppers should be able to see at a glance how the products being offered have been produced? Is not it ridiculous, for instance, that although there are regulations that lay down ways in which farm-fresh and new-laid eggs may be described as "barn eggs" and "fresh eggs", battery eggs can be described as "country fresh" and "farm-fresh"? Why is it that battery eggs can be so misleadingly described? Surely we should be protecting the highest standards and not defending the lowest. Will the Minister strike a blow for consumer choice by introducing that accurate scheme?
    Mr. Soames: Our policy is to require comprehensive food labelling so that consumers can make informed choices about the foods they purchase, but we cannot force them to read the labels. The point raised by the hon. Lady about welfare labelling has been raised before. There is already so much information on labels that it is difficult to know how more can be included—for example, what is it, who made it, what does it contain, how long can it be kept, how is it kept and used and where is it from? I take the hon. Lady's point and will have another look at that proposal, but I do not think that it is a runner.

    Foodstuffs (Wax Coatings)
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations she has had on possible harmful effects of the ingestion of wax coatings on foodstuffs.
    Mr. Soames: I am currently awaiting advice on those substances from two independent expert committees that are reviewing the results of recent research. Full consultation will follow on any action revealed to be necessary.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather odd that this country is considering banning the wax packaging of foodstuffs when there is no evidence whatever that any harm comes from its ingestion? In that respect, we are out of step with the World Health Organisation, the American Food and Drug Administration and our EC partners. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment will come to a rapid decision so that the uncertainty of the past four years can be brought to an end?
    Mr. Soames: We always come to rapid decisions. We have had extensive consultations on this matter and it has been exposed to us that a number of the previous plans are inappropriate. Important uses have been replaced and it is clear that others—for example, in veterinary medicines

    429
    and pesticides—might bring benefits that outweigh any slight risks involved. Moreover, further safety data have recently been submitted to us. For all those reasons, I agree that it was prudent for us to defer action pending clarification of the situation. I assure my hon. Friend that as soon as we have the necessary information we will press ahead with great speed.

    Set-aside
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total acreage of arable land put into set-aside during the last three years.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: A total of 54,317 hectares, or 134,000 acres, of land have been entered into the five-year scheme and 14,118 hectares, or 35,000 acres, have been entered into the one-year scheme in the United Kingdom during the years 1990 to 1992. I will publish as soon as possible details of the amount of land set aside under the arable area payment scheme.
    Mr. Hardy: Is it not now clear that the set-aside agreement, which the Government wish the nation to see as a triumph, means that in the United Kingdom 2 per cent. more arable land will be set aside than in any other member state? Will the Minister confirm that the cost of that agreement is likely to exceed 1·5 billion? What steps is she taking to remedy the failures of her predecessor?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's point. He must have noticed that, because of the efforts of my predecessors, set-aside in this country contains a substantial number of features that care for the countryside and the environment. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would apparently support the increasing of surpluses. After all, it was the problem of the deletion of wasteful surpluses that set-aside was brought in to solve.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Leighton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Leighton: Is the Prime Minister aware that those of us with his best interests at heart fear that he has made a major blunder by sacking the previous Chancellor who had taken all the flack on the exchange rate mechanism and the collapse of the economy? Now that the Government begin to resemble the hotel that collapsed and crumbled down the cliff face, bookmakers are offering odds against the Prime Minister leading his party into the next election —[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Now that the right hon. Gentleman has not a friend but a rival in No. 11, is he beginning to feel a little exposed and beleaguered?
    The Prime Minister: I must say that I had not thought of the hon. Gentleman as the hon. Member most solicitous for my future. I am grateful to him for what he said about that. The owners of the hotel have my deepest sympathy.
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brazier: In view of the latest IRA outrage, will my right hon. Friend consider modifying the right to silence and the law on disclosure of sources so that known bombers can be brought to justice? Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing sadness at the fact that on Tuesday, when a very important Government measure to combat terrorism came before the House, the Labour party voted against it.
    Mr. Enright: I was proud to do so.
    The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's regret at that. I am sorry to hear the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) say that he is proud to have voted against it. The Labour party had the chance to demonstrate that it is resolute against terrorism and it did not take it. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said, all the options open to a civilised state need to be available for use against terrorism.
    Mr. John Smith: Is the Prime Minister not ashamed that his ex-Chancellor felt compelled to say yesterday that the way in which he conducts his Administration is so harmful to the national interest that it does not deserve to succeed?
    The Prime Minister: That is an unexpectedly selective quotation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is because we are in office and have followed our policies that we have inflation at 1·3 per cent. and interest rates at 6 per cent. and that our economy is recovering and no other economy in Europe is likely to do as well this year or next year.
    Mr. Smith: I am not surprised that the Prime Minister did not choose to answer the question. Does he not understand that the significance of the ex-Chancellor's revelations is that they come from a close political colleague, an ally who sat beside the Prime Minister at the very heart of his Government? Who is better placed than the ex-Chancellor to know the weaknesses of this Administration and the weaknesses of this Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend said what he wished to say yesterday, and I have no intention of adding to what he said yesterday or providing the right hon. and learned Gentleman with an opportunity to extend it. As one of my predecessors might have said, we have a little local difficulty. We shall get over it, and I am going on with the work in hand.
    Mr. Smith: Does not the Prime Minister understand that when he announced business as usual this morning he caused apprehension throughout the land? Do not his responses show that he is incapable of learning from anything or anyone? As his authority and that of the Government is now in tatters, will he for once put the national interest first and let the people decide in a general election—[Interruption.].
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is a total waste of precious time.
    Mr. Smith: Why will the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must now come to order. Hilarity is one thing, but we have business to do here.
    Mr. Smith: Why will the Prime Minister not let the people decide whether they want him and his wretched Government?
    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—he may have overlooked it—that we had an election last year. We won it, and he lost it. I say that he lost it, advisedly. The score is 4:0 in elections recently; in due course, it will be 5:0.
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hawkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the independent Policy Studies Institute reported this week that two thirds of Britain's workers have increased their skills in the past five years? Is not that, as it rightly said, a training revolution, and will not it further assist Britain's competitiveness in world markets?
    The Prime Minister: I did see that report, although I noticed, alas, that it had escaped the Opposition in yesterday's debate. The world is becoming more competitive than ever before, and it is undeniably true that we need constantly to improve the skills of the work force. That is true now, and it will be equally true in the future. It is good to know that so many employees and employers are seeking to do that. The Opposition make a great deal of the importance of skills and training. What I cannot understand in the light of that is why they oppose school testing, which is so vital to it.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister recall listening yesterday to the very interesting speech of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who said that it would require a change in policy and the building of a wider consensus if we were to take the very tough decisions on tax and public spending that were necessary to put the country right? Does he realise that there is a crisis not only in the Conservative party but in the nation? If he would put the plight of the nation before his, he would discover that he could probably solve both by taking that advice.
    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, with all kindliness, that he is developing pomposity into an art form. I always listen with very great care to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), and I heard what he had to say. I have just heard what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about difficult decisions. If he really meant that, why, having previously supported VAT on fuel, did he vote against it in the Budget?
    Mr. Ashby: Now that we have had an opportunity to see the 14-year-old test papers—[Interruption.] I am referring, of course, to the test papers for 14-year-olds. Now that we have had an opportunity to see them, does my right hon. Friend share my view in wondering what on earth the teachers were on about?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I believe that many people who have studied the test papers will be wondering about that. The English test earlier this week was a
    432
    straightforward test of reading and writing skills, precisely the sort of test that children enjoy and need and that teachers have traditionally carried out for many years. We need tests such as those regularly to raise standards and help people to do better.
    Equally important, not only do we need such tests, but I believe that parents have a right to know what the results of the tests are. I deeply regret that many schools that carried out the tests earlier this week are apparently refusing to release the results to parents and others.
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Chisholm: In view of the rising and sickening tide of racist attacks, may I ask the Prime Minister if he will join the Labour party—[Interruption.]—in responding positively to the invitation of the Anti-Racist Alliance for a member of the Government to attend next Saturday's major demonstration in Croydon against racist violence? Failing that, will he send a message of support? Will he also implement, as a matter of urgency, the recommendations of the Commission for Racial Equality to strengthen the law on incitement to racial hatred and introduce the specific offences of racial harassment and racial violence?
    The Prime Minister: Regarding the hon. Gentleman's inadvertent slip, no, I have no intention of joining the Labour party—[Interruption.] I may have my difficulties, but they are not remotely that bad. I deplore racialism as much as the hon. Gentleman does and as much as it is deplored by other hon. Members, but I do not think that demonstrations are necessarily the right way to deal with it. Action and tolerance in society, and the legislation that we have passed, are necessary to deal with the problem.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Robertson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that British Aerospace has just landed a large contract to supply Hawk aircraft to Indonesia? Following my right hon. Friend's successful negotiation of a huge contract for Tornado aircraft for Saudi Arabia, does he agree that this is excellent news not just for British Aerospace but for the many supply companies in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I am delighted to confirm that British Aerospace has won a Hawk contract in Indonesia, worth £500 million. Together with the Tornado order in Saudi Arabia in January and Oman's decision to purchase Vickers' Challenger 2 tanks, those exports will bring business securing many thousands of jobs in the British defence industry.
    Those orders testify to the excellence of the British defence industry, to the strength of its export performance and to the value of a close partnership between the Government and industry. That partnership produced record defence orders of over £5 billion last year—[Interruption.]—and that record has already been exceeded this year, with half the year still to come. I regret

    433
    to note that some Opposition Members, who often talk to me about unemployment, seem to oppose those orders won by British exporters.
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Loyden: Will the Prime Minister, in the wake of the activities that took place on Merseyside in regard to the western approaches and the Battle of the Atlantic, acknowledge the fact that it is time to repay the debt that we owe to the Merchant Navy, which lost 30,000-plus seamen during the war years? Will he take action to reactivate our shipyards so that the nation may once again fund the sort of merchant fleet that should be the priority of a maritime nation, and put the seamen back to work?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to congratulate Liverpool on the remarkable way in which it arranged and organised the celebrations concerning the Battle of the Atlantic. I was privileged to be there for a day and the whole thing was handled magnificently.
    I should be delighted to see a stronger and more successful Merchant Navy, but that depends on the capacity of the British Merchant Navy to obtain the orders that are there throughout the world.
    Mr. Gill: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if we are to be successful in the battle against regulatory overkill, it will be necessary for all Ministers to be ruthless and arbitrary in the prosecution of that battle?
    The Prime Minister: It is not the first occasion in recent weeks that I have been invited to be ruthless and arbitrary.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 JUNE—Consideration of Lords amend-ments to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill.
Proceedings on the Representation of the People Bill.
TUESDAY 15 JUNE—Consideration of Lords amend-ments to the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill.
Ways and Means resolution relating to the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 16 JUNE—Completion of consideration of Lords amendments to the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill.
Motion to amend schedule I to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.
THURSDAY 17 JUNE AND MONDAY 21 JUNE—Debate on a Government motion to approve the defence estimates 1992 (Cm. 1981).
FRIDAY 18 JUNE—There will be a debate on the Government's strategy for science, engineering and technology, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for that report and for his acceptance of our demand for a two-day debate on the trade union legislation so that we can expose the frightening consequences for personal freedom of the last-minute decision by the Government to use this legislation to allow employers, in effect, to fine people for being members of trade unions—a legal right normally threatened only in dictatorships, not in democracies.
I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for arranging the defence White Paper debate, and seek an assurance that this year's White Paper debate will take place on the normal schedule and not two years late, as with the one on which he is reporting today.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman also that we have repeatedly pressed for the Government to keep the House in touch with the situation in Bosnia by means of either statements or a debate in Government time.
Finally, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House on a most important matter which touches not only the rights and liberties of the House, but our ability to defend the public interest?
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, on 10 November, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition pressed the Prime Minister to set up a full inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 into what is known as the Matrix Churchill affair; and that when, later that day, the Attorney-General announced the form of the inquiry—an independent departmental inquiry—he made it clear that inquiry in that form would not render the matter sub judice in the House.
This was explored further on 12 November, as reported in Hansard at column 988, when the Prime Minister explicitly stated that the form of the inquiry was chosen so
436
that the matter would not be sub judice and so that hon. Members would be open to questions. The right hon. Gentleman confirmed this again in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 22 February.
Since then, we have had a string of refusals by Ministers to answer questions, in the form of saying that this is a matter for the Scott inquiry—in sharp contrast to the Prime Minister's assurance—but culminating in an answer given on 7 June to a question by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition in which he asked the Prime Minister about making it a policy of the Government, as he had previously said, to give substantive answers to questions on this matter. The Prime Minister's answer was no; Ministers would not give substantive answers to any questions on the matter.
The Leader of the House will appreciate that, in consequence, the Table Office refuses even to accept questions on any of the issues now before the Scott inquiry. He will know that that is clean contrary both to the precedent set by the departmental inquiry into the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and to the assurances that were given repeatedly by the Prime Minister.
The decision keeps the matters not only away from questioning and debate on the Floor of the House but out of the domain of public knowledge because hon. Members are not permitted to publish questions that the Table Office has refused. It is a most serious matter for the liberties of the House. As the Prime Minister gave the assurances, I ask the Leader of the House to arrange for his right hon. Friend to make a statement to the House on the matter.
Mr. Newton: In view of the importance that the right hon. Lady obviously attaches to the matter, I shall take her last point first. I think that I would carry you with me, Madam Speaker, in saying that the question of what is or is not sub judice is to be determined by you, with advice to you, rather than by me. Equally, the policy of the Table Office towards the acceptance of questions is not a matter for me or for the Prime Minister.
The Government argued when the inquiry was announced, and it is still my understanding, that the form of inquiry did not render the matters formally sub judice. However, other Ministers and I have made it clear that we do not think it appropriate to respond to questions of the kind that the right hon. Lady has apparently in mind at a time when the Scott inquiry has been asked to conduct a thorough and independent review of all the matters. That is the common sense and propriety of the position. I answered a question along those lines in the course of deputising for the Prime Minister a week or two ago.
I will draw to my right hon. Friend's attention what the right hon. Lady has said. No doubt the matter will be noted by you, Madam Speaker, and by the House authorities.
On the right hon. Lady's other points, I am not sure that I recognised her description of the process that led to a two-day debate on the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill. Nor do I recognise or accept her description of the clause on which she spent most of her time. I acknowledge that, gracefully and with the usual understanding displayed in discussions through the usual channels, the Government felt it right to respond to the

437
Opposition's request that two days should be allowed for debate on that matter. I am grateful that the right hon. Lady has, in her own way, acknowledged that.
I am grateful also for the right hon. Lady's thanks for the fact that I was able to meet yet another of her many demands, in this case the two-day debate on the defence estimates. I assure her that our aim will be to debate the forthcoming defence estimates for the following year on a more normal timetable, if it is possible. That is our aim and intention.
With reference to Bosnia, I have said several times that the Government are always ready to make a statement if they feel that some development or change in the situation justifies it. In any event, it would seem that, subject to whatever you, Madam Speaker, may say, a two-day debate on the defence estimates will provide some opportunity for hon. Members to advert to those matters next week.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the President of Bosnia is planning to be in this country next week, it would be appropriate to have a statement on that country? While I accept entirely his remarks about the defence debate, may we have an early debate on the role of the United Nations in the matter?
Mr. Newton: I simply take note of my hon. Friend's latter point, without perhaps raising his expectations too high that I will be able to find time for a debate in the near future. I note also his reference to the forthcoming presence of the President of Bosnia in this country. Although I understand why he put the point in the way that he did, I do not want it to be thought that the presence of a particular person in this country is a reason for a statement to be made.
Mr. Nigel Jones: Following last night's indecently short debate on local government capping, will the Leader of the House find time for a full debate on local government? The House could then take stock of the shortcomings of the council tax and review the bizarre ideas of the Local Government Commission. That body is wasting large sums of taxpayers' money at a time when local services are being cut.
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's request. I am sure that he is making representations to Sir John Banham, who has indicated that he is very ready to listen to representations about the work of the Commission.
As for last night's debate, my eye falls on the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who helped to make the debate even shorter for almost everybody else by speaking at excessive length.
Mr. David Sumberg: When will the Government announce their policy on regional aid? There is considerable concern in Bury and Bolton that assisted area status is to be removed. The community that I represent would welcome an early statement to the contrary.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend knows that my right hon. and hon. Friends are working very hard on the review of the assisted areas map. I certainly cannot speculate from the Dispatch Box about the outcome, but I am sure that my right hon. Friends will note the point that my hon.
438
Friend has made and will certainly be concerned to bring these matters to the stage of a decision and announcement as soon as possible.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: May I revert to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) about the refusal of Ministers to answer questions on the Scott inquiry? Surely the Leader of the House will agree with me that if Ministers refuse to answer questions it is not a matter for the Speaker or for the Table Office. They are debarred from doing so by the Minister's own actions, and it is the Ministers who are refusing and putting the block on, not the Table Office or you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Newton: I meant no more than that the policies and practices of the Table Office are not determined by Ministers. It is for Ministers to determine for themselves whether they think it appropriate to answer particular questions in particular circumstances. On that I have made the position clear.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a special debate about the need for local authorities to exercise better discipline over unruly tenants? It is surely not necessary for a local authority to demolish a whole estate because of lawlessness. Cannot local authorities issue immediate injunctions on unruly tenants?
Mr. Newton: I am not immediately familiar with the precise powers of local authorities in that matter, although what my hon. Friend says seems to make sense. The circumstances in which a local authority might decide to demolish a particular estate, I imagine, would embrace a range of factors, including the extent to which it thought that the basic circumstances, surroundings and nature of the estate contributed to problems which could be better overcome by building new accommodation.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to the important questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), is not the Leader of the House sheltering under your skirts, Madam Speaker? It is not the Speaker's responsibility.
"Erskine May" says on page 292:
"Questions are not in order which renew or repeat in substance questions already answered or to which an answer has been refused or which fall within a class of question which a Minister has refused to answer."
The buck is with Ministers and not with Madam Speaker.
Mr. Newton: I can do no more than repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Warrington, North. Ministers do not determine the rules in "Erskine May", or indeed the interpretation and application of them by the Chair or by the Table Office. Ministers determine whether they think it appropriate to answer questions in particular circumstances. I have restated and defended the position of Ministers on that.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate next week on the provision of suitable shopping facilities with access for pensioners and others in any area so that I may raise the deplorable decision of Sainsburys to close the store at Greenford Broadway that has been there for 61 years? It is causing great concern to the people of the area because they will

439
lose an irreplaceable facility. The matter should be discussed in the House; it is important to a community and it is typical of what is happening in other areas.
Mr. Newton: I and the Government can perhaps be expected to accept responsibility for many matters, but the location and practices of Sainsbury's stores—of which I am fairly frequently a customer, but not in that location —are not among them. I am, however, sure that, knowing the sensitivity of such firms to their customers and to representations on their behalf, the management's attention will undoubtedly be drawn to my hon. Friend's remarks.
Mr. David Trimble: May I refer the Leader of the House to the call made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), and repeated in The Times today, for the appointment of a senior Minister, backed up by a unified, nationwide anti-terrorist agency—to which Ulster Unionist Members would add, reinforced by comprehensive United Kingdom-wide legislation—to combat terrorism? May we have an early statement with regard to those matters, because we would strongly support the line that the right hon. Gentleman recommended?
Mr. Newton: Inescapably, a number of different agencies are involved in anti-terrorist operations. The hon. Gentleman will know of the arrangements for the fast and effective sharing of intelligence between those agencies. I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friends who are principally concerned—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Home Secretary—will take note of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the hon. Gentleman have said, but a very strong case would have to be made before one added yet another agency.
Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the case in the Hampshire courts involving a girl of eight years of age who a judge thought was partly responsible for the attempted rape of her when an 18-year-old boy baby-sitter was in the house? Is it possible to have a debate—I know that it may be sacrilege to say so—on the curious utterances of some judges in courts? The judge's statement has more or less prejudged the integrity not only of the eight-year-old girl but of the entire family.
Mr. Newton: I rather doubt that it would be appropriate to have a debate on that case and, while I recognise why he felt it right to raise the subject, I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that the conduct of judges is a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. I would not think it right to comment on a judge's decision and remarks in a particular case.
My hon. Friend will also know, and I am sure will have taken some encouragement from, the fact that papers are, I understand, being prepared for consideration by the Attorney-General on the question of a reference to the Court of Appeal for the sentence to be reviewed. However, that is entirely a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
Mr. David Winnick: Will it be possible next week, or as early as possible, to have a debate on the
440
way in which the Government go about their business? In view of the criticism and the devastating remarks made yesterday by the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), would it not be appropriate to take note of his remarks so that the House may have the earliest opportunity to debate the points that were made? Opposition Members would then have a chance to criticise the way in which the Government conduct their business day in and day out.
Mr. Newton: No doubt the hon. Gentleman could have found an opportunity in the debate yesterday, had he succeeded in catching your eye, or that of one of your Deputies, Madam Speaker. Since the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) appear to me to be totally and flatly contradictory to the type of criticisms that the Opposition make of the Government, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman would get very far.
Dr. Robert Spink: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House knows that Castle Point borough council was capped last night, although it is not a profligate council. I was denied the opportunity to give a full explanation of that decision—an explanation that hon. Members and the people of Castle Point deserve to hear —while Opposition Members spoke about it. Will the Leader of the House find time as soon as possible to give me an opportunity to explain that to the people of Castle Point and to the House?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) may have considered my remarks to have been a little harsh, but I thought that the length of the hon. Gentleman's speech deprived my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) of the opportunity to respond to the criticisms that 'Thurrock' made of 'Castle Point'. I do not know whether I can arrange a full debate for my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, but if I can find a way to provide an appropriate opportunity for my hon. Friend to make his case, I shall certainly do so.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Social Security to make a statement, preferably tomorrow, about the way in which the Benefits Agency conducts itself in its consultations with local communities about the transfer of facilities from one office to another? In my constituency a local community in Holyhead was given only 14 days' notice of the transfer. What are local communities to do when they are given such short notice? Will the Secretary of State come to the House to explain the Benefits Agency's actions?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know of my former experience as Secretary of State for Social Security and that, as this is the first time that I have heard of the matter, I cannot comment on it at the Dispatch Box. I know from my previous experience that it is the policy to mount a proper consultation process with local people about such issues. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House provide time to debate the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests on commercial lobbying, which has now been published for about two years? The Select Committee, which has a Conservative

441
majority, was concerned about the sleaze and corruption that surrounds Parliament. In view of recent events which show that employees of Asil Nadir have clearly been at the heart of government, is it not time that we had a debate on the issue—or are the Government determined to keep the affair covered up? The excuse of shortage of time is inadequate when two years have now elapsed. That points to the fact that the Government are frightened of sleaze being uncovered.
Mr. Newton: As I have said on a number of occasions, I am seeking an appropriate opportunity for the House to discuss both the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred and the one on which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) so frequently presses me. However, I am not encouraged when I hear the sort of speech that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) plans for such an opportunity.
Mr. David Young: I have heard what the Leader of the House said this afternoon about assisted area status, but there is great concern in Bolton and Bury about the press speculation on the issue. Although the Leader of the House cannot give a date for a statement, will he give an assurance that the Government's proposals will not be announced during the recess?
Mr. Newton: I expect that my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to bring the issue to the stage of decision and announcement at a time appropriate for the House. As I am not in a position to make definite statements about timing, I cannot say more than that this afternoon.
Mr. Harry Cohen rose—
Madam Speaker: Mr. Harry Barnes—[Interruption.] Sorry, Mr. Harry Cohen.
Mr. Cohen: Harry Barnes is a good bloke too.
A recent parliamentary answer revealed that the Government planned to push ahead with their privatisa-tion policies, which include privatisation of the police national computer. That privatisation will have enormous civil liberty implications as criminal records will go into private control. Therefore, will the Leader of the House urge the Government to reconsider the issue? Failing that, may we have a full day's debate on the matter in the House?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can promise a full day's debate, but I can promise to bring the issue to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: In view of the consultations taking place up and down the country about the charges for water that are to be made next year and thereafter, and in view of the fact that, in Yorkshire, customers are being asked to choose between an increase of between 6 and 11 per cent. over the rate of inflation, is the Leader of the House prepared to suggest that the House should have a full debate on the principle of how we charge for water, how we keep charges down and how customers can get a decent deal from the water industry?
Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to promise the hon. Lady the debate that she wants. She will want to reflect on whether her constituents would want important water
442
quality and treatment of water waste projects to be disadvantaged in the way that might result from the sort of policies that I suspect she has in mind.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made by the appropriate Minister on the question of Lloyd's, the posh gambling den where many of the people from the belly of the establishment, including as many as 47 Tory Members, are up to their necks in debt? Given the precarious nature of the Government's majority, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that not a single penny piece of taxpayers' money will be used to bail out those Tory Members? No set-aside schemes!
Mr. Newton: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's basic question, asking me to arrange a statement on these matters. The answer is no.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the recent report by Amnesty International about acts of terror and abuses of human rights in the occupied territories? May I further draw his attention to remarks made to the Foreign Secretary by a delegation of hon. Members who recently visited the occupied territories? Will he find time next week, if not for a full debate, then for the Secretary of State to come to the House and make a statement on ways in which the Government may be able to bring pressure to bear on the Government of Israel to prevent them from frustrating the peace process?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a separate statement, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be here to answer questions on Wednesday next, which may provide the hon. Gentleman with his opportunity.
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House look again at early-day motion 1928 and find time next week to debate the issues surrounding illegal Sunday trading—or are the Government determined not to hold a debate so that we cannot expose the financial supporters of their party who are allowed to continue illegal trading and closing down small shops?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman mentioned early-day motion 1928, which concerns Manchester United football club. I think he meant 1929, which relates to the Shops (Amendment) Bill—his Bill.
[That this House notes the recent rulings of the European Court and the House of Lords upholding the Shops Act 1950; now demands that major national retailers set an example by closing their stores on Sundays in observance of the rule of law and in recognition of the sovereignty of Parliament; and urges the Government to support the honourable Member for Ogmore's Shops ( Amendment) Bill which received a majority of 173 at Second Reading on 22nd January and which was amended in Committee to make it a compromise solution so that it both meets the reasonable needs of consumers, including DIYs, garden centres as defined by the Horticultural Trades Association and convenience stores up to 3,000 square feet in size, and substantially maintains the special character of Sunday.]
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government do not support his Bill. We propose to introduce our own Bill, embracing a range of options. That is the right way to proceed, and that is the way we intend to proceed.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Home Secretary to make an urgent statement on the family reunion policy for Bosnian refugees, about which there is growing concern? Is he aware that there are many vulnerable people in Bosnia, including Mrs. Sadeta Draganovic, a widowed mother of three young children who lost her right to come here following the murder of her husband? She is anxious to join her close relatives in this country. There is also a 13-year-old girl in a detention camp in Croatia who cannot come to this country to join her grandparents because she does not fit the Government's eligibility rules.
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an urgent inquiry into this policy—and arrange for it to be considerably relaxed?
Mr. Newton: If I know the hon. Gentleman, he will already have made representations direct to my right hon. and learned Friend on these matters. If he has not, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will read in Hansard what he has said. I shall certainly not attempt to do more than undertake to ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are drawn to his attention.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the Leader of the House, pursuant to previous answers to questions about the Scott inquiry, confirm that there is no rule of parliamentary procedure that prevents Ministers from answering questions and that a political decision has been reached to break the Prime Minister's promise because to answer the questions may lead to embarrassment for Ministers?
Mr. Newton: I can certainly confirm—and nothing that I said on the numerous occasions on which I have referred to the matter this afternoon conflicts with this—that answers to questions are matters for Ministers to determine. I shall not attempt to go beyond that because there is nothing that I can usefully add to what I said earlier.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), may I ask the Leader of the House whether he read the all-party Whip drawing attention to the problem of drinking water in the House? The notice said that, unless the taps were marked "Drinking water", it was dangerous to consume water in the House. Could he make a statement about what obnoxious materials come out of the taps in the Commons and about what behaviour of hon. Members we should be on the alert for so as to show tolerance for their behaviour and to advise them that they should not drink any more of the stuff in case there are deleterious consequences for their health?
Mr. Newton: I have been advised by my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip to make some reference to W. C. Fields. I do not immediately recall the quotation, but I suspect that it has something to do with the advantages of drinking other than water most of the time. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's remarks have been heard by the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), who is sitting almost immediately behind the hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Member for Ogmore cares to
444
devote some attention to that, he may find it a welcome diversion from the problems of his Shops (Amendment) Bill.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to reply to me about my constituency receiving training credits and the statement that I had the cheek to condemn the Government? When I checked with the Renfrewshire enterprise trust—
Madam Speaker: Order. May I help the hon. Gentleman? Is he requesting a debate next week about a matter concerning his constituency? If he is, perhaps he will let us know quickly and precisely what the matter is all about?
Mr. Graham: I was about to request a statement about a misleading statement to me that my constituency benefits from training credits. When I checked with the company that gives out training credits, I was told that there was none in my constituency. There were six in Dunbartonshire, which is across the river, and there were some in Grampian. Therefore, a misleading statement was made in the House and I should like a Minister to make a statement about thãt.
Mr. Newton: In view of your generous offer, Madam Speaker, to help the hon. Gentleman, may I suggest that the best way for him to seek to enlist your help would be to apply for an Adjournment debate?
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Leader of the House aware that at this moment a peaceful 24-hour occupation of County hall is taking place in protest at County hall being left empty, at proposals to turn it into a hotel and about the fact that London still desperately needs a strategic authority'? May we please have a debate on London? The Leader of the House promised us one in the past, but we arc still waiting for it.
Mr. Newton: My recollection is that there was a substantial opportunity for a debate on London during, I think, the last Consolidated Fund Bill debate. I would need to check that, but there was certainly an opportunity not long ago. I am delighted to hear that the occupation of County hall, deplorable as that may be, is peaceful. That is in striking contrast to what went on there when it was occupied.
Mr. Mark Fisher: As the President of the Board of Trade has been surprisingly shy and timid in failing to come before the House to make a statement this week, will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the impact of last week's pit closures on the lives, pension rights and home security of the miners concerned and the impact on the economy of the areas affected?
The Leader of the House will understand that areas such as my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent will lose millions of pounds in wages and economic activity as a result of the closures. We need to know from the Government what form, speed and size of economic assistance will be made, and whether the Government back British Coal's vindictive attitude in calling the redundancies voluntary when they are compulsory. As the Leader of the House now understands, those miners will lose mortgage insurance rights. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is repeating at some length the point he made yesterday. I understand that, in view of his constituency interest. I am sure it was noted by my right hon. Friend, and equally I am sure that what he has said today will be noted.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Later. I shall take points of order after the personal statement.

Personal Statement
4.5 pm
Mr. Archie Hamilton: With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a short statement about my leaving the Government.
I asked the Prime Minister in January to be allowed to leave his Government at the next time he made changes, and I intended to publish a letter to my right hon. Friend which I was hoping would be in the public domain this week. However, as a result of the unexpected timing of the reshuffle, I now run the risk that some may think I did not go voluntarily but was sacked.
I consider myself to be extremely fortunate since I joined the Whips Office in 1982 to have served in the Administrations of both my right hon. Friend the noble Lady Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
I have perhaps had the unique experience, when Parliamentary Private Secretary to Margaret Thatcher, of being present when a reshuffle was planned and when my promotion to the job of Minister for the Armed Forces was discussed by my right hon. Friend Lady Thatcher, her Chief Whip of the day, Lord Waddington, and her Principal Private Secretary. I offered to leave the room, but was encouraged to stay. After a period of further discussion, responsibility for the armed forces was mine.
When I look back to see what mark I have made in the history books, I am afraid the view is somewhat obscured by the enraged faces of mainly retired Army officers who have seen their corps amalgamated or their regimental bands wound up. Some admirals still blame me for the decision to send Wrens to sea, and I know that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends consider that I was hell-bent on turning their safe seats into marginals by closing down military establishments in their constituencies.
On a more serious note, it has been a great privilege to have served with the armed forces of this country for the past five years. I witnessed at first hand the courage and humour of our service men about to go into combat during the Gulf war. I have seen the professionalism, dedication and compassion of British soldiers delivering humanitarian aid in Bosnia; and of course I have seen them on patrol in Northern Ireland in very dangerous conditions.
We are deeply privileged in this country to have the finest armed forces in the world, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his excellent team of Ministers will ensure that they remain so.
For the past few years I had at defence one of the best jobs in the Government—very little legislation, plenty of travel abroad and the special opportunity to work alongside the senior officers of our three armed services. I clearly ran the risk that the longer I stayed in the job, the more likely I was to be moved sideways to another that was less good.
I have been both privileged and lucky, as anyone is, to serve in the Government. My resignation opens up new opportunities and possibilities for me, including the chance to spend more time—[Interruption]—with my constituents. I intend to support my Government from the Back Benches during a period when I am sure we will see

447
the growth of economy that we all so fervently desire and the recognition of all that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is doing to bring it about.

Points of Order
4.9 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I gave you notice earlier today that I wished to raise a point of order before the two occasions on which the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) had a swipe at me. I believe that he is to blame for the sloppy stewardship of the parliamentary timetable. The fact that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink)—
Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, it should be addressed to me and to no one else.
Mr. Mackinlay: Last night we debated the Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 1993. It is my submission that not all the documents that should have been available to hon. Members were available in the House. I refer to page 382 of "Erskine May":
"it has been accepted that a document which has been cited by a Minister ought to be laid upon the Table of the House".
With that in mind, we should have had the appeal documents from the three councils that were appealing against the Government's capping order, but they were not available. Had they been available, hon. Members would have been able to understand and know the reasons why those councils felt that the order was unfair. We have been denied that opportunity and I believe that that breaches the rules of the House.
Even if I am wrong on that matter, if one studies the draft order and reads through the gobbledegook and gibberish, it seems that those documents are inextricably part and parcel of the draft order document and should have been available to hon. Members for that reason. They were not available and therefore the order that we debated and voted on last night is flawed. It is important to our ability to scrutinise these matters that those documents are available. They are not available either in the Vote Office or the Library, and I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will consider that point to be important.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. I have listened carefully to what he has said. I am satisfied that there was no obligation on the Minister to lay before the House the submissions that he had received from the capped authorities. It was a matter for him how he chose to defend his decisions. Nor do I have to decide whether the submissions constituted state papers. Since they were not quoted verbatim, no obligation to table them could arise.
May I also make the point that I checked on the number of hon. Members who spoke last night. It was a very short debate and the hon. Gentleman spoke for quite a long time. Therefore, I should have thought that he was not unduly starved of material.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to make what I consider to be a reasonable request and I ask that you reflect on it over the weekend. As Speaker, you should approach Lord Justice Scott and Mrs. Pressiley Baxendale QC and ask them for their observations on whether their work would be impeded in any way by questions being freely asked in this House.

449
I spent part of a morning at No. 1 Buckingham gate, and my impression is that the inquiry is in search of the truth, is taking its job very seriously, welcomes information from wherever it comes and would have no objection whatever to parliamentary questioning. The objections to parliamentary questioning come from the Government and from no one else.
Madam Speaker: I do not think that that is a matter for me. The Leader of the House explained the situation during earlier exchanges.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you explain a little bit more about how personal statements are arranged, because one is beginning to get the feeling that they could happen every day? Perhaps we ought to exchange prayers for a confessional period. For example, would the ability to make a personal statement extend to Opposition Members? I have been sacked from Labour's Front Bench twice. Could I have made personal statements? In the unhappy event of my being sacked again, will you bear in mind that I have Missed three previous opportunities? Could I take all three chances at once?
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I recognise that Cabinet Ministers who have been sacked or who have resigned will make a statement. We appreciated the remarks made yesterday by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. May we take it that any Minister, regardless of status, who has resigned or who has been sacked can ask your permission, which is required, to make a personal statement? I say this with the greatest of respect because you obviously could not decide on these matters, given the traditions of the House. The speech by the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) which we have just heard was an abuse of the House and should not have been made under the guise of a personal statement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that we have probably heard enough points of order on the matter.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does rather well; I must have my say now. I have had enough points of order on the matter; I think that I know the mood of some hon. Members. I shall explain. When Ministers of whatever rank leave the Government, they may apply to me to make a statement. It is at my discretion whether the former Minister is able to do so.
Mr. Tony Banks: What about the Opposition?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has not convinced me whether he is on or off the Front Bench. He is like a yo-yo these days. I never quite know where he is.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point concerns the timing of personal statements. The one that we have just heard was a parliamentary non-event—a trip down memory lane that might have been made more appropriately during the defence debate next week. We understand that the former Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), is to make a personal statement on Monday. Three other
450
Ministers have left the Government. Could we not have a job lot? Why did they not all make their statements today so that we could have got the pain over in one go rather than spreading it over a fortnight?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must understand that personal statements come immediately before we move on to public business.
Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I thank you for your ruling yesterday, which I do not, of course, question in any way. I seek your further guidance. I make no criticism of the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), the promoter of the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and many other hon. Members have received many letters on the subject. Our constituents will not understand why the Bill was not proceeded with under the ten-minute rule procedure yesterday, under which there would have been a vote because I should have opposed the Bill. That would have shown how hon. Members who voted felt about the Bill and I am certain that it would have been heavily defeated. As that procedure was not followed, would you advise the House and, therefore, the country that the Bill still can and will be strongly defeated through the procedures of the House, even though it is presented timidly?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gives me more powers than I have. As I said yesterday, there can be no objection to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) presenting a Bill in this way. The House has not refused him leave as he did not ask for leave. The presentation is being made under Standing Order No. 58, to which I refer the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), the House and, if necessary, the country. Standing Order No. 58 states specifically that no leave is necessary. I suggest that hon. Members should write to their constituents explaining Standing Order No. 58.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you consider, quite apart from the question of who should or should not make a personal statement—I understand that that is at your discretion —the period after the sacking or resignation has taken place in which such a statement can be made? Personal statements are coming out in dribs and drabs; there could be several others. Consideration should be given to the point that, if anyone wants to make a statement, he should make such a request immediately on his departure from the Government.
Madam Speaker: The decision about whether to allow a personal statement is within my discretion. If I felt that such a statement was totally out of time, I could refuse it. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further, he may do so through the Select Committee on Procedure.

BILLS PRESENTED

  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS
  Mr. Secretary Howard, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Gummer, Mr. Secretary Lang, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Secretary Redwood and Mr. Peter Lloyd presented a Bill to give effect to a Decision of the Council of the European Communities, 93/jg81/Euratom, ECSC, EEC, of 1st

  451
  February 1993 having the effect of increasing the number of United Kingdom representatives to be elected to the European Parliament; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 208.]

  VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA
  Mr. Piara S. Khabra, supported by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. John Austin-Walker and Mr. John Garrett presented a Bill to enable incurably ill patients to ask for euthanasia; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 207.]
  PACKAGE HOLIDAYS (LICENSING PROTECTION)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths, supported by Mr. David Jamieson, Mr. John Denham, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, Mr. Eric Clarke, Mrs. Bridget Prentice, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. Andrew Mackinley, Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Michael Clapham presented a Bill to protect consumers booking package holidays by requiring all persons or bodies organising such holidays for profit to be licensed; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 209.]

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

  MEAT AND LIVESTOCK COMMISSION LEVY
  That the draft Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. &c.

  PARALYTIC SHELLFISH POISONING
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 2) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1413) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]
  Question agreed to.

  ESTIMATES DAY
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
ESTIMATES 1993–94
  Class XI, Vote 2
    Department of National Heritage

      Privacy and Media Intrusion
      [Relevant document: The Fourth Report from the National Heritage Committee of Session 1992–93 on Privacy and Media Intrusion (House of Commons Paper No. 294).]
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That a sum not exceeding £26,720,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Department of National Heritage and the Royal Fine Arts Commission on administration.—[Mr. Brooke.]
      4.20 pm
      Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the report of the National Heritage Committee on privacy and media intrusion.
      During the seven months since the Select Committee began active work, it has issued five reports on varying subjects, some of which have already affected Government policy. It is now at work on its sixth inquiry into the future of the BBC. Without being conceited, I think that the Committee can claim that it has played a role in defining the character of a new and very welcome Government Department, the Department of National Heritage. The members of the Committee have established a cordial relationship with the Secretary of State, while keeping at arm's length from him and his Department—so maintaining our independent role of scrutiny.
      I am happy to say that, so far, all the reports from the Select Committee have been unanimous. I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues for the way in which we have been able to work together. Outside the Committee, all of us are committed party politicians; when we go into the Committee Room, we leave those party differences behind and try to justify the confidence that the House has placed in us to do a job of work on behalf of the whole House.
      Until I entered Parliament, I had spent most of my working life as a staff journalist—first as a member of the staff of a mass circulation national tabloid, then on a publication that liked to regard itself as an influential, intellectual weekly. I still write frequently for a variety of publications. I regard myself as a journalist, and my instinct has always been to see matters from the journalist's point of view.
      While, as a politician, I have certainly had my differences with various newspapers, including recently being involved in a libel action—which I am relieved to say I won—I do not believe that politicians should whine about what newspapers say about them. We in this House volunteer to be public figures. We dish it out, so we should be ready to take it.
      When I worked as Harold Wilson's political press advisor at 10 Downing street, I did my best, whenever possible, to deflect him from complaining about or to the

      453
      press. I did not always succeed. I remember that formidable and wise editor of the Daily Mirror, Lee Howard, asking me to give a message from him to Harold Wilson when he was Prime Minister. The message was simple: "Stop reading the newspapers." I gave that message also to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) when he was leader of my party, although he did not invariably observe it. With respect, I offer the same message to the Prime Minister, and perhaps today would be a good day to start.
      If the choice is to be between a state-licensed press and an irresponsible, even dishonest, press, my choice would be for an irresponsible press. Governments get away with too much—Governments of all parties. If members of the present Government feel bruised by their treatment by the press—and it is possible that they may—I remind them that that is nothing new, not only for former Labour Governments bu t for former Tory Governments as well.
      If it was Aneurin Bevan who called the British press the most prostituted in the world; it was the Conservative Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, using words provided for him by Rudyard Kipling, who talked about Tory press proprietors of the day aiming at power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot through the ages. Lords Rothermere and Beaverbrook ran by-election candidates against Tory Prime Ministers and were responsible for the defeat of Tory candidates, so collisions between the press and Governments of every political persuasion are nothing new.
      Our Committee did not set out with the intention of trying to wreak revenge on the press for the discomfort it had caused politicians of any party, or for its treatment of even more exalted persons than those who sit in the House of Commons or in the Chamber along the Corridor. What preoccupied our Committee was the privacy of the private individual.
      While we certainly believe, and say in our report, that every individual, whether Prince or Prime Minister, should be entitled to his or her zone of privacy, we also believe that both Prince and Prime Minister, as both have recently shown, have easier access to recourse than does the private citizen. Money and influence and an ability to make contacts can often rectify a felt injury by a public figure, whether that public figure is a politician, a business man, a sports star or a member of the royal family.
      Mr. Joseph Ashton: Or a Chancellor.
      Mr. Kaufman: Or, as my hon. Friend says, a Chancellor too.
      It was the evidence of the private individuals before our Select Committee that most affected us. Many in the House, including myself, have been doorstepped, and have found it a daunting experience, with which it is extremely difficult to cope.
      How much more daunting must it be, not for somebody who is in public life who encounters the press regularly, who seeks to gain advantage from encounters with the press, but for a private individual, a widow of a service man killed in Northern Ireland by terrorists, a victim of a terrorist bomb outrage, a rape victim still traumatised by her experience, who has never had contact with newspapers except as a reader of them, but who suddenly finds himself or herself harassed, a prisoner in his or her
      454
      home, unable to leave without being intercepted, with the telephone ringing incessantly throughout the day and sometimes throughout the night as well?
      If we here sometimes find it difficult not to say something that leaves us hot with embarrassment or even pain when we see it in print, how does a widow or a victim feel when interviewed and reported by the press? How do they feel when having dealings with their families, when meeting their neighbours, when encountering strangers who recognise them from the brief but traumatic experience of being in the public eye? How do they feel when fabricated words are put into their mouths in order that newspapers should increase their circulations? I am afraid that that has happened. One editor told us in Committee that he regretted having done such a thing in his newspaper.
      Newspaper editors who came before us and gave evidence to us told us that few private individuals feel victimised by the press. They said that that was shown by the number of complaints—what they regard as the small number of complaints—that come before the Press Complaints Commission.
      Our Select Committee was not at all sure that the number of complaints as reported was accurate. After all, the police report not the total number of crimes but the number of recorded crimes. Similarly, it is impossible to compute the number of people who do not complain about press treatment—not because they have nothing worth complaining about, but because they think that a complaint will get nowhere, or because they do not want to prolong, repeat or relive their trauma.
      Even if the numbers are small, for each person who endures it, such treatment is a total experience. That experience—however few or however many undergo it—is, in our view, an unacceptable and intolerable experience. The Select Committee became convinced that the existing press complaints system did not satisfactorily serve the needs of such people.
      We also became convinced that the use of modern technology to intercept and record private conversations, or to photograph people in private property without their knowledge, had got completely out of hand. Alleged conversations involving members of the royal family have become the focal point of such concern, although—I repeat—the protection of the royal family or politicians as such was not on our agenda.
      We have studied the recently published Calcutt report, but we do not like its main conclusion. We did not believe that self-regulation—or, as we prefer to call it, voluntary regulation—of the press had been given a sufficient chance, even if, so far, that voluntary regulation has been far from perfect.
      The Committee was adamant in its view that this country, or any democracy, does not need and should not have legislation dealing specifically with the press—although legislation dealing specifically with television and radio has undoubtedly led to a situation in which there are very few complaints about intrusion into privacy by the electronic media. But there is a difference, and we stated that difference in the report.
      The Government must be involved in legislating for the electronic media because of the finite number of frequencies which have to be allocated for television and radio. By contrast, anyone nowadays—sometimes people with paltry funds—can found a publication, and it is part of a free society that they should be able to do so.

      455
      We believe that only laws which apply to all citizens should apply to the press. That is why we flatly ruled out any legislation to control, govern and restrict the press as such, and that is why we rejected out of hand Calcutt's proposal for a statutory tribunal. That is why, while I respect and understand the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), the method proposed in his Bill was not attractive to the Committee.
      We therefore looked to the press to enhance its process of voluntary regulation, and made a number of proposals to strengthen such regulation. We proposed that a new press Commission should replace the present Press Complaints Commission. We proposed that there should be a majority of lay members on the Commission, so that the press should not be seen to sit in judgment, or fail to sit in judgment, on itself.
      We proposed a stronger code of practice, and that both editors' and their journalistic staff's contracts of employment should require adherence to the strengthened code of practice. We proposed that journalists should be required to identify themselves when seeking an interview, and to tell interviewees of their rights under the code. We proposed that the Press Commission should have not only the right to order the printing of corrections, but the power to order compensation and to fine.
      We made it clear that, in our strong view, none of that should be instituted by statute but should be voluntary. However, we asked ourselves, what should happen if voluntary regulation failed? What if the complainant to the Press Commission is not satisfied? What if a vendetta by some newspapers against one of their number led to an unfair verdict against a newspaper?
      We believed that the best way of ensuring that voluntary regulation of the press by the press was effective was to provide a statutory back-up, which, if self-regulation was effective, need never, or hardly ever, be invoked. We suggested a parliamentary ombudsman appointed by the Lord Chancellor in his judicial role.
      The ombudsman would be responsible not to any Government but to Parliament. The ombudsman could not be turned to unless the process of voluntary regulation through the press Commission had been tried and found wanting. It would not be an alternative to voluntary regulation, but would be a back-up and stimulus to it. We realised that, in the very early days of the existence of such an ombudsman, there might be a considerable number of applications to him or her. However, we anticipated that, before long, the ombudsman would become the last resort.
      Mr. John Gorst: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the accuracy and eloquence with which he is stating the findings of the Select Committee. Does he agree that, in coming to the conclusions that he has just described, we were mindful of the possibility that a minority of intransigent editors might exist and that it was for that, hopefully unusual, situation that we were forced to reach those conclusions?
      Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for adding to my remarks. He has described accurately one consideration that was in our minds at the time. We had to provide for editors and proprietors who refused to be
      456
      involved in the press Commission, and the ombudsman would be available to ensure that transgressions by such newspapers or proprietors would not go uninspected.
      Our hope was that voluntary regulation would work so well that the office of press ombudsman would become a sinecure. However, neither the press Commission, nor, in our view, the ombudsman, could deal to our entire satisfaction with the invasions of privacy that had come to our attention. In the United States, where we conducted extensive inquiries during a brief visit, we found that many states had protection of privacy laws. That is in a country which, as we were reminded many times every day, entrenches the freedom of the press in the first amendment to its constitution.
      Therefore, we came to the conclusion that certain intrusions into individual privacy, whether by the press or by anybody else, could be prevented or remedied only by a protection of privacy Bill, the ambit of which would cover every person in the land, whether journalist or not.
      We recommended that both criminal and civil offences be contained in the Bill. Those included:
      "obtaining and/or publishing harmful or embarrassing personal material or photographs; or
      obtaining and/or publishing private information (eg. medical records) or photographs without the permission of the person concerned or, where that person is not in a position to give permission, by his next of kin; or publishing inaccurate or misleading personal information; or
      violating the peace of another by intruding upon him, or persistently communicating with him."
      They were the civil offences which we suggested should be created.
      We also suggested a number of criminal offices which included:
      "placing a surveillance device on private property without the consent of the lawful occupant, with intent to obtain personal information;
      —using a surveillance device (whether on private property or elsewhere) in relation to an individual who is on private property, without the consent of the individual to such use, with intent to obtain personal information about that individual;
      —taking a photograph, or recording the voice, of an individual who is on private property, without his consent to the taking or recording, with intent that the individual shall be identifiable;
      —publishing of a recording or an intimate photograph of an individual taken without consent;
      —entering private property without the consent of the lawful occupant with intent to obtain personal information;
      —the buying, selling or retention of any recording without the permission of the person on the tape; or of any material obtained through eavesdropping or use of long-range cameras where any of the parties was aware that the material was procured through illegal means or suspected it to be so obtained; and publication of any recording or material so obtained even where no financial transaction was involved".
      We also recommended the further offence of the deliberate interception of calls made on mobile phones and
      "the enactment of a criminal offence to prohibit harassment or besetting."
      We recommended that, for criminal and civil offences, there should be a public interest defence. We also recommended that, for civil actions, under our proposed protection of privacy legislation and for defamation proceedings, legal aid should be available. However, we believe that there should be a greater role for the press in a democracy. That is why we disagreed with Calcutt and said that the Commission's responsibilities must include the right to campaign for press freedom. We also believe

      457
      that, if the press are to be given greater responsibilities, they—and everyone else in the land—must be granted greater access to information, and by right.
      We call on the Government to take effective action to extend the public's right of access to information, to take that action as quickly as possible, and certainly to take it no later than they implement our other recommendations. We said that our recommendations, including the right of access to information, came as a package, and that, if any of our recommendations was to be implemented, they should all be implemented.
      The Committee was not starry-eyed. We knew that our report would be greeted with outrage in many quarters of the press. I read the press reports with some interest. One newspaper denounced us out of hand, while printing an alleged summary of our report. It was full of inaccuracies or, as that newspaper would certainly say if talking about any of us, full of lies. Another newspaper published a huge leading article denouncing our report without publishing a single word of the report, not even the briefest summary of it, thus giving its readers a good opportunity to make up their mind about our recommendations.
      The Press Complaints Commission said that a number of our recommendations were not only wrong but impracticable. However, when the dust settled, it began implementing some of them. We recommended the setting up of a hotline for people who feared that they might be misrepresented or damaged by a potential press report. We were told that our recommendation was stupid. The Press Complaints Commission has now decided to set up what it calls a "helpline", which
      "members of the public may ring if they believe the code is likely to be breached in respect of their own affairs."
      That is excellent.
      We were worried about payment for articles and the invasion of privacy. The Press Complaints Commission has strengthened its code in both respects. We recommended a majority of lay members for the Commission. The Press Complaints Commission has decided that it will in future have an absolute majority of lay members as well as a lay chairman.
      We recommended that editors and journalistic staff should be required to have observation of the code written into their contracts. That recommendation was greeted with particular indignation as utter nonsense, but now the Press Complaints Commission is recommending that employers make the code part of the journalists' contract, and that it should apply equally to editors.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: This is a delicate issue, and I admire my right hon. Friend's usual thoroughness. Has he received any reaction to that recommendation from the Guild of Newspaper Editors? My constituent, Colin Mailer, was the previous president of the guild. I was invited to the guild's annual meeting. I know that it was especially concerned about how such a recommendation would be written into a contract. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will deal with that, when he winds up.
      Mr. Kaufman: We had no direct reaction, but there have been individual reactions, some very gratifying.
      We recommended that the Press Complaints Commission should be more open to third-party complaints, and it has agreed that acceptance of third-party complaints should be "appropriately and constructively exercised". We recommended training for journalists in self-regulation, and the Commission is
      458
      carrying out that recommendation. We also recommended that journalists should identify themselves when seeking interviews. That recommendation was said to be especially preposterous, but the Press Complaints Commission has now endorsed it.
      A further recommendation was that the code of practice should be made available in languages commonly used in this country. That, too, has been accepted, as was our recommendation that "jigsaw identification" should be prevented.
      Despite the industry's initial adverse reaction to our report, it has seen the sense of much of what we proposed and has acted on it. I am delighted about that, not only because our proposals are to be implemented, but because our contention that voluntary regulation could work if given the chance is being vindicated. We look to the industry to adopt the remainder of our recommendations.
      In addition—this is, in a sense, a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—individual newspapers have taken their own action. When we were in the United States, the Committee met the readers' representative of the Washington Post, a most formidable and impressive woman. She told us that not only did she have readers' complaints submitted to her but she was given a regular column in which she could write what ever she liked, no matter how critical of the newspaper. The material was not seen by the editor until he read it in his copy of the published newspaper. We recommended that that example be followed here.
      I am delighted that the Manchester Evening News has done so. It has appointed Professor Peter Cole as a wholly independent readers' representative with his own regular column. Not only is the Manchester Evening News the most current newspaper in my constituency, but I must declare an interest in that I write regularly for it. I do not know whether the readers' representative will have to deal with any complaints about what I write in the newspaper, but, if so, I am sure that it will be done with the throughness that we can expect of Professor Cole.
      The industry has acted, although it has not gone as far as we should like. I shall understand entirely if the Secretary of State is unable to tell the House of any conclusions today, but it is for the Government to act too. We hope that they will, and that they will do so in three way: by establishing the statutory press ombudsman, by enacting protection of privacy legislation and by taking action to extend the right of access to information. As I say, I do not expect a specific response in today's debate, although we look forward to a response from the Government as soon as they are in a position to reach conclusions.
      Mr. Gorst: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the improvements that have occurred since the report was published do not invalidate the recommendations to which he has asked the Government to respond, and that, while the press has moved some way, it has not moved sufficiently far?
      Mr. Kaufman: I agree, and I go further. I do not believe that, had our Committee not conducted its inquiry, we should have got any of those improvements. Nor do I believe that we should have achieved them had the Committee not made its other recommendations, including the proposal for a statutory ombudsman. That is

      459
      why we cannot be complacent about the improvements that have been achieved so far. It is essential for the Government to enact our whole package of proposals.
      Whatever the press do and whatever the Government do, the press will not be perfect, and we do not expect it to be so. Journalism is a rough old trade, and long may it continue to be so. Criticism of the press is prevalent today, but that is not new. Nothing that any hon. Member says can match the coruscating verses of the poet Humbert Wolfe, who wrote:
      "You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
      Thank God, the British journalist.
      But seeing what the man will do
      Unbribed, there's no occasion to."
      We in the House of Commons do not ask for kindness towards us. Nor do we ask for kindness towards others who have power, authority or influence. We seek what was put to us during our visit to the United States by an American authority on journalism who is also a stout champion of press freedom.
      Dr. Leonard Sussman, professor in journalism at New York university, told our Committee:
      "A new element should be added to all the older ethnical standards. Call it compassion. Many journalists argue that this is not their concern—just delivering the facts is their responsibility, they say. The public rejection of some American news reporting stems from just such criticism, however expressed in public discourse. Lack of compassion is at the base of many journalistic problems with privacy, uncouth methods and similar complaints. Failure to recognise or sympathise with the plight of news subjects can produce unsophisticated and misleading journalism."
      If the outcome of the inquiry by our Select Committee is to induce the press in this country to accept that guiding principle, our work will have been worth while.
      4.53 pm
      Mr. Paul Channon: The House will be aware that the Select Committee report was unanimous. Much of the credit for that must go to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and his colleagues, but particularly to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he conducted the Committee's proceedings.
      It was forbearing of many hon. Members on these Benches to be so polite to the right hon. Gentleman, who has not, throughout his long career in the House, always been polite to all of us. Indeed, he made in an otherwise extremely good book some totally scurrilous and unfortunate remarks about me. I have not re-read them recently, but if anybody tells me that they intend to read them, or have read them, I say immediately that they are inaccurate. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman can dish it out as well.
      I do not have the right hon. Gentleman's journalistic experience. Even so, I am anxious that the Secretary of State understands, as I am sure he does, that when I say that the report was unanimous, I mean that every member of the Committee felt at the end of the day that a real contribution had been made and that we were expressing a view of a cross-section of hon. Members with very different political views.
      That in itself is interesting, for one must wonder whether a consensus is not beginning to emerge in the House. I appreciate that there is not unanimity. Some think that no action whatever is required, although, when
      460
      one thinks of this Select Committee report, of the strong support that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) got for his measure—it may not have been strong enough, but at least it was a powerful demonstration of the feelings of the House—and the approval that was given to the measure introduced earlier by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), it seems that any differences of view on the issue are emerging not between but among the parties. Not many hon. Members will disagree with much of what is said in the Select Committee's report.
      The right hon. Member for Gorton went into the report in detail, so I will not delay the House by quoting from it at length. A point that must be stressed time and again is summed up in paragraph 3:
      "a free society requires the freedom to say or print things that are inconvenient to those in authority, whether they be members of the royal family, Ministers, Members of Parliament, local councillors, or public officials. While continual antagonism between the press and persons in authority is unnecessary, critical tension between them is an essential ingredient of a democratic society and is far preferable to collusion between the press and public figures."
      I and, I fancy, every member of the Select Committee, believe that strongly. I do not know any hon. Member who wants to damage the freedom of the press, although I fear that the press will not believe that.
      We were trying to deal with the issue into which the right hon. Member for Gorton went in some detail —that is the appalling situation that can confront not people with privilege, riches or power, but ordinary people who, through no fault of their own, are suddenly thrust into a situation that is of itself traumatic but in which they may also have to deal with the press and suffer intrusion into their privacy.
      Anyone who reads the moving accounts of the situations described by widows of Northern Ireland soldiers will appreciate what can happen in such cases. That is unacceptable in our society. It has gone on for too long and has got worse in recent years. We must now do something about it.
      Hon. Members are aware of cases where people have been treated abominably. Nobody knows the number of such cases—we are told that there are few complaints—but there is considerable evidence that most people do not want to complain. They do not want to relive the whole episode. They fear that the press will rake over everything again, so they may not make a formal complaint.
      What should be done about the situation? I suggest that there must be a balance. I do not see why the privacy of ordinary people should be affected in the way that the report describes. When giving evidence, Adam Raphael said that the Select Committee had to be concerned with other than ordinary citizens. Those whose privacy was invaded were not always ordinary persons, he pointed out, and he had a point. Everyone is entitled to a zone of privacy, as the report points out.
      But those most under threat are ordinary people, such as widows whose husbands are killed or die in car crashes or in similarly awful circumstances. In those cases, the people directly involved suffer, in addition to the tragedy and trauma, the attentions of the press.
      We were told by an important editor, Mr. Whittam Smith, that the press were
      "rough, rude, brutal and sometimes nasty."
      I accept that, and we expect it to continue to be so. But could complete self-regulation work in such a way that the

      461
      incidents described to us would be avoided? I think not. But should Parliament take no action and let the situation remain as it is?
      There is another situation, which I am sure that all hon. Members realise exists, although I am not sure that this is realised outside the House. I refer to the ease with which conversations are bugged and photographs taken. It is almost impossible nowadays to hold a private conversation if there are people determined to listen in to it. I wonder whether the public realise that the techniques are now so sophisticated, and becoming so increasingly sophisticated, that there is a real danger to private conversations and private actions if people are determined to listen in and watch.
      I believe that there can be a consensus in the House on several points—for instance, on action on surveillance devices. Surely my right hon. Friend will look at this situation. We recommend some licensing system, or something like that. Some of these devices are freely available in certain parts of our country—I will not say where—and the Government should really look at this seriously and take some action before what is already a scandal becomes a major scandal.
      For instance, it should be illegal to use surveillance devices on private property. Photographing or recording people on private property, entering private property without consent—all such things should be offences.
      There has to be a defence, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton rightly said. If such action is taken to prevent or detect a crime, or in cases where exposure will ensure that the public are not misled by the individual concerned, of course there is a perfectly proper public defence consideration. But, where no such defence exists, the House might well think that the time has come for some protection of privacy along the lines suggested by the right hon. Member for Gorton, as inspired at least in part by the Committee's trip to the United States.
      Those are extremely important changes, which I hope that the House will agree to accept.
      I also believe—although I have never been such an enthusiast about this as others are—that the Government must now go further with the right to know. Where is the White Paper promised to us by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster before the House rises? Perhaps my right hon. Friend could tell us how that is getting along, and whether we can be assured that we shall get some further information about the Government's feelings on the right to know before we rise for the summer recess.
      Although I do not agree with all the mechanisms suggested by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), I certainly agree that action needs to be taken to require newspapers to be accurate. I believe that they try to be accurate, but he suggested a great deal more in his Bill, for which I voted on Second Reading, and I hope that those things will not be lost purely because his Bill has been lost.
      The critical point is whether any further steps should be taken beyond the self-regulatory system that exists at the present time. The right hon. Member for Gorton said that, although some of the recommendations in the report have been criticised, some have been carried out already. Nevertheless, as I think the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) pointed out, we asked for £50 and they have given us 50p. I do not know whether that is an accurate
      462
      quote, but it is about right. The House should not be under any illusion that any of the major changes that we think should be made have been made in the last few months.
      Much more must be done to improve the working of the Press Complaints Commission, which I believe should be rechristened the press Commission. It should have a wider role; it should deal with third-party complaints. I am glad that it already has a hot line. That is a step forward, but there is a great deal more to be done.
      The time has come for a regulatory level beyond the complaints Commission. Those who feel dissatisfied with the investigation or the outcome of their complaint should have the right, in exceptional circumstances, to go to a press ombudsman. This is not a novel idea. There is an ombudsman in a whole range of professions—if journalism is a profession—and in other walks of life. This has not caused endless difficulty or trouble, or made professions feel that they are downtrodden.
      In a modern society, it is only fair that there should be a press ombudsman who can, in the last resort, investigate complaints; who has power to require publication of corrections and, in extreme circumstances, the payment of compensation, and indeed to impose a fine for persistent breaches of a code of practice.
      The main efforts must be devoted to codes of practice. I am sure that the majority of the press want codes of practice, want to regulate themselves, want to enforce the codes of practice and want journalists to sign those codes. I believe that they would often take action against journalists who did not abide by the codes of practice, but that is not yet universally true.
      This is an issue that will not now go away. In the past few years, the House has often expressed views about the press. I do not expect my right hon. Friend to tell us today, of course, but I hope that the Government will take on board the fact that there is very widespread feeling on both sides of the House that something more now needs to be done to protect the sort of people that I have described in the way that I have described, without posing a threat to freedom of the press in this country.
      Nobody wants that. We must not be misled by what the press say we think. We know that it is not true. We know that methods can be devised along the lines of our report that would not shackle the press, but would nevertheless he a tremendous step forward.
      I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this very seriously. I believe that, if the Government do not take action, this is something to which the House will return again and again until such action is taken.
      5.6 pm
      Mr. Joseph Ashton: One of the things that came across most clearly in our Committee's inquiries was the widespread use and growth of technology. We had a perfect example yesterday, which was a remarkable day. We had the former Chancellor of the Exchequer explaining why he had resigned, but he did not go into —and I wish that he had—how much he had suffered at the hands of the press. I am thinking particularly of the business of his credit card and what it had been used for, including the insinuation that he had used it in a sleazy area of Paddington to buy a bottle of cheap champagne and a box of cigars.
      This was proved to be totally false. Why The Standard rushed this story out and got it all wrong, I do not know.

      463
      But that story went round the world in the middle of top-level financial discussions in Brussels, and the then Chancellor had to rush to the phone and deny it. That sort of thing shows what the press is coming to. I am not saying that the way a Chancellor of the Exchequer runs his credit card affairs is not of public interest; of course it is of public interest, and everyone in that position must accept that. but how was that knowledge acquired?
      It is now very easy to get that sort of knowledge. The growth of technology is such that it is impossible for anybody to have any privacy at all in any situation.
      There was a similar situation a couple of months earlier, when the then Secretary of State for National Heritage, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), had his private affairs splashed all across the newspapers. There is nothing new in that for politicians. What is new is that the bedroom in which he was alleged to be conducting an affair with an actress was bugged. The tape was then sold to a Sunday paper, The People, for £30,000. The story took off and was spread round the country.
      We now have a disgraceful state of affairs in which it is no longer necessary to blackmail a prominent person. All that is necessary is to record the conversation and sell it to a newspaper, which will pay the virtual blackmailer the money and he will not have to go to gaol. That is the situation that has developed in the last two or three years, and it is frightening. Bugging and long-range photography have given newspapers the same power as the KGB, the Stasi, J. Edgar Hoover and anybody else throughout history who wished to have secret information at their disposal.
      If the Government have that power, through MI6 or whatever, perhaps there is a case for it. But if private individuals have that power to use how and when they like, to smash people or Governments or attack royalty, making enormous profits out of the abuse of technology, there obviously have to be some curbs.
      The long-range technology enabled photographs of the Duchess of York to be taken when she was sunbathing beside a bathing pool in France. Again, people said that royalty must expect such attention. I disagree. If I were to go into the ladies' lavatory and take pictures, I would be quite rightly arrested. I would be accused of invasion of privacy. I would be breaking the law and, quite rightly, I would have to appear in court.
      But because a member of the royal family has stripped off and is topless besides a bathing pool on private premises—the technology is such that pictures can be taken from half a mile away—newspaper editors seem to think that that is fair game.
      The Committee interviewed technology experts, who told us that photographs could be taken from almost a mile away. All that would inhibit a picture being taken is smoke or something similar in the atmosphere. The picture would be perfect and life-size. A camera could be sent up in a small aircraft over Buckingham palace. Everything could be photographed and printed, and no one could complain. No one could say a word about that.
      I do not know anyone in a public position—royalty, Cabinet Ministers, whoever—can expect to do their job, or have their marriage survive, if such technological invasion of privacy is allowed to continue. The newspaper editors make the point that such stories are in the public interest
      464
      and that the public want to know about the lives and the private lives of those people. They say that that is how one judges whether people are suitable for their job. There may be a case for saying that, but newspapers are using technology to invade the lives of ordinary, private people, as we heard in Committee and as other hon. Members have said.
      It is distressing for a woman whose husband has been killed by the IRA two or three days before to have a pack of hounds on her doorstep, pushing their cameras right up to the windows to take pictures. We heard evidence from the woman who was falsely accused of taking letters from Princess Anne's wardrobe when she worked for the princess as a maid. The accusation was entirely false. Journalists sat outside her house and she had to sit on her stairs. She could not go to the shops and could not get any food.
      When the widows of IRA victims go to their husband's funerals, photographers climb trees and invade the privacy of the service. They turn it into a sort of Hollywood funeral that one thought had gone out with Rudolph Valentino or Elvis Presley. That is not on. It is unfair to ordinary people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves pitchforked into the news. Because they are news that week, they are followed by an army of freelance journalists. The journalists are not so freelance; one editor told the Committee that a journalist could be hired for £70 a day.
      All that the national newspapers in London do is telephone a freelance journalist wherever the story occurs —in Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Scotland or wherever. They say, "Go down there and sit on the doorstep. Get an exclusive quote and an exclusive picture. If you cannot get one from there, go and see the mother or father." So the relatives are hounded.
      One of the women whose husband was shot by the IRA said that she was convinced that it was as a result of the distress, the harassment, the phone calls right through the night and the continual attention from the press that her father died some months afterwards. The family was not left alone. The Army advised the family to make a statement and then ask the press to go away. But a month later, people were still coming to the door wanting an exclusive. Someone came who was writing a feature for a colour supplement. Someone came who was making a television film about the story. The harassment went on and on.
      The brave lady who was the victim of the vicarage rape case in Fulham about five years ago, and who has since written a book about it, told the Committee what she had to go through. She could not go down the street without being recognised. The newspapers printed a photograph of her. She could be recognised by the clothes she wore. Interviews with the father were published in the newspapers. It was a dreadful form of harassment.
      In my constituency last Christmas, a 14-year-old girl had a baby unbeknown to her parents. She hid the baby on a golf course. One might say that it was an appropriate thing to do at Christmas. She told her friend to tell someone where the baby was. The newspapers could not print the details because the girl was 14. But the newspapers found out where the family lived. They put offers of cash through the letterbox. They continually pestered the family.
      The journalists said that they were working for The Sun. The newspaper categorically denied that anyone from

      465
      The Sun was working on that story, but the jackals on the doorstep said that they were working for The Sun. They are a disgrace to their profession. They are often employed by no one. They are touts who are out to get something to sell, and they will sit on doorsteps until they do.
      The Committee has recommended that there should be a code of conduct for journalists. They should be required to carry identification, so that, when innocent people wish to complain, they have the name and address of the person who wanted an interview.
      How do we define public interest? It was all very well for the editors who appeared before the Committee to say that it was in the public interest to print stories about public people in the public eye, but where does one draw the line? Is a traffic warden a public official? Is a vicar's wife a public official? We said, "What about stories such as `The bonking traffic warden and the vicar's wife'?" The editors said that such people were in the public eye. That is nonsense. Such people are entitled to their privacy, just like anyone else.
      What opportunity do people have to complain? They can sue for libel. Every newspaper has a top-class lawyer who peruses every word before anything is printed. Often he will tell an editor not to print something because it is libellous, but because the editor is under threat of competition and knows that his job might not be there in six months—he has about as much job security as a football manager—he takes a chance and publishes the story.
      Then what can the person who is the subject of the story do? If he is Elton John or Ken Dodd, he can hire Sir George Carman or some prominent QC or libel lawyer. He may have to gamble £200,000 to win half a million. The rich can protect themselves. A rape victim or the widow of an IRA victim has no such chance. So such people go to the Press Complaints Commission.
      After a long investigation, they may receive an apology at the bottom of page 9 of the newspaper. I went twice to the former Press Council and won on both occasions. The process is stretched out to deter people from pursuing it. Unless one is a professional person with access to typewriters, office equipment and so on, it is a daunting prospect.
      If people receive merely an apology, they think, "Why bother?" Why should they go through the rigmarole and be forced to relive their experience? That is especially upsetting if the story is the death of a child, a horrendous murder or something similar in which they have been put under stress.
      We have recommended a halfway solution. We have had a good system for many years, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of unfair dismissal compensation. If people are given a rough ride by their employer and he has sacked them unfairly, they can go to a small tribunal. People do not need to employ a lawyer. The tribunal can award £5,000 or £10,000, which will give them a good holiday or buy them a new car as some compensation for their ordeal. Why cannot we have the same for people who have suffered a great deal of harassment at the hands of the press even though the story was not libellous?
      Newspapers should understand that such a system would be in their interest. Instead of having to gamble £200,000 in lawyers' costs to go to court, they could admit that they were unfair and that the family suffered. The
      466
      press Commission that we recommend could award £5,000 or £10,000 to alleviate some of the problems that the family faces.
      Mr. Gorst: Would the hon. Gentleman include in his strictures a certain well-heeled ex-politician who lives in a castle? He has invaded the privacy of countless people, not only politicians, and has splurged stories all over the broadsheet press. I believe that £200,000 has been mentioned. Does he believe that people who are named in that fashion should also have recourse to such a complaints process?
      Mr. Ashton: I think that anybody should be able to. Sometimes it is not the cash—it is the fact that a person has been vindicated in some way. If one has been unfairly sacked, one may not want the job back or be too bothered about the money, but one wants an admission of unfair treatment. That remedy should be open to anybody, irrespective of whether they are high, low, famous, public figures or whoever.
      It would evolve as the unfair dismissal tribunals have evolved, through building up case histories, so that they often never reach a tribunal. The lawyer who is an expert on it, or the chairman of the tribunal, will point to sufficient precedents and the employer will pay up rather than have the bad odour. I think that newspapers would do that, and it would at least be a remedy of some kind.
      We cannot make any of the recommendations in our report statutory. I probably took a harder line than any other member of the Committee, because I worked for newspapers for many years and worked in Fleet street for nine years. I know how they operate. I am not trying to curb them, because in many investigations they do a good job, and I agreed with the other members of the Committee that we cannot have statutory controls. The best kind of regulation is self-regulation.
      What the press needs is a highway code which its members will police themselves. Where the real highway code is concerned, I agree that very few people always keep to a 30 mph limit but not many go at 50 or 60 mph, and if they knock somebody down they will have to pay compensation; they risk being fined or having their licences endorsed. There are curbs and, generally speaking, they work. The system is not perfect, but it works.
      We have recommended a highway code for the press. If they can police it themselves and make it work, no one will be happier than the politicians. If the situation continues as at present, however, a rat race based solely on circulation and newspaper profits, then sanctions will have to be brought in by Parliament, as Calcutt recommended. We have gone past the last chance saloon.
      At present, understandably and perhaps advised by their lawyers, the press are reserving judgment on what we have done. They attacked us and abused us in the early stages. They came to the Committee and told us that Miss Whiplash had given them a list of her 227 clients, and that many hon. Members might be on it. It was very stupid to abuse a jury in that way, and those who did it were castigated by the rest of the press, 99 per cent. of whom would welcome something like this. They are responsible people, and would like to have this system.
      Our recommendation that the Press Commission should have power to fine a newspaper may seem draconian, but it is not unusual for a professional body to do so. The Law Society can strike people off or fine them,

      467
      as can other professional bodies. One leading journalist asked me for an example of circumstances in which the Press Commission would fine a newspaper.
      The example that I gave was that of The Sun breaking the embargo on the Queen's Speech and printing it three days before everyone else. When the palace complained, The Sun said,
      "We'll see you in court, Your Majesty",
      and put a picture of the Queen's look-alike on the front page. It caused a great deal of anger among other newspapers, because a good story had been pre-empted. In those circumstances, the press Commission would be right to impose a fine. The Sun backed down very quickly and paid £200,000 to a charity nominated by the palace, because it realised that it had overstepped the mark.
      People may say that it is trivial to quote the football industry, but there is a club today, Barnet, which looks like going out of existence because it has been fined £50,000 by the Football League and cannot pay it. The Football League does punish players who spit at the referee or otherwise bring the game into disrepute, and it works. It would work with the press, too, if the press reacted when they felt that their industry had been brought into disrepute and their image needed improving. It is time that they began to look like responsible people and not undisciplined hooligans out for a cheap headline.
      If the Minister will not tell us in his reply what he intends to do, I hope that there will be something in the Queen's Speech, and that he will perhaps have discussions in the summer with the Press Complaints Commission, as it now is, and move forward to a press Commission and probably have discussions with Calcutt as well. But what we have recommended as a Committee—I stress what the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has said—must be an all-party business, a House of Commons matter, or it is worthless. It must carry the House and the public with it.
      The genuinely serious members of the press, all of those on local newspapers who do a marvellous job, will accept what we are recommending. This is a damned good report, and it will benefit victims of the press and the public in general.
      5.24 pm
      Dr. John G. Blackburn: The very nature of the debate today is both remarkable and unique. The House has long awaited an opportunity to examine and debate some of the findings of Sir David Calcutt. The House showed considerable interest in and enthusiasm for the private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). I pay a warm and generous tribute to him for introducing that Bill, the greatest features of which lay in the title, which is precious beyond words—freedom and responsibility of the press. I cannot accept that any hon. Member would do other than defend press freedom, but with one voice we would say that along with that freedom must go responsibilities. That is why I was sad that the Bill did not make the progress that it deserved.
      The debate is also unique because of the document I have in my hand—the report of the Select Committee on the media and their intrusion into privacy. I had the honour to serve on that Committee. I say, not in any
      468
      condescending way—because that would be offensive—but with all the sincerity that I can muster, that the report reflects great credit on the Chairman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), and then in our own way, as members of the Committee, we take our place in unanimously supporting his submission of the report.
      Is that enough? No, it is not. The most important reason for the debate is that the public at large have shown such disquiet and anxiety about the performance of the press that the general feeling is that someone somewhere should be doing something about it. A few moments ago the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) carried everybody with him when he said that some things are sacred, some things are traditional and some things are part of the fabric of our society, and that the Queen's Christmas message is one of them. For it to be violated by the press in the way it was, so graphically described by the hon. Gentleman, is something that the British public will find it difficult to forget or forgive.
      If there is this public disquiet, there is another reason for this debate, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is sitting here on the Government Front Bench. I tell him, as my friend, that the people and the Committee are waiting with bated breath for the Government's decision, based on the wealth of research and evidence in the Department. There is national disquiet. No responsible, reasonable and sober critic of the press can conclude other than that the press is descending below the acceptable level that the people of this country are entitled to expect from a free and responsible press.
      The dominant issue in the Calcutt report and the theme of the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Hammersmith comprised two questions: does the report go far enough and, as the Committee's Chairman said, what action should be taken? The House and the nation are entitled to a response from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the appropriate time. I echo all hon. Members when I say that we do not expect a decision from the Secretary of State tonight. However, we expect the issue to be a high priority in his work. He must respond, not only to the Committee but to the public.
      On quiet reflection, I believe that the excellent Select Committee report rendered people one of the most valuable pieces of public service. I am not being mealy mouthed—I and other members of the Committee wrote the report, of which I am proud. I am confident that its pages contain the answers to the problems of the press industry.
      What are those problems? Between January 1991 and July 1992, there were more than 2,000 complaints against the press—those are only the recorded complaints. They are listed in volume II, paragraph 35 and table 4. We want to defend the profession, but more than 1,000 of those complaints involved accuracy. Examples have been given this afternoon of articles that bore no relationship to the truth—I am being generous when I say that.
      I well remember having my name dragged through the pages of local and national newspapers because of something that I had allegedly said. I stood as a simple soul, cried and said that it was not me. The newspapers printed the piece again and again, and I said that I was not involved. Finally, on the back page, under the football results, an apology was printed. The person involved was the late Mr. John Heddle, former Member of Parliament for Mid-Staffordshire.

      469
      It is outrageous that people can be treated in that way. I am not complaining because if one enters public and political life, that is one of the burdens one carries. I do not believe that any hon. Member will put his head on the pillow at night and cry about the way in which the press has treated him, as that is part and parcel of our life.
      The report also reveals the action taken by the editorial staff and the Commission in trying to deal with the problem. The more evidence we received, the more sickened I became at the level of certain sections of the press. It is part of my parliamentary duties to serve on the Select Committee. The other members of the Committee and I accepted that task with honour. In doing so, I found that one of our great challenges was that we should not conduct an inquiry within our own terms of reference to protect the good and the great—to use the Chairman's phrase. We have to find the evidence among the humble and lowly of society, and see what they have to say.
      We did not investigate the case of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) or my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). I would never be part of an inquiry relating to members of our gracious royal family. We did not investigate the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) or the publicity surrounding the television personality, Frank Bough. However, our investigations made me more and more alarmed.
      I wonder whether the general public know what we know and have the quality of the evidence that we have. It would be wrong of me to return to the ground so ably covered by my colleagues, but I shall relate one story—I do not know whether the public will be able to grasp it. Two humble, simple wives and mothers whose husbands had been killed in Northern Ireland 24 hours earlier while serving their country came before the Committee. In their time of grief and tragedy, those women were abused by the press and the media in a totally objectionable manner. Other people who had come face to face with the press while going about their daily business came before the Committee. Many of them had had their businesses and families ruined as a result.
      The greatest quality that we have is our character—our nature. I almost wept when people came before the Committee and said, "My character has been destroyed —my very nature has been destroyed by the press." The wonderful House of Commons is today declaring that it will defend those people, and I shall be holding the banner of the Select Committee report to ensure that we do so.
      Other recommendations have been made. I summon all my courage and tentatively suggest that all newspaper editorial boards should decree that each board member should have the Select Committee report as compulsory reading. Only then will they realise the problems that the press has inflicted on the public. My early Christmas wish this year is that they will read the report and learn what the public think about them.
      There is a need for guidance and for a code of conduct, backed up by an ombudsman. If I can convey nothing else to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today, I hope that my cry for an ombudsman will be heard by him. I am sure he will deal with the subject later.
      What have I learnt that might help in this tragic situation? I want to support a free and responsible press. First, we need a complete review of the law of trespass. It is outrageous that people can trespass on and gain entry to other people's property. The answer to that lies with
      470
      Parliament. We need to control photography, too. As we learned in the Committee, it is possible to place a device the size of a fountain pen in a room and record conversations from 150 yd away. That accords with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) said—
      Lady Olga Maitland: Is my hon. Friend aware that Sir David English, chairman of the Press Complaints Commission's code of conduct committee, is reviewing all these matters, particularly harassment and the laws of trespass?
      Dr. Blackburn: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the whole House is delighted to hear that.
      Evidence was brought to us by editor after editor, and I took it on myself to investigate the subject of payment for articles. I repeatedly asked editors who were household names whether they practised cheque book journalism. To judge from the replies, one might have thought that they operate in cathedrals, monasteries or synagogues; they all said that they would never indulge in that sort of behaviour. I told them that when I read a story in a newspaper I might form an opinion about it, but if it said at the bottom that £10,000 had been paid for the story, I might form a different opinion. There have been many cases of articles being published, whereupon three weeks later it has been revealed that £30,000 or more was paid for them—or even as much as £200,000. I think that the public are entitled to know when a fee has been paid.
      The House has always been very generous to me, for which I am grateful. I conclude on a personal note. Eleven years ago, I suffered a major cardiac arrest. I found myself in a national health service hospital—God bless it—in the intensive care unit on a life support machine. I suffered, I endured and—hallelujah—I survived. On the third day, a nurse came in and said that the press were outside and wanted to photograph me. If that is the kind of press that we have, one is tempted to wash one's hands of them.
      This problem can be resolved. My prayer is that the Select Committee report will be an important step in this reformation process. I believe that, with good will on the part of the press, Parliament and the public, we will get a press of which we can justly be proud. I commend the Select Committee's report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
      5.46 pm
      Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I welcome this debate, and I am grateful to the Select Committee for making this day available for discussion of an issue that attracts widespread interest. This is a subject about which feelings run high, not least among hon. Members. It is not only in Parliament that feelings run high—they also run high in pubs, clubs and on the streets.
      No one can accuse the Select Committee of failing to tackle the issue head on. Its proceedings made for gripping television, not least when the editor of The Sun was put through his paces. I congratulate the Committee on the report. In particular, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who made a typically stimulating and incisive contribution to the debate. Although, on behalf of the Labour party, I cannot accept all the report's conclusions, there is much that I can endorse.

      471
      I am also impressed by the rave notices that the Select Committee received: almost universal condemnation from the editors of Fleet street. A representative sample must be that from Peter Preston, editor of The Guardian, who said that the report
      "is like wearing 15 overcoats in case it rains…It just seems baffling—and if it seems baffling to editors, heaven knows how baffling it will be for the public."
      If the report appeared baffling to editors of Fleet street, I am worried about their powers of comprehension.
      Andrew Neil, editor of the Sunday Times, said:
      "It is a busybodies' charter drawn up by busybodies for busybodies. They want to interfere with and regulate every area of newspaper production. They are out to protect themselves."
      The assistant editor of The Sun said that the
      recommendations
      "reek of hypocrisy. MPs are just trying to look after themselves rather than being concerned about ordinary people."
      When was the editor of The Sun ever concerned about the feelings of ordinary people?
      Lord McGregor, chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, said that the use of the phrase "ombudsman" was
      "a polite euphemism to disguise the fact that it would be direct Government interference in the press"—
      but then he would.
      Labour agrees with the Select Committee that the Press Complaints Commission has not worked effectively. All too often, sections of the press have disregarded basic standards of accuracy, impartiality and sensitivity in their chase for circulation. Like several hon. Members who spoke earlier, I am also a former member of the press and a member of the National Union of Journalists. The Opposition do not accept that Calcutt's notion of a statutory tribunal is the right response; nor do we believe that the press would be improved by Government appointed censors of either party. There would be enormous potential for abuse, with Government bodies intervening to dictate official versions of the truth.
      The Select Committee report proposes the setting up of a voluntary press Commission with powers to instruct newspapers to pay compensation and to fine newspapers. The Committee also proposes the appointment of an ombudsman. The mind of such a figure, even though he was appointed, would be independent of the interests involved and would involve the Government in less odium than the Calcutt proposals.
      The Select Committee proposals cannot simply be swept aside by generalised protests about press freedom, but we are somewhat concerned that the proposed appeal system could lead to complaints being dealt with on a protracted basis. There is an old maxim that justice delayed is justice denied, and there is a danger that the proposals for a press Commission, an ombudsman and an appeal to the High Court could introduce an overcomplicated system. Therefore, we have still to be persuaded about that.
      We have always supported the proposal for a statutory right of reply which would be geared solely to the correction of factual inaccuracies. It would not involve censoring the press, and it is regrettable that some sections of the press have sought to suggest otherwise. My personal support for a right of reply is probably well known. I introduced a right of reply Bill in 1987 and a number of
      472
      colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), introduced similar Bills. The Government's opposition to such a proposal calls into question their professed desire that the press should maintain the highest standards of accuracy.
      The issue of privacy and its frequent invasion by the media presents the Government and the Opposition with difficult choices. Calcutt and the Select Committee support a privacy Bill. On the surface that seems fine, but in practice there are likely to be fiendishly difficult problems, not the least of which involves defining what is in the public interest. It is easy for us to say that we believe in upholding privacy for ordinary individuals and that bugging devices in people's homes and the use of long lenses are outrageous infringements of the privacy of those going about their daily business.
      Some problems arise in connection with public figures, such as the royal family, Members of Parliament and leading figures in industry and commerce, because it is almost impossible to draw a clear line between the public and private lives of such people. It can be argued that the moral values that drive the private lives of such people are relevant to their public deeds. That being so, we will never be prepared to inhibit legitimate investigation of the lives of the rich and powerful. Several hon. Members have made that clear. Apart from specific legislation to deal with bugging, telephoto lenses and the like, we are not in favour of restrictive privacy laws.
      Mr. Alan Howarth: I appreciate the difficulties of definition in relation to public interest and the private lives of public figures. The hon. Lady raises real and serious problems, and I should like to draw her attention to two matters. As a consequence of the adjudication in New York Times v. Sullivan in America in, I think, 1962 and subsequent case law, a sort of sliding scale has evolved. That means that there is less protection for the private life of the public figure than for the private life of an ordinary citizen. It is impossible to define satisfactorily in general terms the public interest, but over about the past 30 years, judges have been able to find practical ways to deal with the problem. Equally, defamation is not defined in the Defamation Act 1952, but the understanding of defamation in our law has been achieved cumulatively through adjudications and a growing body of jurisprudence since that date.
      Mrs. Clwyd: I am certainly aware of the situation in the United States. When I reach that issue, I shall give the hon. Gentleman some information about the situation in the rest of Europe, which is also worth noting. The privacy laws in those European countries that have them go hand in hand with rights of freedom for the press enshrined in law. Of course, such rights are not enshrined in United Kingdom law. One of my main reasons for opposing a privacy law is that it should not be introduced until rights for the press are enshrined in some way in our law.
      I should like to refer to an article by an experienced newspaper editor who has certainly interested Opposition Members and, I am sure, the Government in the past few weeks. He is William Rees-Mogg, the former editor of The Times, and his article makes an interesting point about controlling the recording of private conversations. He says:
      "there is a strong case for making electronic eavesdropping a criminal offence, where it is not so already. All citizens are entitled to the privacy of their conversations unless they are

      473
      engaged in crime, just as they should be protected against the invasion of their privacy by intrusive photographers with telephoto lenses.
      Most bugging is indeed already illegal, yet a clearer law which made prosecution easier would be desirable. But who would be most likely to fall foul of such a law? Who does most of the bugging in Britain? Undoubtedly it is the state. Newspapers, as in the David Mellor case, have occasionally used improperly obtained transcripts of telephone conversations which have been taped by private enterprise. But the state intercepts communications on an industrial scale, and has been doing so since the second world war and earlier."
      He concludes:
      "We should hope, therefore, that the protection which British citizens ought to have against intrusion and espionage, by whatever means, will cover intrusions into privacy by the state, from which there is much to fear, as well as by paparazzi and tabloid journalists."
      We would do well to remind ourselves of that throughout the debate.
      Although we accept that both Sir David Calcutt and the Select Committee were working to a specific remit, the Government have the opportunity to view the argument about press freedom and press regulation within a broader context. It is absurd for the Government to claim that issues of press ownership are unrelated to the debate about press freedom. A pluralistic press and media are fundamental to the notion of a free and democratic society.
      The past 14 years have witnessed a further increase in the concentration of press ownership. When one individual, Rupert Murdoch, can own 35 per cent. of all weekday newspaper circulation, that is, in the eyes of most people, a quite unacceptable concentration of power. There is surely no more insidious monopoly than a monopoly of opinion. We should all be concerned that Rupert Murdoch acolytes now have the temerity to argue that their boss should be allowed to take over vast tracts of British television.
      Such people have no respect for democracy. They say that they want a pluralistic society, but they act in such a manner as to suggest the opposite. For them, the monopolistic control of the media is a means of achieving political power, denying the diversity of express which is essential to a free society.
      When I put it to the Secretary of State during National Heritage questions on 22 February that the existing concentration of press ownership was unacceptable, he said:
      "we keep these matters under review and I do not believe that the adjective 'unacceptable' can be justified at this time."— [Official Report, 22 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 668.]
      If not at this time, perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us when he believes that adjective can be used and when it will be necessary to take action.
      Despite recent attacks on the Government—there have been many of those in the past few days and weeks—no one should be under any illusion about the ultimate loyalty of large sections of the press. At the run-up to the next election, they will run like well-trained sheep back into the fold of the Conservative party.
      Clearly, the Government will never take action to reduce the overweening power of a small number of press barons. A future Labour Government will immediately refer the whole matter of ownership and cross-ownership to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We will look for ways of bringing more diversity to local, regional and national newspapers.
      474
      We agree with the Select Committee that greater freedom of information is an essential component of any action to regulate the press. We are totally committed to a freedom of information Act. We note that the Government oppose the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). Clearly a Government who are desperate to suppress the truth on such matters as the sale of arms to various fascist dictators around the world, the Matrix Churchill supergun affair, the real level of unemployment and the true state of public finances will be opposed to a freedom of information Act. Those who have a contempt for democracy will for ever seek to limit the spread of information and understanding.
      It is essential to appreciate the context of much contemporary journalism. Journalists are put under great pressure by predominantly right-wing editors and proprietors to produce particular types of stories. Principled journalists who resist are frequently bypassed for promotion; ambitious journalists accept it as a distasteful fact of life. We agree with the Select Committee that much more emphasis should be given to the promotion of journalistic ethics and that owners and proprietors should carry the can for stories that their staff are frequently bullied into writing.
      As part of its investigation, the Select Committee went to the United States to consider the experience there. As I said earlier, it is worth while in such a debate to consider how the press operates in other European countries. In a recently published report by the organisation Article 19, the International Centre against Censorship, Britain was found to have the weakest press freedom and the most over-regulated press of the 11 countries studied. Britain is the only country in the Council of Europe that has not entrenched the right to freedom of expression in its laws, either through inclusion in a constitution or by incorporating article 10 of the European convention.
      We have long recognised the basic truism that there cannot be a free society without a free press. The Labour party has a long and honourable record of defending and promoting press freedom. The Government can claim no such record. In the past 14 years, they have not only underwritten an increasing concentration of press ownership but acted more directly to restrain freedom of expression.
      In 1985, the Government attempted to ban the showing of "Real Lives". In 1987, they attempted to ban the Secret Society programme about Zircon. In 1988, they attempted to stop the showing of "Death on the Rock" and imposed a broadcasting ban on a number of organisations in Northern Ireland. They also sought to ban the publication of Peter Wright's book "Spycatcher" through the use of injunctions on British newspapers.
      We have one of the most secretive and authoritarian Governments this century. It is outrageous for them to claim that they are the guardians of press freedom. Against that background and in the light of Labour's total commitment to a free and flourishing press, we will bring forward our legislation on press and television when we return to office, which may be sooner rather than later.
      6.6 pm
      Mr. Toby Jessel: The whole House ought to act as guardians of press freedom. Until the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) spoke, there was complete unanimity in the House, just as there was

      475
      complete unanimity in the Select Committee on National Heritage in the preparation of its report under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
      It is a pity that the hon. Lady strayed from the bipartisan approach that has characterised the debate. I am the first to understand that her party expects her to make an attacking speech. I hope she will forgive me if I am not drawn into retaliating in the same spirit, although I shall come back a little later to what she said.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman speaks of the absolute unanimity in the House this afternoon reflecting the absolute unanimity of the Select Committee. The only people who have spoken in the House this afternoon other than the hon. Lady were members of the Select Committee, so it should not be taken that that reflects the opinion of the entire House.
      Mr. Jessel: It might be premature to say that the House is absolutely unanimous, but I was not saying that, because plainly the hon. Lady was not in agreement; but the Select Committee considered different options in very great depth before reaching a unanimous conclusion.
      The report has been carefully written after intensive work. It was a job assigned to the Select Committee by the House, so the House owes it to the Select Committee to study its report with an open mind and with great care before dissenting from it. I hope that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), whom I have known for many years, will do that.
      I regard it as a tremendous privilege to serve on the Select Committee, which is one of the finest Select Committees of the House. Following the report that we have produced, and for the reasons that have been set out by several right hon. and hon. Members during the debate, we cannot let things stay as they are.
      I am grateful to the Secretary of State for National Heritage for being present to listen to the debate. I hope and believe that he will carefully consider not only the views of the Committee as expressed in the report, but the opinions put in this debate and that, before long, he will take a view on what is needed and lay proposals before the House.
      The House has a duty to protect the weak against the strong. As the report says in paragraph 5:
      "The Committee's concern …has been mainly with the ordinary citizen who in the normal course of his or her life will never come into contact with the broadcast or written media, except as viewer, listener or reader; but who suddenly becomes of interest to the media, due often to circumstances beyond his or her control, such as becoming a crime victim or being related to the victim of a crime or terrorist act. Such people, as a result of injudicious, thoughtless or malicious reporting, can suffer additional distress at what is already a time of trauma and shock… The Committee does not believe that anyone has the right to inflict such harm on innocent persons."
      I make no apology to the House for alluding again to the case of two widows of soldiers who were murdered in Northern Ireland. I should like to quote from the evidence given by those two widows to the Select Committee.
      "There was one particular reporter … who persisted in coming to my sister's house with cameras … we had about three or four phoning up at all times of the day or night. My husband's sister"—
      476
      that is, the sister of her husband who had just been murdered by the IRA—
      "was heavily pregnant, about 8 months pregnant at the time, and she was living on her own, and two men at 11.00 at night knocked on her door. She asked who they were and they said that they were friends of my husband. So naturally she opened the door and let them in. Once they were in the flat they told her they were press …She had just lost her eldest brother and she was very traumatised through that."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) then asked:
      "Did the press ever try to represent to you that you had a duty?"
      The widow said:
      "Yes. The onus was put on us that if we did not tell the British public exactly what was going on, then we were very negligent. It was our duty to inform the public exactly what happened, so that they got the story straight."
      She went on to say:
      "At the time you do not have much of a choice. You are in a daze anyway. You go on to automatic pilot and just say go away and put what you want to say. It is at a time when you are not fully aware of what you are doing…It takes about 12 months before you are actually aware of things that are happening around you. Obviously I did it three days after my husband died and you are just numb."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North then asked her:
      "How long did this intrusion persist for? Was it days or weeks?"
      She replied:
      "Intensely, about three or four weeks…then it sort of petered out."
      She went on to say that the journalists were:
      "poking cameras through the front room window …I do believe to a degree they have to report what happened, but poking their cameras through your front room window at a time when you are at your lowest ebb, the most traumatic time for me in my life, then that is an invasion of privacy…If you want to be in your own house with your family at a time when you are grieving, then it is your own private time…I was advised by the Army that if I did not do it, we would just get even more harassment. So I did it when they wanted me to. They got the photographs they wanted and I thought that would be it, but they persisted and persisted. I had them climbing trees at the graveside to get better pictures…You should be given a chance to say 'No, I do not want to do this interview. I do not want to talk about it. Please leave me along,' but you are put under intolerable pressure by the fact that if you do say no you know they are going to keep coming back and back and in the end you give in simply for a quiet life."
      That is completely unacceptable. Twenty years or so ago, the House decided to stop harassment of tenants by landlords such as Rachman. It is now time that the House acted to stop the harassment of people who are in terrible trauma from the great shock of a sudden bereavement due to, say, a terrorist act, or to their daughter being raped, or some other great trauma. Those people must be protected, too. I hope that we will not delay that action for too long. It is quite wrong that it should be allowed to continue and quite wrong that anyone should seem complacent about it.
      The hon. Member for Cynon Valley questioned the Commission's proposals for an ombudsman or for fines, but the Select Committee, having been round and round the subject, took the view that if there were no teeth, nothing would happen. Under what we propose, there is ample protection for members of the press who act properly and fairly.
      As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) explained with such force, it is quite normal in other professions for professional bodies to be able to fine. It ought to be possible for the press Commission to do so in

      477
      cases of that kind. If such fines are not possible, the Commission should be able to refer the case to a press ombudsman, as the Lord Chancellor suggested when he gave evidence to the Select Committee. The ombudsman could then endorse the fine proposed by the press Commission and, if the newspaper concerned refused to pay the fine, it would be open to the ombudsman to apply to a court of law for the fine to be sanctioned.
      There is a need to alter the framework and redress the balance. It is not enough just to say that there should be a code of conduct for journalists. We proposed that, and it has some value and some uses. However, picture a journalist with a wife and children to support, anxious to make his way in his profession, under pressure from his editor to produce a newsworthy story. The editor has the sanction of that journalist's promotion and the journalist's job might even be at stake if he does not do well enough. The editor is in turn under pressure from the proprietor to boost circulation and to improve the profit of that newspaper. So all those pressures are on a journalist to get a sensational story and to trespass on the privacy of an individual to an unreasonable degree in order to do so.
      Unless the framework is changed in the way proposed by the Select Committee, I cannot see how we will be able to protect people such as those two widows. I hope that the House will take the matter seriously and impartially, and will try to achieve a degree of unanimity in the belief that something needs to be done. If the House does not act in the near future, I do not think that the public will be likely to forgive or forget our failure.
      6.18 pm
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: I agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) that there is a need for something to be done. However, I do not accept any implication that all 43 recommendations of the Select Committee either reflect the consensus of the House or are necessarily the best way in which to proceed. Having said that, I pay warm tribute to the Select Committee for a thorough piece of work. It clearly took a great deal of evidence, reflected on it carefully and approached the matter with a non-partisan spirit. Therefore, its recommendations carry weight, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, and that should be recognised by other hon. Members.
      However, I am odds with at least one over-arching and core recommendation as the ultimate sanction—the establishment of a statutory ombudsman to provide back-up to the other methods recommended for self-regulation of the press. Because of that rather fundamental disagreement, I want to focus more on what I disagree with than on what I agree with.
      I acknowledge, welcome and congratulate the members of the Select Committee, especially the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), on having already achieved a number of reforms. I do not think it an accident that the composition of the Press Complaints Commission has been changed or that a helpline has been established. Those important steps are a direct consequence of the quite proper pressure put on the press by the House, through its Select Committee.
      Almost every hon. Member who has spoken has felt it necessary to put his hand on his heart and say that, notwithstanding the proposals in the report, he is firmly committed to the freedom of the press. That is scarcely a
      478
      surprising asseveration to make in the House, but it needs to be made. Any deliberate steps taken in law to abridge that freedom would be very serious—and there are proposals in the report that would abridge that freedom.
      Much has been made of the example set in the United States of America, yet it is a cornerstone of its approach to the problem that the first amendment to its constitution provides that Congress should not abridge the freedom of speech or the freedom of the press. That fundamental law, which is entrenched in the constitution, is the background against which we must judge the steps that have been taken —both through the development of the jurisprudence of the courts and the development of state legislation on privacy—if we are to understand where the priorities lie in the United States. I believe that they should lie here, as they do there, firmly on the side of the freedom of the press.
      The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) spoke of her similar conclusion and said that other European countries had secured that commitment to the freedom of the press by entrenching in their domestic laws a safeguard such as that contained in article 10 of the European convention on human rights. I very much welcome the view expressed by the Labour Front Bench, because it is not so very long ago that it opposed the incorporation of the European convention in all its aspects.
      The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) appears to be an unreconstructed opponent of incorporation and, therefore, the securing of the protection of the freedom of the press and, incidentally, due entrenchment of the rights of privacy. Although article 10 secures the freedom of the press, article 8 guarantees protection of the privacy of the family and the individual. It is that sort of balanced approach that the House and the Government must take on the issues that have given rise to this debate and to the need for legislation.
      It is true that, over recent months, parts of the popular press have offended many people by the stories that they have published. The means that they have employed to get the stories and the intrusions of privacy that they have committed have in some cases shown an almost total absence of self-restraint in pursuance of higher circulation figures at all costs. However, the behaviour of some newspapers has led to the suspicion that it has been deliberately designed to test how far the press can go and its power in conflict with existing political structures and the establishment.
      Some newspapers have gone so far as to say that they are prepared to test the law itself. I am thinking of The Sun, which this week flouted the law with the disclosure of the identity of a person under the age of 16 involved in an attempted rape case. That newspaper quite boldly set out what it was doing. The law covers that behaviour and no doubt the law will take its course. I do not underrate the extent to which the press, or certain sections of it, is testing the resolve of Parliament and the limits of the law.
      So far, the Government's response has been restrained. The two reports by Sir David Calcutt certainly were not rushed. Neither have the Government been speedy in concluding what, if any, changes in the law are required. I commend the Secretary of State for that, because the problem is difficult—how to prevent such excesses without limiting the freedom of speech; how to uphold the freedom of expression while providing protection for victims of

      479
      unjustifiable intrusion of privacy; and how to achieve a balance between the need to know and the need to protect individuals from unwarranted and cruel exposure of the sort referred to by the hon. Member for Twickenham.
      Mr. Roger Gale: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great interest and, indeed, great sympathy. He referred to unjustifiable intrusion into people's privacy. What does he regard as justifiable intrusion, if there is such a thing? He stated his view—it is one which I share and which I shall touch on if I catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker—on how the press appears to be setting itself up in judgment on almost everything, at any time.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to personal attacks. I do not want to be party political, but does he feel that the personal attacks made on my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer—and, indeed, at one stage the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party and the Leader of the Opposition—were justified?
      Mr. Maclennan: It is easier to say what is unjustified than what is justified—
      Mr. Jessel: Answer the question.
      Mr. Maclennan: My whole speech is an attempt to deal with the question. I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). Painful though some of the intrusions into privacy may be, it is open to question whether they have seriously damaged the victims of them. The censorious attitude often displayed towards public figures is not necessarily shared by the public. There have been a number of occasions recently when the press has been remarkably out of line with public thinking.
      As I have said, the protection of the freedom of expression must be the cornerstone of any policy concerning the media, print or broadcast. The Calcutt report was too cautious when it addressed the current legal protection of freedom of expression. The common law does not adequately afford sufficient protection; nor are judges able adequately to take account of the provisions of the European convention on human rights.
      I draw attention again to the view in the higher ranks of the judiciary—it must be recognised that it is a changing view—that the time has come to incorporate the European convention. Sir Thomas Bingham, the Master of the Rolls, expressed that view in his address to the Bar Council last autumn. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, has expressed the same view.
      As I have said, the incorporation of that convention would import a law of privacy into this country and at the same time import a secure bulwark against the erosion of the freedom of the press. Perhaps it would enable a jurisprudence to develop which answered the kind of question just posed to me across the Chamber about where the boundary should be drawn.
      It is probably easier for the courts to determine what is justifiable in the public interest than it is for us in the House to seek to legislate in advance to describe the precise circumstances where the public interest should be protected. In that area, I favour broad categories of definition rather than attempting a Bill, running into many clauses and subsections, to answer the sort of question
      480
      raised by the hon. Member for Thanet, North. I do not believe that we as legislators can foresee the circumstances in which we would wish to intervene to curb the freedom of expression because it is an unjustified invasion of privacy.
      I also think that the law should be reformed in the context of a proper examination of the whole area of information law. The assorted laws that we have in that area are in a pretty lamentable state. We have piecemeal legislation dealing with the protection of journalists' sources which is not based on a coherent or principled approach to information law. Such a review should include defamation and contempt of court, blasphemy and incitement to racial hatred, to name but a few of the matters requiring consideration.
      A number of measures—this is the burden of the Select Committee's report—fall to be considered as a matter of urgency to deal with the question of intrusion and how far the rights of the press in that matter should be curbed, and how we should seek in so doing to avoid hindering the legitimate investigative role of the press.
      The Select Committee identified a number of changes to the law on intrusion which mirrored the views of the Calcutt committee. It recommended that three forms of physical intrusion should be criminal offences in England and Wales—entering private property, placing a surveillance device on private property and taking a photograph or recording a voice of an individual on private property without the consent of the lawful occupant and with intent to obtain personal information with a view to its publication.
      The Government accepted those proposals in principle some time ago. The Secretary of State may have something to say about where the Government stand now on those matters. I would not wish to see legislation give effect to those recommendations in the absence of some further legislative underpinning of the freedom of the press of the kind that I have mentioned. If they are practicable, those are sensible recommendations, but they are acceptable only if the general protection is provided.
      Having said that, I come to the question of self-regulation and how it can be made more effective. The Select Committee proposed the ultimate sanction of a press ombudsman, established by statute, following the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor—I am not sure that it was exactly his recommendation, but he described how it might be done.
      The burden of the Select Committee's report in this matter was to suggest a strengthening of self-regulation. I am wholly at one with the findings of the Select Committee. It must be right to seek to establish an effective code and system of enforcement which not only editors but proprietors are anxious to see work. Without the participation of the proprietors, the best efforts of the editors may be set at naught. For that reason, I should like to see those representatives of the proprietors who can speak with authority about their views directly represented on the new press Commission.
      I have struggled long and hard to think how self-regulation could be more effective than it has so far proved to be. The Select Committee made a number of valuable suggestions, some of which have already been taken up, but, in this respect, the Committee has not gone far enough. It would be possible to give teeth to the self-regulatory proposals without establishing a statutory ombudsman or Commission.

      481
      The Commission could extract from the proprietors of the press the payment of a bond, to be deposited each year with the Commission, the amount of which would be related to the circulation of the newspapers in question. At the end of the year, the bond would be repayable with interest. In a sense, it would be a bond for good behaviour. I do not believe that that should be done by statute. The press and publishers say they want to make the self-regulatory scheme work. Let them show that they want to make it work.
      Mr. Gorst: The trouble that we had in the Select Committee was that any such suggestion might well be almost universally acceptable to the press, but not quite. We had to consider the worst case situation in which, for example, a tabloid newspaper editor said that he had no respect for the judiciary or Members of Parliament, but, above all, no respect for his fellow editors. In the face of that, what is to be done if a newspaper, with a circulation of some 3 million a day, says, "Take your bond and put it where the monkey puts his nuts"?
      Mr. Maclennan: Then we may have to come back to the issue that was faced by the Committee and look at the alternatives—
      Mr. Jessel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maclennan: No, I must answer one intervention at a time.
      The achievement of that would be to isolate the villains. Not many proprietors or editors—
      Mr. Gorst: One is enough.
      Mr. Maclennan: No, it is not enough. Many proprietors or editors would regard it as hostile to their interests to be seen by their readership to be prepared to stand back wholly from the standards agreed by the rest of the press; to be proclaimed as the sole newspaper to have no willingness to seek to regulate itself effectively. Given the importance of press freedom, I, at least, am prepared to give that a try. Such a step should be taken before any state intervention to extract fines—and there should be no doubt that that is the purpose of the state-appointed ombudsman.
      The Committee has drawn our attention to the existence of other state-appointed—or, at least, statenominated—ombudsmen; but I do not believe that they are in pari materia, if I may use the legal jargon.
      Mr. Gorst: Why is a grievance felt by someone who approaches an insurance ombudsman—or any other ombudsman—less important than a grievance felt by an ordinary individual as a result of his treatment by the press? A grievance is a grievance, whoever causes it. Why should not that individual be compensated?
      Mr. Maclennan: There are two differences between the position of the press and the position of other bodies to which the ultimate sanction is available. First, in all the other four instances mentioned in the appendix, it may prove difficult to establish the facts. If the grievance involved is to be dealt with satisfactorily, it may be necessary to consider what actually happened very carefully.
      No doubt the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), along with many others, will have encountered difficult legal and insurance questions in his surgeries. In
      482
      my experience, local government ombudsmen must go into considerable detail to discover what has happened before recommending an appropriate remedy. The same applies to the administration of the health service and pensions.
      Secondly, in most cases involving the public interest —or the private interest, in terms of the invasion of privacy there is little to be investigated. The facts are clear: they stare us in the face. The investigative process available to an ombudsman is not necessary to establish the truth; whether what has been done was in the public interest is a matter of judgment. I do not consider it appropriate for that judgment to be made by a state-appointed official, and on that important issue of principle I differ from the Select Committee.
      Having said that, I acknowledge the growing sense of public concern about intrusion. I also accept that the vast bulk of the Select Committee's recommendations make a good deal of sense: the Committee's work has highlighted areas in which the press can put its house in order to protect the public from unlicensed intrusions that are unacceptable in a civilised society. If the Government are prepared to entrench the freedom of the press as a fundamental right in our law, I will go much further towards seeking to entrench a right of privacy in the manner recommended by the Committee. Rights must be balanced: in this instance, they must be balanced through the securing of an international obligation in our domestic law.
      6.44 pm
      Mr. Alan Howarth: Let me associate myself with the tributes paid to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn). The right hon. Gentleman introduced our report with authority, and his chairmanship of the Committee has been characterised by intellectual quality, civility, humour and the arts of management.
      How are we to strike an appropriate balance between press freedom and the rights of the individual, especially in regard to privacy? We seek to balance the desirability of a free flow of information and opinion with the desirability of protecting vulnerable people from the invasion of their privacy, unfair and inaccurate representation, bullying, harassment and the abuse of press power. The Select Committee examined privacy in that broad context, and we have sought to base our recommendations on the principles that should apply.
      I believe that every member of the Committee is deeply reluctant to see the press trammelled. We should remember, however, that the development and history of Parliament is classically about enhancing, and making effective, the rights of the ordinary citizen in the face of the abuse of power, whether the abuse has been perpetrated by would-be absolute monarchs, insensitive latter-day big Government, factory owners, landlords, the robber barons of the middle ages or the trade union, local government and press barons of the 20th century. We cannot neglect that responsibility.
      Of course, a free press is itself an essential part of the protection of the citizen. That is why our report proposes an enhancement of the rights of the press—and, therefore, the rights of the public—to have access to information. We

      483
      dealt with the subject briefly. It is a huge subject which warrants a whole report of its own, and in any event Parliament is already dealing with it in considering the Right to Know Bill presented by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).
      I welcome the serious consideration that the Government are devoting to the issue: we look forward to seeing the first fruits of their thinking before very long. In a mature democracy, a Government entrusted by the people with the task of acting on their behalf will treat the people with respect; a Government who do not trust the people—who patronise them—will discourage responsible attitudes in public life.
      If the press is systematically excluded from knowledge of the factors that go into Government decision making, the quality of public debate is liable to suffer. Government secrecy tends to make serious, responsible debate more difficult in our democracy. In the absence of information, gossip rules. Even the quality press is driven increasingly to speculate, to dwell on the marginal and the trivial and to personalise. Governments can then hardly complain when the press does not report fairly and constructively the policy issues to which they must address themselves.
      While the press should always be disposed to scepticism in relation to Governments, it should not be cynical. However, if it is systematically denied information while at the same time being manipulated by unattributable briefings and guided by politicians and those who assist them, how can the press be objective, authoritative, fair and magnanimous, as we would prefer it to be?
      The improved debate that would result from freedom of information would assist Ministers: they would have more opportunities to check official advice, and more alternative advice would be available to them. They would have more chances to pre-test options at the bar of independent expertise and the bar of public opinion.
      No member of the Select Committee has any illusions that there would be a damascene conversion on the part of the press in the event of the introduction of freedom of information legislation. There are other factors and temptations that may lead the press towards trivialisation, bias and taking risks with the truth. I hasten to add that the press does not universally succumb. Much of our press, for most of the time, is responsible and of high quality. But more freedom of information would lead to better possibilities for debate and decision making within our polity.
      Freedom of information would enhance the status of the press. In the absence of a first amendment and of the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into our domestic law—there are powerful reasons why the convention should not be so incorporated—freedom of information would give the press a higher status and enhance its sense of responsibility. In time, the culture would improve.
      We would need to fortify that process through the education of the public and of journalists. I attach importance to the recommendation in paragraph 70 of our report that the press Commission should exercise some supervisory responsibility over the training of journalists, particularly in ethics. I should like to see more and better schools of journalism in this country. We do not have any equivalent, for example, to the Columbia school of
      484
      journalism. It is worth reflecting on what more could be done about that, and I hope that the Higher Education Funding Council will address itself to it.
      I am glad that the teaching of media studies is increasing in our schools and that the national curriculum promotes it. Above all, those who are educated in our schools, colleges and universities need to study good literature and criticism. It is perhaps even more important today than ever that education should help to develop a common readership within our democracy, readers who are capable of distinguishing the phoney from the genuine, sloganising from reasoning, assertion from debate, propaganda from truth and rubbish from quality. We need to equip our citizens for our democracy so that they are able to exercise the appropriate discrimination when they confront the utterances of journalists and politicians.
      Our recommendation that freedom of information should be increased is fundamental in our report and is of enormous potential importance to our press and the quality of our democracy.
      We have also sought to balance any proposed new rights for our citizens with rights for the press. In particular, we have proposed that there should be a public interest defence that the press could plead in the event of being challenged under the legal changes that we have envisaged. Definition of the public interest is a difficult task, and I believe that it is best achieved through an accumulation of adjudication and a growing body of jurisprudence, on the part of the voluntary regulators of the press as well as the ombudsman and the courts.
      One of the reasons why there has been dissatisfaction among those of us who have looked at the performance of the Press Complaints Commission is that its record on developing a body of jurisprudence has been so flimsy.
      Mr. Jessel: My hon. Friend referred to the difficulty of defining the public interest. Does not that become much easier when one realises that the words "public interest" are ambiguous in that they can mean either interesting to the public or to the public's benefit? When one has decided which is which, there is relatively little problem about definition.
      Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is an important distinction which is too often ignored by members of the press.
      Parliament and the press should be allies. We share an indispensable role and duty to scrutinise the Government of the day through questions, debates and commentaries. It is the job of both Parliament and the press to seek to restrain misjudgment on the part of Governments and to restrain the abuse of power. It is equally the responsibility of Parliament and the press to patrol and prevent the abuse of power elsewhere in our society.
      That presents a dilemma for Parliament in its dealings with the press. A free and powerful press is a pillar of our democracy, but from time to time, because it is powerful and human, the press abuses its power. Parliament needs to satisfy itself that the scope for such abuse is curtailed to an extent consistent with the press being able to play its proper part in our policy. Parliament must also provide remedies for the aggrieved citizen—the victim of the abuse of press power.
      The worst of such abuse is inaccuracy. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has been absolutely right to concentrate his attention in his Bill on

      485
      the evil of inaccuracy by the press. As I explained during my speech on Second Reading of his Bill, I disagree with some of the methods that he has proposed, but I applaud his essential purposes.
      Another abuse is the invasion of privacy. That was the Select Committee's starting point in its consideration of the issue of the freedom and responsibility of the press. Let us be in no doubt that there is a problem. Hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have spoken eloquently about the horrible experiences at the hands of the press of the widows of soldiers murdered by the IRA and of a victim of rape who gave evidence to the Select Committee. We also need to take immensely seriously the written evidence submitted to the Committee by Victim Support. I welcome, by the way, the extension of its network of counselling. I hope that in time Victim Support in this country will be able to achieve an extensive network of counselling, advocacy and assistance in relation to the press in support of victims of crisis as well as crime, on the same pattern as the National Organisation for Victim Assistance in the United States.
      In the case studies presented to us by Victim Support, the father of a murder victim is quoted as saying:
      "They are trespassing on our grief."
      The case studies are vivid, poignant and shocking and they represent unacceptable journalistic practice. How often can there be a true public interest in detailed reporting of personal unhappiness?
      I accept that cases of abuse are not numerous and that the code of practice has gone a long way towards defining proper standards and, even now, is being further strengthened. I accept that most journalists act with restraint and responsibility and that many of them deal with sensitive and difficult matters admirably. I accept that most of the press is seriously determined to root out the abuse that exists. I acknowledge that coverage of tragedies can be therapeutic for those who have suffered from them, and it can be therapeutic for our society if such horrors are exposed and public shock, anger and grief can be expressed.
      Mr. Robin Corbett: One of the problems is that the existing code of practice is contradictory. It talks about intrusions into private life and makes the public interest exceptions. However, instead of the original recommendation that that should not be done, paragraph 10—
      "Intrusion into grief or shock"—
      admits that intrusion can take place and says simply that approaches should be
      "made with sympathy and discretion."
      Does not that start by getting the press into trouble?
      Mr. Howarth: The sentiment in paragraph 9 of the Press Complaints Commission's code of practice on intrusion into grief or shock is admirable. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to observe that the code of practice promulgated by the Press Complaints Commission was, in important respects, a dilution of the code of practice originally recommended by the Calcutt committee on privacy and related matters. He will have noted the comparative texts of alternative codes given in the Select Committee's report. I am pleased that there is some recognition in the industry that the code needs strengthening and that, where there are confusions, they should be ironed out.
      486
      Abuses have occurred, even since the code was promulgated. The problem is that some members of the press are shameless and will observe no standards of civility. It is inescapable, therefore, that Parliament has a duty to strengthen the protection afforded to the citizen. I regret that the industry has reacted so negatively to our proposals. I have been worried that the Press Complaints Commission and editors have been remarkably complacement about the extent of the abuses. They have tried to rest their case on the paucity of complaints to the PCC, which is a disingenuous argument and one with which we cannot be satisfied. There was a very disturbing complacency in the evidence given by the PCC to the Calcutt review.
      The Committee has approached the issue in two ways. We recommend that the law—civil and criminal—be strengthened to provide new statutory rights to privacy. It is preferable that there should be civil remedies in this field. I also believe that it is preferable that the law should be of general application and not bite discriminatingly or exclusively on the press. That part of the Calcutt review which sets out a number of recommendations for new criminal offences and qualifies each with the notion that they should be offences only when the activity had been carried out with a view to publication was surprising and unsatisfactory.
      Abuses by the press need to be seen as a sub-set of wider problems. For example, harassment is perpetrated not only by reporters and photographers. There are other types of harassment such as sexual harassment, noise harassment and spying. It is therefore right that paragraph 48 of our report recommends that the tort of infringement of privacy should cover
      "violating the peace of another by intruding upon him, or persistently communicating with him."
      We had in mind not only abuse by journalists.
      The British people value privacy. We have a tradition whereby an Englishman's home is his castle. Privacy has always been important to us, but it is becoming even more important and more difficult to secure because of changing technology. Some aspects of the legal protection of privacy need to be enshrined in the criminal law. I am pleased that there has been little or no demur that bugging, the use of long-range photography and a number of activities made possible by relatively recent technology should be criminal offences. It is good, too, that the code is being modified to take account of such matters.
      I am sure it is also right that there should be a criminal offence of harassment. A person who is bullied and besieged, in the aftermath of a traumatic shock, may not be in a position to take action on his or her own behalf or even to identify his or her assailant. The police should have the power to intervene directly to prevent such harassment.
      It is essential that legal aid should be available to enable people of modest means to avail themselves of the remedies provided in law. There should be legal aid for privacy and libel actions. Of course, I appreciate that the cost of legal aid has been rising. The Lord Chancellor estimates that, in 1994–95, public expenditure on legal aid will be £1·4 billion. That is indeed a great deal of money, and the Lord Chancellor is right to seek to reduce the cost of legal process. However, our society is founded on the rule of law. We must protect the weakest. It is not acceptable that there should be one law available for the

      487
      rich and another, or none, for the poor. Taxpayers must pay what it costs to preserve freedoms under the law which were intended to be provided for all citizens.
      The press has always had to operate within a framework of law—laws relating to defamation, data protection, obscenity, contempt of court and confidence, to name but some. There is therefore no new principle involved in our argument that the press should be subject to a new law of privacy. The press itself is quick to claim the protection of the law and our traditional constitutional liberties, so it should also be willing to abide by the law and respect the legal constraints which protect and bind all of US.
      The third strand in our recommendations is the strengthening of voluntary regulation. I am sure that all of us believe that it is preferable to achieve effective regulation on a voluntary basis. Is it naive to hope that we can do so? Sir David Calcutt concluded that it was naive to hope so by this stage. He believed that the bluff had at long last to be called.
      We do indeed face the problem that, in the 40 or so years since the foundation of the Press Council, the industry has invariably done too little too late to put its own house in order. It is only about two years ago that it adopted a code of practice. Journalists have known that Parliament is reluctant to legislate to limit their freedoms and, in some cases, they have exploited our reluctance, which was in the interests of the preservation of a free society.
      I do not share Sir David's conclusion. The PCC has been a weak vessel and some of the press are unrepentant, but I believe that the resources of voluntary regulation are not exhausted. I am encouraged, as other hon. Members have been, by the fact that since our report was published the code has been strengthened. Membership of the PCC and the appointments Commission has been modified. Steps have been taken to introduce a helpline. Some newspapers are introducing readers' representatives who have real independence. The industry is moving towards the adoption of contracts of employment which would require journalists to observe the code. Steps are also being taken to prevent jigsaw identification of crime victims.
      I do not believe that there would have been such movement had the industry not felt the hot breath of regulation on its neck. The industry still needs to move further. Editors and proprietors have other issues to consider. There should be redress for grievances, and the industry should agree that the PCC should have the power to fine and require payment of compensation. Serious arguments were put to the Select Committee against such ideas. Although I respect those arguments, I do not find them persuasive.
      The press wants to avoid a tribunal on the model recommended by Calcutt. It wants to keep out of the courts. But, at the same time, members of the public with justified grievances must be entitled to compensation, and scandalous offences should be disciplined under a system of voluntary regulation. The Commission should have those powers.
      There have been vociferous and even hysterical reactions by the press to our recommendations. A leader in The Independent said that the proposals would amount to censorship. The Daily Mail talked of "fetters", and Ms
      488
      Patsy Chapman, the editor of the News of the World but enjoying the hospitality of the columns of The Times, wrote of "Kaufman's kangaroo court". The most extreme was Mr. Andrew Neil, the editor of The Sunday Times. He was quoted as saying that the Committee's recommendations would involve a degree of intrusion into the freedom of the press
      "greater than anything that existed under Nazi Germany."
      Particular criticisms were vented against our recommendation that there should be an ombudsman. The more I read the press coverage of our report, the more I was persuaded that there was a very strong case for the institution of an ombudsman. The report states that we envisage the ombudsman as a "bulwark" to support voluntary regulation. The history of the Press Council and the Press Complaints Commission has been disappointing, and I believe that the successor body will need the reinforcement that an ombudsman would provide.
      It is not such a terrible idea to contemplate. Since the 1960s, ombudsmen have been successfully introduced into various fields of our national life. Each field is different and, of course, the press is unique. However, it is fair to observe that it is no less important that the legal profession and legal services should be independent of politics and Government than it is that the press should be. The legal services ombudsman, statutorily created, has proved of benefit to the profession and the public.
      The press ombudsman, as we envisage him, would be invoked by way of appeal by dissatisfied plaintiffs—those dissatisfied by the remedy offered them by the press Commission—or by the press. being itself dissatisfied with a judgment of the press Commission. The knowledge that such a recourse, a right of appeal, existed would usefully challenge the press Commission to make a success of its task. As we say in the report, the best test of the success of voluntary regulation by the press Commission would be that the ombudsman's role would be virtually non-existent.
      Two main criticisms have been made of our recommendation of the institution of an ombudsman. There has been objection to our suggestion that he should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The Select Committee found it a delicate issue to decide how the ombudsman should be appointed. The case for the Lord Chancellor making the appointment is that he is a respected authority who would make the appointment in a non-political capacity. The industry is not justified in its fear that, because he was appointed by the Lord Chancellor, the ombudsman would somehow be the Government's nark.
      The second question that has raised difficulties concerns the powers that the ombudsman should exercise and the basis of those powers. Other ombudsmen proceed on the basis of moral authority and suasion, whereas the press ombudsman's powers—for example, to insist on corrections, apologies, the publication of names to institutionalise shame, and to require compensation and the payment of fines—would be created by statute. But it is important to note that in our recommendations we have not suggested that the ombudsman should have independent powers of enforcement.
      In the event that a ruling by the ombudsman was not observed by a newspaper, it would be necessary to apply to the High Court for remedy of the grievance. Equally, if a newspaper did not accept a ruling of the ombudsman, the newspaper could apply to the court for the discharge

      489
      of that ruling. So our recommendations embody the essential character of an ombudsman rather than of a tribunal, and they are profoundly different from the Calcutt recommendations.
      We have sought to provide a series of protections for the citizen and, at the same time, to enhance the rights and status of the press. The first protection for the citizen should lie in the responsibility of the individual journalist seeking to balance the obligation to provide information and to behave decently. The second defence of the citizen lies in the responsibility of the editor. We then envisage the readers' representative being brought into play. Only thereafter would we wish to see appeals made to the press Commission, and only in the event of the Commission failing to provide satisfactory remedies would the plaintiff have occasion to go to the ombudsman, and ultimately to the court.
      The powers that would be vested in the press Commission by the industry—to impose fines and require compensation—would help to ensure that problems were resolved informally and early. Ms Chapman described our recommendations as
      "layer upon layer of red tape."
      I regard them as sensible, practical, mostly familiar and readily intelligible. They are a serious attempt to provide remedies and, at the same time, to strengthen the standing of the press. I hope that the press will increasingly appreciate and accept that to be the case. Initially, the press marginalised our report as a news story and rubbished it in editorials.
      The press mediate information, including the debate on this issue, to the public. It is a responsibility of the press to see that the public have a fuller and fairer opportunity than they have has so far to consider our recommendations and articulate their own response. I hope that the Government will accept our recommendations. Whatever the forthcoming White Paper and prospective legislation may contain, the Select Committee, on behalf of Parliament, will continue to attend vigilantly and regularly to these issues, which are of great and enduring importance to our democracy and culture.
      7.14 pm
      Mr. Bryan Davies: When the Select Committee, on which I had the honour to serve, began its study into the press and intrusion on the privacy of the individual, I had a fair degree of scepticism about the wisdom of the task that we had set ourselves. I wondered whether we could achieve results that would prove significant for effective legislative action.
      I was sceptical for several basic reasons, the first being that the press in Britain is already extensively regulated; indeed, the British press is among the most regulated in the western democracies. The legislation regulating it applies to contempt of court, official secrets, the prevention of terrorism, police and criminal evidence and the law of libel. The laws provide a battery of constraints on journalists in general and on particular types of investigative journalism.
      It is obvious that some restrictions are available predominantly to the wealthy—that particularly applies to the law of libel—and do not provide an extension of freedom for the ordinary individual. Other restrictions are imposed by government agencies and, to that extent, distort democracy by adding an authoritarian element to the relationship between government and the press.
      490
      I share with the overwhelming majority of hon. Members a respect for the significance of a free press as a crucial element in our democracy. Striving for a free press in western Europe has been critical to the dismantling of autocratic regimes and their replacement with democratic ones. Even today, those seeking to impose autocratic regimes on society move rapidly, and with such force as they can muster, on radio and television stations and newspaper offices. Control of the media is crucial to autocratic politicians.
      A free press developed out of 19th century ideas of classic liberalism—for example, the free press of diverging opinions and conflicting analyses of John Stuart Mill—and today it is the oligopolistic press of the late 20th century. Our problem when we talk about the press—I am not sure that we have identified the point clearly enough during the debate, so I shall spend some time on it—is that we relate differently to the various models of the press that we have in mind.
      Most hon. Members who have a close relationship with the organs of information in our constituencies—in particular, the local and regional press—are aware of the generally high standards that are adopted. Most of our proposals, including the code of conduct and even the strengthened code, are regarded by most local and regional journalists, particularly those in training, as a matter of course. They say that that is how they conduct their business, and when representatives of the regional press came before the Select Committee, they pointed out that the abuses to which we alluded were foreign to their activities.
      A dimension of the press not to be overlooked is the glory that we in this country can take in our quality newspapers, which bear comparison with any in the world. When I went to the United States, it was the first time that I had been engaged in a serious study of Washington and New York newspapers. I was very impressed with them and with the framework within which they operated, but I still would say that, in terms of entertainment, informative value and quality of journalism, the best newspapers in this country bear comparison with any elsewhere.
      There is, however, another big category of the press to which nearly all this debate is directed—tabloid journalism. That is what we are talking about predominantly. We are talking about that element of the press that seems to be totally resistant to and contemptuous of public opinion when it goes about its business of entertaining, and occasionally informing, the nation.
      That section of the press is under considerable pressures. We should recognise that they are the pressures of the major combines, the media empires that have developed at this stage of our history. Those media empires, into which entry by any free agent or competing force is exceedingly difficult, those colossal operators in the industry of newspapers, have substantial power, but they collide with each other like great dinosaurs of the past.
      One of the great functions of that kind of popular journalism has almost gone. It is not greatly in the business of conveying news. Where does the ordinary member of the public get his or her news? It is predominantly from the electronic media. I was brought up in a household in which the News Chronicle was a highly valued newspaper. It was greatly appreciated because it was a popular paper which informed and carried really effective news coverage—

      491
      [Interruption.] Well, hon. Members are calling out some of the more attractive features of the News Chronicle. It had, of course, its lighter side, but it was a newspaper that informed its readers; it was a serious newspaper, while having considerable popular appeal.
      Why is it that today it is much more difficult for the Daily Mirror, Today, The Star or—dare I say it?—The Sun to achieve that kind of balance? The answer is straightforward: they are not largely in the business of conveying news. Television has taken that function away from them, as radio did to a degree in the past. Watching television news is the way in which people keep up to date with what is going on in the world.
      The tabloid newspapers are rather more in the area of comment and entertainment. Indeed, the editor of The Sun said with great assertiveness when he appeared before the Select Committee that he is in the entertainment business, that his paper is a lively read. The problem with that is that anything goes. For many newspapers, locked into circulation wars, the kind of standards set by C. P. Scott are almost totally irrelevant to the economic exercise in which they are involved. As a consequence, we have the development of newspapers which, on occasion, exploit ordinary individuals.
      We have heard today from members of the Select Committee of the extent to which there are gross and damaging intrusions into the privacy of ordinary individuals; I do not want to recall those cases, because they have been well identified. It is not politicians, not people of power, not the great, the good or even the bad, but ordinary people who get caught up in news stories.
      We should all recognise—the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to this—that privacy is a human right. I am not sure that we in this country are sufficiently appreciative of the fact that certain aspects of privacy are under gross invasion from technological development.
      I am sure that we are all greatly relieved that parts of our shopping centres may be giving extra protection against terrorist outrage through surveillance devices. But such devices, extended right across the land, have a real danger implicit in them. After all, George Orwell's "1984" was based on the premise that technological devices would be developed that would give the authorities the opportunity for surveillance at all times. I am not seeking to deny the extensive efforts that must be made to protect our people against the terrorist outrage. I am merely saying that technological developments have an implicit danger.
      There is no doubt that the members of the Select Committee were shocked when we saw the range of devices available. That which only 10 or 15 years ago belonged to the fantasy world of James Bond now seems to be purchasable at the local store for a quite modest sum. I do not think that, at the moment, members of the public can buy some of the more esoteric models, such as the tiny little camera that photographs with great accuracy, in enormous detail and from a great height, and is carried in a small model aircraft—which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) suggested could be flown by remote control over Buckingham palace. I can think of many other areas where that device might be used with even greater effect.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I just want to remind the House that one cannot even trust a cricket stump nowadays.
      Mr. Davies: Indeed, views from certain cricket stumps have added to the embarrassment of English batsmen who cannot recognise a leg break, let alone cope with a camera.
      Such is the intrusion on the privacy of individuals through bugging and surveillance devices and the anxiety of the nation that the case has been made in the Select Committee report for the Government to recognise that early action is necessary. Such laws should be directed not against the press, but towards restricting anyone from using those devices unless it can be shown that there is good cause, on the basis of the public interest, for such use.
      There is, of course, a public interest in permitting certain use of these devices. I say nothing about the state authorities and security services, but we must be careful not to restrict investigative journalism. Some of our outstanding television programmes and journalism have been based on the justifiable use of devices against criminals, where their criminal activities would not otherwise have been revealed. Through the use of those devices and through intelligent action by journalists, those abuses have been exposed.
      Mr. Maclennnan: Did the Committee give serious consideration to the difficulty of drawing the line between what is in the public interest and what is not, even where intrusion into grief is important?
      It seems that in citing the most obvious cases of where intrusion into grief was unacceptable, the Committee may have overlooked a difficulty. I recall a case in the north of Scotland many years ago. The BBC interviewed the wives of some fishermen who were Missing at sea. It was a harrowing interview to observe and many people might have said—as I did at the time—that it was tasteless and unwise. The BBC was criticised for broadcasting the interview.
      But it was also clear that some of the ladies thought it right to talk of their harrowing experience to bring home to the public the appalling risks that fishermen face. Perhaps that would have rebutted any allegations that the interview was an unacceptable intrusion. It seems that a case is not always automatically clearly on one side or the other of the line.
      Mr. Davies: No one underestimates the difficulties, and many of us have witnessed similar harrowing interviews on television. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that consent is everything. If the person being interviewed has consented to that interview, then, harrowing as the experience may be, that certainly justifies the action of the journalist.
      In the cases before the Committee, people who wanted their privacy respected could not get away from foot-in-the-door journalists. The journalists were camped on their doorstep, would never take no for an answer and were prepared to go to almost any lengths, with endless telephone calls throughout the night and so on, in order to get their story.
      These are, of course, difficult issues. There will always be an area of judgment. In one of the more extreme cases, the editor of The Sun confessed to getting one thing wrong. It was amazing that he could admit to that. He regretted publishing certain photographs of the horrors of the Hillsborough disaster, and the suggestion that, in some

      493
      horrendous way, the fans had brought the disaster on themselves. The Hillsborough disaster still had to be reported to the nation in all its horror, and major lessons had to be learned from it.
      There is always the difficulty of striking a balance in any disaster, and there is not the slightest doubt about that. I can reassure the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that the Select Committee did not skate lightly over such issues— far from it. The Committee report was the product of many intensive hours of cross-examination. Great anxiety was expressed about the implications of some of the recommendations until the Committee teased the matters out.
      I confess that all along I was sceptical about whether the Committee could produce a report that went effectively much beyond a strengthened code of practice. I saw the Committee's work reflected in what I thought was a more positive response from the press as we proceeded. I should like, however, to reinforce one or two points made by other members of the Committee on just how difficult it might be to rely on self-regulation alone. I hope that self-regulation is the order of the day as far as possible.
      All the members of the Committee regarded the concept of the ombudsman as a last resort. They hoped that a strengthened and reasonably enforced Press Complaints Commission code of conduct would largely do the job. I shall quote from that famous occasion when the editor of The Sun graced the Committee with his presence, to the huge entertainment of the nation. He was asked—I am too modest to suggest who by—
      "So you are now discontinuing practices which you were conducting or certain members of your staff were conducting prior to the Press Complaints Commission development?"
      He replied:
      "I think that it would be fair to say that the spotlight is on us in a way which would make us foolhardy to do anything which would attract more organised opprobrium than already exists. So, yes, we do try harder now and, yes, whether the expression is 'cleaned up our act' or not I am not sure, but certainly we do try hard to make sure that we do not get into a position where our critics can attack us. That does not mean to say we will stop publishing stories about Norman Lamont's credit card but it does mean to say that when we publish something we are 101 per cent. certain that it is 101 per cent. true."
      That new development took our breath away, but it emerged from the great pressure of external forces and had nothing to do with self-motivation or self-regulation. When dealing with tabloid journalism on a national level, we must recognise the nature of the tough nut that we are seeking to crack. I do not mean by that that we are seeking to constrain tabloid journalism unfairly; but we are expecting it to have some respect for the truth and some respect for the privacy of the individual, particularly the ordinary individual.
      Of course, people who take up public office or hold high positions in the land must be subject to a different kind of challenge—they ought to be. We all believe that the press has an investigative and challenging role to play, but it has no right to infringe the privacy of ordinary individuals against a generally held code of conduct on the grounds that anything goes and that freedom of the press means a licence to print almost anything.
      My remarks have been fairly general because other members of the Committee have dealt with detailed aspects of our proposals. Although I was reluctant to accept the Committee's conclusions and hoped that there would be more self-regulation and less regulation by law,
      494
      I say to the Secretary of State that the case is proven with regard to the development of new technological surveillance devices. They need legislative control. Also, certain sections of the press will have to come to terms with a structure that will be adequate when self-regulation fails.
      7.39 pm
      Mr. Roger Gale:
      "Journalism is the vilest and most degrading of all trades because more affectation and hypocrisy and more subservience to the baser feelings of others are necessary for carrying it on than for any other trade from that of brothel-keeper upwards."
      I declare my interest as a professional journalist. I first heard that quote from John Stuart Mill about a month ago at a lecture. He wrote it in the 19th century and, as far as I can see, not a lot has changed since. Certainly nothing has changed in the month since I first heard it to make me believe that the journalist as a breed is held in anything much higher than contempt by the British public.
      I would like to pay my tribute to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and all the members of the Committee, most of whom have spoken in the debate already, for the work that they have done on their report. I thought that press coverage of the publication of the report was churlish, but it was, I suppose, to be expected. Whether or not we like all the recommendations—and perhaps some of us do not—the Committee did an extremely thorough job, both in the way in which it took its evidence and in the way in which it presented it. I would extend those congratulations to David Calcutt, his team and his report as well.
      At the invitation of my local radio station, I took part in a broadcast on this subject earlier today. In theory, lined up against me was an official of the National Union of Journalists, my professional association. The interviewer asked him, boldly and straight out, why journalists reported untruths. I imagined that the representative of me and of other hon. Members who are members of the NUJ would leap to our defence, but not a bit of it. He said,
      "We have to, because if we didn't we'd lose our jobs, because the proprietors of the newspapers make us report untruths."
      Having agreed to take part in the programme and to exercise some small criticism of the press and suggest how it might improve its practice, I found myself instead in the bizarre position of having to leap to the defence of my journalist colleagues. They have always struck me as a robust breed, well able to look after themselves. Perish the thought that a professional journalist would he browbeaten to the extent of going away and writing untruths because his lord and master told him to.
      I put this thesis to Andrew Neill of The Sunday Times some time ago, when I suggested to him that the Murdoch chain of newspapers had a vendetta against the royal family, that this was an edict from the top and it was why they were doing it—because I could not think of any other reason why they should do it. The wrath of God, or at least of Neill, fell on my head. Did I seriously think that he and his colleagues were for sale like that? I do not know the answer, but he did not think so.
      The NUJ representative on the programme pointed out that the journalists that I talked to were lobby correspondents. I must confess that there was a faint self-interest in this. I thought that, if I said nice things about journalists on the radio, I might be reported well. That is the way we work, is it not? All I can say to the

      495
      lobby correspondents—if there are any left in the building at this time of night—is that the officials of the NUJ do not appear to regard lobby correspondents as "real" journalists. Somewhere out there is apparently another breed of journalist writing "real" stories for newspapers, and those stories are the ones that they must write, even though they are untrue, because the newspaper proprietors say they must.
      So we come back to the standards of the press. As a professional journalist, I have experienced a growing sense of concern, not just over recent months but over recent years. There is not much doubt in the minds of many that the standard of written journalism has fallen. It is that concern which led to threats of action—threats of action by Calcutt, threats of action by hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) in his Bill, and threats of action by the Select Committee in its report.
      What is the response of what used to be called Fleet street to these threats of action? Self-righteous indignation. We have heard the quotes from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). The headlines—in so far as one can call them headlines—that came out when the Select Committee published its report were universally critical. There was scarcely a word of praise, not even for the workmanship of the report itself. The only greater squeals that I heard from the press came when there was some vague suggestion that they might be faced with value added tax on newspapers. The self-righteous self-interest of the press over these issues beggars belief.
      We have been discussing people in public life. Exceptionally for me, I have agreed with most of what has been said by most hon. Members but I want to take issue —courteously, I hope—with the slight hint of humbug when hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to "ordinary people", and have said that it is the interests of ordinary people that they are trying to protect.
      I believe that. I too want to protect the interests of ordinary people. Like every other hon. Member I represent thousands of them. But I believe that there is a case for protecting the interests of those who are apparently un-ordinary people, people in public life. I think that they have a right to protection.
      No one has said that today, because we know perfectly well that such a sentiment will not find favour with the press. It will be regarded as self-interest, and the press will suppose that, because we are trying to protect ourselves, we have something to hide. It is not quite like that.
      The right hon. Member for Gorton has returned to the Chamber. I paid what I hope was a kind tribute to the work that he and his Committee had done, and I would like to repeat it for his benefit now that he is here. The only quarrel that I have with his speech was when he said that we are all politicians and that we have to dish it out and be ready to take it.
      I know what he means and I agree with him. Of course we dish it out. We dish it out across the Chamber day after day. We hammer away at each other like blazes. That is the cut and thrust of politics. That is why we are in an adversarial Chamber. It is why there are two red lines on the carpet two swords' lengths apart. That conflict is the stuff of our lives, and we have to be ready to take it. We
      496
      have to be ready to take it from the Opposition Benches. The Prime Minister has to take it from the Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the Opposition has to take it from the Prime Minister. We expect that.
      But what is this "it" that we have to take? Is it the political sparring in here, is it genuine political conflict, or is it the God-given right of the press to take anybody in public life, of any standing and in any circumstances, say about them any truth or untruth and demolish them? If that is so, I do not believe that people in public life have to take "it".
      The royal family has been subjected to this over the past 18 months or so in particular. No hon. Member could reasonably stand, hand on heart, and say that the royal family has never done anything worthy of criticism, that we should be totally subservient and utter no word against them, in the press or elsewhere. That would be quite wrong. On the other hand, I may be naive but there seems to me to have been a concerted effort on the part of certain sections of the media coldly and calculatedly to seek to demolish an institution that means a very great deal to a very great number of people.
      I met three News International senior executives in the House recently and laid into them on the subject. They asked me why I was being difficult and having a go at them about cross-media ownership. I said that it was because I knew that was the only way that I could hurt them, as it was their Achilles heel. I said that they were hurting people of whom I was fond and I felt that I wanted to hurt them back. That may not be a noble sentiment for an hon. Member to feel, but I felt it in my guts.
      One of the three News International representatives was an American, and I said that I would explain to him exactly how I felt. I said, "It is as though I come to see you, take the American flag, pee on it and burn it on the White House lawn. That is what you are doing to my royal family." I believe that, and he understood my feeling as I had translated it into language that he, as an American, could understand.
      I wonder whether attacks on senior Members of Parliament are as justified as we pretend we believe them to be because we are supposed to take them. I wonder whether it is in order for someone like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) to be dragged, with his family, through the dirt, day after day and month after month until he breaks—not personally, as he is too tough for that—but politically? I shall not be party political as I am not defending merely my hon. Friends. I hope that Opposition Members understand that. Were the political ball to bounce the other way, what I am saying could apply as much to Opposition Members as to my hon. Friends.
      Yesterday, I listened to a speech in the Chamber delivered by a bitter man—it saddened me enormously. He may not prove to be proud of that speech, which I did not think was dignified or fair. It was a bitter speech, and I understood why. If, day after day, not only I and my economic policies—which are fair game for the House and the press—but every detail of my private life, my credit card, the booze that I did not buy, the girl friend that I did not have, were dragged through the press while my family were trying to take O or A-levels, I would feel bitter and, ultimately, I would break. That is what happened to my right hon. friend. If the leader of Her Majesty's

      497
      Government—presently a Conservative Government—is relentlessly attacked over a period, ultimately he or she will break.
      There is a grave danger that we in this country will find ourselves, to a greater or lesser extent, in the position of those in the United States. Relentless exposure in the media, particularly television, but also in print journalism, creates the danger that, unless one is the archangel Gabriel, one will break. Eventually, only men and women of no calibre will stand for public office. That is why I believe that we have a duty to protect, not only ordinary people, but those in high office.
      Mr. Maclennan: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's words. He referred to the case of the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). We could seek to prevent the press expressing its opinion and drawing things out month after month. I thought that the action of the press in the case of the right hon. and learned Member for Putney was repulsive. I think that I am the only Member of Parliament, other than the Prime Minister, who declared that publicly before the right hon. and learned Member went from office when I wrote a letter to The Independent in support of him. Therefore, I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about such pressure becoming an intolerable burden.
      However, would it not be better for people to say, "It does not matter—the issue relates to his private life, not his competence"? Until people are prepared to do that, we shall face the problem described by the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Gale: I agree with part of what the hon. Gentleman said. In another country in Europe, somewhere further south, where people's private lives are treated by the public and the press in a more relaxed and, perhaps, less hypocritical and more honest fashion than in this country, it would not matter. In many respects, this country is still extremely puritanical.
      Earlier in his speech the hon. Gentleman referred to the suggestion —but did not pursue it to its logical conclusion —that the fourth estate was beginning to regard itself as the Government of this country. No matter who is elected, the general media—not just the press and print journalists —engage in feeding frenzies and regurgiate their own stories.
      They believe that they can not only decide what policies should be pursued—any journalist is entitled to speculate and have an opinion on a subject on which he or she is an expert—and not only who should be Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary, Leader of the Opposition, or leader of the Liberal party, but to make a sustained effort to bring that about.
      The press will say that I am paranoid and raving mad, but I am concerned about the problem. I wonder whether we in public life will be able to sustain the job that we want to do on behalf of the ordinary people to whom so many colleagues have referred. If we have to spend all our time worrying about the subjects we are now discussing, ordinary people will Miss out on a range of issues. The Government of the day, of whatever political persuasion, will find themselves in a relentless battle against those who think that they are the real Government of the country, not the elected Government.
      It is interesting how Lord Rees-Mogg, who has never been elected to anything in his life—except, possibly, a club—
      Mr. Jessel: It is a very good club.
      Mr. Gale: I am ashamed—my hon. Friend says that it is a good club, and he is wearing its tie tonight.
      Mr. Jessel: My hon. Friend is also a member.
      Mr. Gale: I was going to say that I am about to resign from it.
      We have a genuine cause for concern. The net result of what I have been saying is that the press will say that I want to gag free speech. I do not—I am a journalist, and write and broadcast on a reasonably regular basis. I enjoy doing so and have earned my living through it—not now, but I did for a long time. As far as I am aware, I have nothing personal to hide, apart from the things that most of us want to hide, like overdrafts.
      However, the problem is not confined merely to people in public life. I have chosen to defend people in public life because it seems to be the one sector that has been neglected throughout the debate. When one speaks at this time in a debate, most of the good comments have been made. It is nice to be able to say something different. In a Gallup poll in The Daily Telegraph published in February, only 10 per cent. of the respondents said that they had any confidence in the press. That number is down from 32 per cent. 10 years ago—
      Mr. Corbett: It is still very high at 10.
      Mr. Gale: It was published in February; perhaps the most recent figure would be different.
      My friendly NUJ official says that this is due to market forces. Newspapers have become very commercial and journalists have to tell lies —they have to do what their editors want them to do. The style of newspapers has changed. It certainly has. But I am not so certain that that has to do with the big bad barons of the press, as at least one Opposition Member thinks. It might have a lot more to do with competition from the mechanical media. The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) rightly said that most people get their news from television and radio, so newspapers are having a harder time. Why buy one at all?
      Dog is eating dog: the circulation war is critical. Because of changes in working practices and the introduction of new technology, newspapers could be much more profitable now, but the competition between them is also much greater, and it would be foolish to deny that that has had some effect.
      This morning on the radio, I asked my NUJ friend, who will own the newspapers if not the barons of the press. Will they be run by workers' co-operatives? He held up The Independent as a shining example. My answer was that it is not independent.
      We need a free press in a free society. The free press must have the right to question the establishment, but with that freedom must go responsibility. I believe that the Press Complaints Commission has failed dismally and become discredited. If it was not before, it became discredited the day it was revealed that Lord McGregor had information about the royal family that was in the interests of the press but he failed to publish it. I cannot see how the PCC in its present form can continue.
      I carefully read the Select Committee's suggestions. I am not certain that I would like an ombudsman. I certainly do not want the statutory Calcutt tribunal. But it is necessary to recreate a genuinely independent Commission

      499
      that can promote a code of practice of the sort that the Select Committee annexed to its report. I should like that code of conduct incorporated in contracts of employment.
      Training is the bedrock. Several hon. Members have referred to the quality of local papers. Of course we would do that, because we want to keep in well with our local papers even if we fall out with everyone else. Nevertheless, the quality of local papers is in some ways much higher than that of the national press. Standards of reporting are high because local editors usually jump up and down on trainee journalists and make certain that they get their stories right—because if they do not, people will write in to complain that their names have been spelt wrongly in a report on a local funeral. Editors can do without that sort of hassle.
      I have much sympathy with the views of editors who have told me—and no doubt the Committee—that we should not pick on them: we should be pursuing the tabloids which are creating all the trouble. I do not want to pick on them. An independent Commission capable of promoting a code of practice within contracts of employment and of promoting training for young journalists would, I believe, do the job.
      The Press Complaints Commission is widely regarded as the creature of the press, which owns and pays for it and effectively decides who will sit on it. At the eleventh hour, after all this fuss, the Commission has, in theory, tipped the balance in favour of lay members—but we all know that that is not enough.
      We are talking about professionalism, but I strongly believe that electronic eavesdropping and telephone tapping, and trespassing on and entering peoples' property and homes—not to mention intrusive photography using long lenses—are all unacceptable in a free society.
      We hear a great deal about freedom of the press; we must also protect the freedom of the individual. I hope that that will be done, not in a press Bill, but under the criminal law in the next Criminal Justice Bill. I do not want, now or ever, one law for journalists and another for everyone else.
      8.5 pm
      Mr. Clive Soley: I very much welcomed the Select Committee report, which is a thoughtful document. I have a number of reservations about it, however. It comes close after the Calcutt report and my own Bill. I believe that a new agenda is emerging from all the debates that we have had in recent years—an important agenda.
      We are all in favour of some type of regulation; the questions that concern us are: what type of regulation, and how should we achieve it? I am increasingly of the view that we need to widen the debate to include electronic media. The Broadcasting Act 1990 no longer works well, not least because of technological changes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that restrictions on television had to do in part with the limited number of frequencies. But the new technology means that there is no limit on the number of frequencies—cable television gets around all that.
      Mr. Kaufman: What I sought to say was that as legislation is required to give the Government power to allocate frequencies, it is inevitable that that legislation
      500
      should entail some form of regulation of television and radio. My hon. Friend is right to say that as we get 500 channels and as the Government find it difficult to be involved in that, so regulation of the electronic media by legislation will become more and more difficult—until, perhaps, it becomes impossible.
      Mr. Soley: I am grateful. That fits in well with my argument. There are those who argue that, because of new technology, we should remove all regulation of the electronic media. But if we do, we shall run into the same sort of problems as we have with the press.
      What sort of regulation should we go for? I have been making the following argument for many months because I regard it as central, even though it runs contrary to what people might expect me to say. The problem, in Britain particularly, is that the press and the media suffer from excessive regulation of the wrong type. Our type restricts good investigative journalism, but permits enormous abuses of people's rights. We must address that problem. We were warned by international bodies that we were losing some of our press freedom precisely because we had passed many laws in this century, and especially in the past 10 to 15 years, that seriously restricted press freedom. That issue is specially important.
      It is not right to say, as some people have claimed from time to time, that we do not regulate the press. We have been regulating it by law for at least 100 years and the rules are in statute for anyone who cares to look at them. The press is mentioned and some of the rules protect press freedom. For example, journalists have the right in law to report some local authority committees to which the public do not have access. Press rights on Select Committees date back to legislation in the last century.
      The other side of the coin is that there are restrictions on journalism and the media generally, such as the broadcasting ban on some of the groups associated with the paramilitary campaign in Northern Ireland. Every country in the world regulates its media. Britain does not have a general defence of press freedom or a freedom of information Act. The Select Committee report is right to recommend that there must be a freedom of information Act before there is any other restrictive legislation on the press. I am glad that that recommendation received all-party support.
      I would go further because I have said in recent months that I should like to see not only a freedom of information Act but a general defence of press freedom. The British legal system does not normally contain such a positive defence, but I remind the House that Britain wrote most of the legislation for the European Court of Human Rights, including article 10 of the convention which deals with freedom of expression. We often say, "Don't do as we do; do as we tell you." Although others follow that advice, unfortunately we do not. If we adopted article 10 it would be much easier to adopt article 8, which deals with privacy. I have some reservations about the wording of articles 8 and 10. In many respects, article 10 is restrictive, but if it and article 8 were on the statute book, many of the problems that the debate has addressed would not be so serious.
      As I have said, all countries regulate the media, but the question that arises concerns the type of regulation and how to implement it. Britain is not now as forward on the defence of press freedom as it was in the last century. I have given editors some tough times in discussions with

      501
      them when I have told them that editors have been among the most weak-kneed and ineffectual in standing up for press freedom. They got wise over "Spycatcher" and on that they were good. Throughout the 1980s, I warned the press that press freedom was being seriously eroded.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton was an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on home affairs, and I was his deputy when the effects of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 were being felt. That Act allows the police to seize journalistic material. With one or two honourable exceptions, the press ignored that legislation and its impact on press freedom, which was serious.
      The press ignored the prevention of terrorism legislation which required journalists to name their sources. We saw the effect of that when last year Channel 4's Box Productions was fined £75,000 and warned that if it did not name its sources on future occasions it would face a much heavier punishment. We can no longer say that we have been defending press freedom.
      I think that it was a deputy editor of The Times who once said to me, "Why do you think that you can defend press freedom better than we can? We can do that ourselves." They have not and they do not. A damning criticism of the press throughout the 1980s—a period that was not good for the press generally—is that it was weak-kneed about press freedom. We need a stronger voice and that is why my Bill tries to have press freedom included on the political agenda. Obviously, the best way to do that is to have a freedom of information Act or a press freedom defence at law. I should prefer both and only the Government can provide them.
      The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and some other hon. Members spoke about the way that the press attacks certain people. The hon. Gentleman gave the example of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. The difference between the tabloid, mass circulation and other media is that those papers need to attack people or organisations that are unpopular. That is because they are driven by the market. A Chancellor who was immensely popular but whose economics was badly out would not he attacked in the same way, because mass-circulation newspapers are competing with each other at the very edge and have to fight desperately for the last inch of circulation. I shall shortly come to the way in which that affects the salacious details of stories.
      I became deeply concerned about press freedom abuse in the 1980s when I saw the mass circulation tabloid press attacking minority groups. I agreed with some of those groups and disagreed with others, but I am basically a democrat and I believe that democracy is not just about the majority's right to rule but about the right of minorities to be protected. A tabloid monopolistic press, in the sense that it consisted of a few powerful groups, attacked individuals and organisations who were vulnerable and often unpopular.
      I have mentioned previously the people who spoke up for those who were wrongly convicted of the Birmingham and Guildford pub bombings and the Broadwater Farm offences. Some of us were convinced at the time that people had been wrongfully convicted, and those who spoke up for them were attacked. Allowing that to happen is the modern equivalent of burning a witch at the stake. Sometimes people in minority groups are bad, sometimes they are mad, and sometimes they are sad. But sometimes they are right, and the important rule of news broadcasting
      502
      should be to report their views and attitudes accurately. That is one of the reasons why accuracy is so important. The Secretary of State has heard me speak about this matter many times and I commend him for sitting through yet another of my speeches.
      Accurate news reporting is the oxygen of democracy and the larger and more powerful our democracies become, the more important it is not to poison that oxygen. To do so is to poison democracy.
      Sometimes editors talk to us and to everyone else as if freedom of the press belonged to them and the press. It does not; nor does it belong to Ministers or Members of Parliament. It belongs to the people. The freedom of the press is a collective right and such rights are extremely important. As with all rights, they need to be balanced against others with which they may conflict.
      An individual has rights too, and one of them—which is also a collective right—is the right to expect news to be reported accurately and to have an independent means of settling a dispute if it cannot be settled in the normal way. I again urge the Secretary of State to bear that in mind when formulating policy. That collective right of the freedom of the press, which is so important to each and every one of us, has to be balanced by the rights of individuals which involve accuracy.
      I am not saying that privacy is not important, but it is easier to deal with. I gave the examples of article 10 and article 8 of the European Convention. Although privacy produces some pretty horrendous cases, it represents a minority of the complaints about the press. The great majority of complaints about the press are about accuracy.
      The hon. Member for Thanet, North said that only 10 per cent. believe the press. One of the tragedies of the British press that people do not believe it. That is sad. Journalism should be an honourable trade. If we cannot believe what we read in the paper, something has to be seriously wrong.
      We make another error of judgment about the tabloids; they are not actually bad papers. They may be bad newspapers, but they are not bad papers. They provide information that people want, in an attractive, well-produced way which makes them attractive and people buy them. In doing that, they abuse the news and often use individuals to drive up circulation and profit from it.
      Mr. Alan Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is eloquently making the case for the importance of all of us as citizens having a press that is honest, accurate and decent. Does he agree that, in a system of voluntary regulation, it is important that third-party complaints should be received and scrutinised? Does he agree that the problems of inaccuracy and invasion of privacy are not confined to the tabloid press?
      Mr. Soley: I agree absolutely, certainly on third-party rights. The hon. Gentleman and I have been at one for some time on that.
      The hon. Gentleman says that the problems are not confined to the press. When I first drew up my Bill, I wondered whether I should restrict it to certain mass circulation newspapers and legislate for a cut-off point at a circulation of 1 million, for example. I accept that local papers tend to be much better than tabloids, but, when I thought it through, I realised that what really matters is the citizens' right to accuracy, and even the best paper can get it wrong.

      503
      Good journalists should not take it as a slight that they get it wrong. It is hard to get it right all the time when one is working against deadlines. What matters—this is where the press is its own worst enemy—is that newspapers ought to be much more ready to say, "We got it wrong," and make corrections so that people have more confidence in them. I shall return to that point in a moment.
      Sir David Calcutt's report interested me considerably, but it scared the pants off me. It is far too draconian. A number of people have not recognised just how draconian it is. Paragraph 7.6 for example, refers to editors being charged with the conspiracy laws if they collude in the publication of something that has been obtained by a breach of one of those laws.
      The conspiracy laws are extremely serious and contain long sentences of imprisonment running into many years. If they are to be used on editors, one can envisage sliding down the dangerous road of press regulation in such a way that editors and journalists become fearful of running difficult stories. We should not be putting them off, because they might be good investigative journalists who do a good job and protect the rights of society.
      I want to emphasise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton one of my comments on the Select Committee report. I do not think that my right hon. Friend can argue that he is not recommending statutory control. He is. The ombudsman that he would appoint would have statutory powers.
      I recognise that my right hon. Friend hopes that that statutory person and body would not be used because the press would reform itself. When I heard him say that for the first time some months ago, that delightful phrase sprang to my lips about the triumph of hope over experience. Because of the market-driven nature of some tabloids, I do not think they can discipline themselves in the way that he would like. Therefore, we would have statutory control.
      I asked myself what are the differences between my right hon. Friend's approach and mine. There are a couple of interesting differences on that narrow point because there is a great deal of overlap between what I was trying to achieve and what appeared in the Select Committee report.
      My Bill proposed that there should be a statutory committee as opposed to a statutory ombudsman. One of the differences in favour of not restricting the press by legislation was my right hon. Friend's suggestion that the complainant should be required to go first to the voluntary body and only if that fails to go on to the statutory body. That was not the case in my Bill, although I would have been quite happy to amend my Bill to make that case, as it seems a sensible approach. I am not convinced that it is necessary, but it is certainly not a bad idea.
      The difference between my right hon. Friend's approach and mine is that his required an adjudication by just one person. That is one of my reservations about the ombudsman system.
      Mr. Corbett: At the end of the day.
      Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend on the Front Bench says, "At the end of the day." If we are to have adjudication by
      504
      a statutory person, in this case the ombudsman, that person is going to adjudicate on cases. If it is in statute, we must assume that it will happen.
      One reason why I wanted a committee is that it is vital to balance the views of the complainant with the need for press freedom. One proposal put to me was that my committee needed to be split into two, with one half dealing with press freedom and the other half dealing with complaints. When difficult cases occurred, the two would adjudicate jointly, thus balancing the press freedom argument with the press responsibility argument. One of my reservations about the ombudsman, which, in many ways is an attractive option, is that it is one person. We have to think about that carefully, because we then come to the second difference between my right hon. Friend's approach in the Select Committee and mine.
      The ombudsman has power to award compensation on any breach of the code. I carefully excluded a financial penalty until the last stage of a court case, if it got that far, except on accuracy. The press would have to correct accuracy, and if they failed to correct it or if the editor wanted to challenge it, they could go to court and only at that stage would a financial penalty become possible. The only requirement would be correction, and a financial penalty could not be imposed for any other breach of the code.
      One of my anxieties about Sir David Calcutt's approach and that of the Select Committee is that, if a potential financial payment is involved, be it compensation or fine for any breach of the code, and if the code is 40, 50 or 60 clauses long, what does a good investigative journalist do? He is not only looking over his shoulder at the libel laws, which are grossly draconian and need to be reduced to protect press freedom, but has to consider the possibility of a fine or compensation for any breach of the code.
      It then becomes difficult for a good investigative journalist to take risks unless—this is one way we might be able to get out of the trap—we have a strong defence of press freedom at law. That is why it is not just a matter of freedom of information, but a general defence of press freedom.
      On that basis, we might be able to say that there should be compensation for any breach of the code, but there should also be a separate law which stands in its own right which, because we know the example best in the United States, as our countries are so close on these issues, is something equivalent to the first amendment. That is one way of addressing that problem.
      Mr. Corbett: I understand exactly what my hon. Friend has said. However, would he also take on board the fact that there is no desire among journalists or editors for any special laws to give them special positions? That is one of the main points of the report of the National Heritage Select Committee and other reports on the topic. That is why the public interest defence is so important, because it can apply not just to journalists, but to every citizen.
      Mr. Soley: I understand that, but a number of cases have been quoted today—for example, the case of the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)—and all of them would be allowed, as far as I can see, under the Select Committee approach, the Sir David Calcutt approach and most other approaches.

      505
      The public interest opt-out would enable the press to point out that a person in a senior public position had made a statement of double standards by calling for family values while breaking those values. We can go through that loop at the moment, but it is not an especially good way of doing things. We would end up having lots of laws, each one with a built-in opt-out clause in terms of public interest.
      I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) to bear in mind the history of laws going back at least 100 years that are there to protect the press. We already have such laws, so why not have another, but one that becomes a measure relating to those issues, rather than trying to have strange opt-out clauses in privacy legislation and so on?
      I shall address the question of the Press Complaints Commission because the frequent complaint made against me and many other hon. Members is that we have all said that the Commission has failed, but that we will not say why. I keep producing arguments to explain how it has failed, and now I shall produce another argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) said that in January, Kelvin MacKenzie gave evidence that The Sun would become 101 per cent. true.
      In February, a headline appeared on the front page of The Sun in relation to the tragic murder of Jamie Bulger. It read:
      "Boy 12 is held for Jamie murder."
      Much further down the story it quoted the police saying:
      "We do not hold the murderer in these cells".
      The boy of 12 was being held as a witness and the police made that clear, so they cannot be blamed for making a misleading statement. That headline, which was a clear breach of the 101 per cent. rule by any standard, was never corrected—unless it has been corrected in the past week. That is a clear breach and a clear example of why we do not have confidence in the Press Complaints Commission.
      I shall tell the House what has happened to me since that time. I had a debate with a number of journalists, one of whom was Bridget Rowe, who was then the editor of the Sunday Mirror. I thought that I had got the journalists on this one and I waved the headline around with gay abandon in the middle of the debate. To my amazement, not only Bridget Rowe, but one or two others started shouting at me, "Why do you keep waving that paper around?" None of them said that the headline was wrong and that it must be corrected.
      It is as a result of such attitudes that we are so angry and that is why ordinary people—whatever that phrase means—are so angry about the press. There is an arrogance in the press which leads members of the press to believe that they do not have to say that anything is wrong. The headline is an example of press reporting that led me throughout the 1980s to fear for justice for individuals. The boy, who was not held for the murder at any time, was branded as the murderer.
      There is another example, from the many that I have given in the past, of how the Press Complaints Commission is failing. I spoke some time later to a senior member of the Commission. He said that he was aware of the story, but that the problem was that the Commission could not find the family to complain. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) spoke about third-party complaints. During the debate in which Bridget Rowe and others were busy attacking me, I was told that it was my fault that such things went on because
      506
      I had not complained. I suddenly found myself on the defensive. I thought, "Hang on, why am I on the defensive? I did not do this."
      I made that point to the man from the Press Complaints Commission. I said, "It is no wonder that you cannot find that family. You do not have to have too much nous to work out from the story, even assuming that only a tiny part of it is true, that the family were homeless." That point was given away by the description of the residence in which they lived. It was also clear—I put this as neutrally as I can—that the family had many problems. They were not the sort of family who would have been able to complain easily on their own behalf or even through another person.
      I made all those points to the Commissioner. He said, "How far do we go down this road?" My answer is simple. Any effective body must be proactive and not just reactive. The Commission did not need a complaint. Everyone knew within hours that the story was wrong. All that needed to happen was for the editor or someone else, perhaps a member of the Commission, to say, "This is seriously wrong. It is a headline story. It brands a child who is not a killer as a killer. You must put it right. You do not need anyone to complain to do that." My example shows why none of us has any confidence in the pathetic Press Complaints Commission, which seems more interested in finding excuses for inaction than in being proactive.
      I do not expect the Commission to read every paper produced throughout the United Kingdom every day, but I expect it to keep a watching brief. The comissioners could look at certain groups of newspapers from time to time to review them. They could make it easier for people to pass on information and they could assess it. They should act on their own initiative without waiting for a family who are obviously vulnerable, someone on their behalf or a Member of Parliament who feels strongly about the issue to raise the complaint with them. They should not need that if they are to be taken seriously as an effective body.
      There is another case at which hon. Members should look carefully. I do not intend to refer to it in detail because it is also sub judice. One of the cases to which I referred during my hearings was the case of the Taylor sisters who were charged with murder and found guilty. Their case is before the Appeal Court today and part of the grounds of the appeal are press inaccuracy and press distortion. I shall say no more about the case because it is before the Appeal Court.
      What I will say to all hon. Members is that they should look at the case with great care. It is profoundly interesting and it shows all the dangers, to which I have referred over the years, of press freedom being abused to such an extent that people are held wrongly in custody. I think of my comments about wrongful convictions and about it being so hard to get certain newspapers to report people's comments accurately so that they could have their case heard by the rest of the public.
      That point brings me to the publication of details. There are a number of examples. The hon. Member for Thanet, North spoke about attacks on the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont). One of the most important points for us to bear in mind is that, when the press report cases such as that of the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), for example, or when they report on the royal family, we should recognise that there is almost certainly a let-out in law—as suggested by

      507
      the Select Committee, by Sir David Calcutt and by myself—to allow those cases to be reported. I accept that that is right.
      I have a strange relationship with The Sun. At first, it published photographs of me with fangs so that I looked slightly like a vampire. When I said that The Sun was right to publish the fact that there was a relationship between Prince Charles and his partner because it had a bearing on the monarchy and therefore on the constitution, but that it was wrong to print the salacious details, it produced another photograph, the "statesmen Soley" photograph. That began to ruin my street image. There had been three attacking editorials in The Sun over the past month which had done me an immense amount of good. I should record my thanks to Mr. MacKenzie for those attacks just because he did so much for my street credibility. The important point is not that the story can be reported, but that salacious detail is published when it does not need to be.
      Another example relates to a constituent of mine—the young man alleged to have committed a murder, who escaped from a holding centre. Because he is under 18, he cannot be named or photographed. The Evening Standard and The Sun both ran stories saying that it was wrong that they could not publish photographs of that young man, and then did so in breach of the law. I accept that there is sometimes a case for publishing photographs of someone under age who has not been proven guilty but is regarded as dangerous, but perhaps it should he done through the court system. However, the press was wrong to print alongside the photograph details of the crime and of those affected by it—in one case the aunt of the victim—because that puts in the minds of those who end up as jurors dealing with the case that the individual concerned is guilty of the offence.
      It is the same with the sex stories about, for example, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney or the royal family. If a Minister says that he is a man of the family and a member of a party that supports family values, but does something different, or if a member of the royal family is involved, which has a bearing on the constutution, there may be a case for reporting the affairs. However, there is no case for reporting the salacious details of conversations or publishing pictures of, for example, the Duchess of York at a swimming pool. It is not necessary to report the salacious details to let the public know that someone is having an affair and that is an example of double standards or that there are implications for the monarchy.
      The problem for the press is that it does not want to print a story without the salacious detail because that is what sells the newspapers, as do attacks on unpopular people such as a Chancellor of the Exchequer or a group saying that the people who were convicted of blowing up the Birmingham pub are innocent. The newspapers do not want to attack anything popular because that would affect circulation. That is the difference between the regulated electronic media, which do not have the same market competition, and the unregulated press in the tabloid, monopolistic structure where there is an interest in market share.
      The Secretary of State cannot ignore the issue of ownership. We must deal with the monopolistic structure at the sharp end of the market. It is easy just to attack the
      508
      journalists and editors, but they are driven by the economic policy—"You must sell the newspaper and it is the salacious detail that will sell it." When the Daily Mirror published photographs of the Duchess of York, The Sun felt that it had to produce tapes of Prince Charles. That sold the newspaper and enabled it to catch up with the Daily Mirror, whose circulation had risen because of the Duchess of York photographs. It is all about circulation wars, which is why other newspapers do not have the same problems.
      I find it difficult to draft a law that would prevent the publication of salacious detail, which is why it must be done through a code of practice. It can be done through the way that I have previously suggested—and which I still think is basically right—of a statutory committee charged with the responsibility both to protect press freedom and roll back the laws that have invaded it and to balance the right of the individual.
      We need to provide a statutory right to accuracy. The importance of accuracy in a reporting organisation was well highlighted in evidence to my committee—it raises a culture of accuracy which becomes entrenched in that organisation, so that editors and journalists are also required to look at the other detail of the story. That has worked well in television, which is why the regulated electronic media do better investigative journalism than the unregulated press, while tending generally—although not always—to respect people's rights. They have a culture of accuracy which spills over into other areas.
      Presswise, the new organisation set up as a result of my Bill, met today for the third time. I was not able to attend, as I wanted to be here for this debate. Presswise exists to promote understanding of the press, but also to give advice, guidance and support to those who suddenly find themselves thrown into the front line before the press—the so-called ordinary person who finds himself the victim of press harassment or inaccuracy. It is similar to the victim support scheme referred to by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon.
      When I set up a committee to consider my Bill, I had many letters from people saying, "I don't want you to make my case public; I never again want to go through what the press has done to me." That is what made me aware of the need for a support and advice group for people caught in that trap and why I set up Presswise.
      Lady Olga Maitland: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Presswise. How many people have sought its help?
      Mr. Soley: It would be difficult to answer that question. Today is only the third meeting of Presswise. The first two were to set up the organisation. I have had a small number of letters and telephone calls that I am forwarding to Presswise. If this debate helps to publicise Presswise, that would be advantageous. We want to make known its activities. The National Association of Victim Support Schemes, among others, is offering to help. We are also looking for money to enable it to publish its activities and do all the other things that it needs to do.
      Although I initiated the group as it initially worked through me and held meetings in the House, it is essentially run by people who have been victims. The chair is Linda Townley, who was involved in the Princess Anne letters case, and the secretary is Diana Simpson, who was alleged to be the lover of the Yorkshire Ripper. Most of the others

      509
      involved have also been victims. It is not for me to stay involved. I shall be supportive, but it must stand or fall on its own. I anticipate that it will stand on its own feet, but I hope that it gets the support of all those who understand the nature and extent of the problem.
      The agenda is clear—we must have a clear defence of press freedom. I want that to go hand-in-hand with a Freedom of Information Act. There must be a regulatory body for the media, focusing primarily on accuracy so as to raise the culture of accuracy. There must be a high-status code operated by a high-status body. I am happy for the PCC to continue and for it to be the first point of referral, but there must be some statutory back-up, because at times it will fail and the statutory back-up will be needed, be it an ombudsman or the sort of structure that I have outlined and still prefer.
      8.49 pm
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House will understand if I do not try to match the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) in the weight or length of his contribution. I did not agree with all parts of his Bill, but through it he has done a service to the House and the country in allowing those who have suffered injustice—that is the proper word—at the hands of the media to have their point of view heard properly, not only through Presswise, about which the House will be interested to hear more as it develops, but through the hearings of the Select Committee. I join in the tributes to the Chairman of the Select Committee and to its members who have produced a fine report.
      The last sentence in volume 3 on page 394 states:
      "The job of pruning, then, is not for government but the press itself."
      Those are sensible words by Dr. Leonard Sussman, who comes not from this country but from the United States. It is useful to have the words of someone from across the Atlantic. He also says:
      "I believe the Calcutt recommendations for a statutory regime, listing 19 different requirements for a press complaints tribunal, moves in exactly the opposite and wrong direction. Indeed, it is far closer to the pattern now displayed in Eastern/Central Europe and Euroasia."
      The Select Committee was right in saying that the statutory basis that Calcutt recommended for a tribunal is not the way in which the House or the country should proceed. I have my doubts about having any kind of statutory body. I recognise that the Select Committee proposes, in effect, an indirect ombudsman-type service which would be a last resort.
      I do not want to get too far into my speech without recognising that broadcasters are not blameless. During my 18 years as a Member of Parliament, I have had no complaints from constituents about treatment by the press. I have had a complaint from a constituent about treatment by a television programme from a company that no longer has a broadcasting licence. That programme took what may have been a fact and a lot of tittle-tattle which was demonstrated later to be totally incorrect. My constituent in effect faced 50 accusations by television programme, one of which may have been accurate. He was prejudged by that television programme in a way which, if there had been a subsequent trial, would have been completely prejudicial.
      I regret that people do not understand that if there is ambiguity in the way in which a story or person has been treated, or if it turns out that a broadcast programme or
      510
      a press article has been wrong, the people responsible should write a letter immediately saying that they have got it wrong and asking how matters can be put right.
      As we have heard from contributions made this evening, victims do not always want renewed publicity and may say that they do not want to hear any more about it or wish for only a small mention that does not refer to the original offensive broadcast or article.
      I come now to some of the other evidence in the report. I do not want to spend my time again giving my views on press control. However, I would say through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage that, if our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster still has his list of 110 controls on the press, I am still waiting for a letter spelling out those extensive controls. They were not fully listed in the Select Committee's report.
      I come now to some of the points in the report that should be better known. They are part of the fruits of the process that the members of the Select Committee brought forward. The Swedish agreement between the journalists, proprietors and editors is referred to on page 321. That says that there should be an undeniable public interest before there is an invasion of privacy, not just one that can be justified at some extreme. That is the kind of standard that it would not be unfair to ask people to set.
      Page 331 of the report has evidence given by the police. I have a complaint about Scotland Yard's links with the press. On an increasing number of occasions they have tipped off journalists about juicy stories. I am not necessarily complaining about the press accompanying police on particular jobs, but the relationship is too incestuous. I hope that those in charge will look back over the past few years and ask whether there has been evidence of collusion, whether for friendship, money or favours in other ways.
      It is difficult for a police department to work well with the press, but those in authority should be saying that there are standards and that they do not want to see excesses. There are times when individuals become the victims of press attention after the police have tipped off the press about things that may or may not be justifiable.
      Page 388 contains annexes put forward by The Sun, which follow the evidence taken by the Select Committee from the Northern Ireland widows. Some of the most impressive evidence given to the Select Committee was from those widows, and I add my thanks to them for their courage in coming to discuss what they had experienced. It is worth noting also—I am not in any balancing their experience—the written evidence that was subsequently submitted by The Sun and the journalists working for it.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) referred to discussions that he had had with senior people from News International. As a result of his talking bluntly to them, two or three days later it settled the libel case that had been brought on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen. Frank criticism of newspapers to their face can have an impact. Too often, we forget about using plain English.
      I suspect that an increasing number of editors are paying attention to what their readers are saying to them, and in a way that others react to them. I heard a story recently of a mature woman who wrote to the editor of a broadsheet newspaper about his attacks on a leading individual. A couple of days later, she was somewhat

      511
      surprised to have him telephone her. That is the kind of response about which one normally does not hear from newspapers, and I believe that it has some impact.
      Sticking with The Sun for a moment, I am impressed at the evidence given by Tom Crone, the legal manager for News International, about the reduction of libel cases in which the company is involved. Perhaps News International is offending less, or perhaps it is getting out of holes faster.
      That leads me on to the libel laws. It ought to be possible to bring a libel defamation case to a small claims court, where it is possible without major legal expense—possible without any legal expense—to get people in front of an impartial decision maker and hear the case on either side. That would be the simplest way of sorting out what might even have been an unintentional ambiguity, and the fastest way of forcing people to say to their managers in the world of newspapers and broadcasting, "I am being taken to the small claims court; what shall we do?"
      When newspapers get things wrong, the faster they acknowledge it the better. Here I should declare an interest: my legal fees have been paid by parts of the media on a number of occasions. It is the newspapers' delay in accepting what they know that they must eventually accept that is so frustrating, expensive and intolerable to most ordinary people, as well as people like myself; indeed, in this context I regard myself as ordinary.
      On page xliii in annex 5 to the report, the Committee corrected something that it had got slightly wrong; let me turn, however, to the underlying issue. If proprietors, editors and journalists, in their various collective ways, can commit themselves in public to the standards that they believe should properly apply to themselves, it will be far easier in debate and in broadcasting to pick up the serious issues on which they go wrong. I am impressed by the large number of articles appearing in local and regional newspapers—and even in the national press—which provoke no complaints. I wish that the standard of accuracy in political reporting were as good as the standard applying to the reporting of sports results, but perhaps constant pressure will achieve that.
      Many of the complaints made by Women Against Rape and others who gave evidence to the Select Committee related to The Daily Telegraph, which seems to be willing to include details that it is no longer allowed to print in regard to divorce cases. I mention that because I want to refer to Conrad Black. Let us suppose that he, Rupert Murdoch or the owners of the Mirror Group could be told on a television programme—in general, debates about the press will take place on television and radio rather than in print—"This is the standard that you said that you would set"; "you" meaning the proprietor, on behalf of the editor responsible for the work of staff journalists or freelancers. I think that, in such circumstances, their people would not overstep the line quite so often—and, if they did so, they would recognise that they had done so, say sorry and return to the side of acceptability.
      Finally, let me make a point about freelancers. I do not want to speak up for Kelvin MacKenzie too much, because I have had the occasional row with him; but I believed him when he said that he now requires freelance journalists to reach the standards set for staff journalists
      512
      on The Sun. The problem relates to the freelance journalist who has not yet secured a newspaper to take his story and publish it.
      I encountered a freelance journalist who claimed to be working for a well-known national newspaper. When I asked for that journalist's name, it was eventually given to me; when I checked with the agency to which the story was supposed to be going, I was told that it was a Commissioned story, intended for an entirely different newspaper. When I rang the editor, he said that he had not asked for the story and would not take it. He said, "If you give me the telephone number of the agency, I will get in touch with the people there and tell them that they cannot do work for us unless they stop using such tactics."
      Freelancers who work for agencies rely for most of their income on a reputation for reliability. It should be possible —in the various ways at which I have hinted, or in the ways referred to by others—to sort out more of the problems, without ever expecting to achieve the level of prior restraint at which no one ever gets anything wrong. Surely, part of the purpose of the press—the same applies to Members of Parliament—is to allow people to go out on a limb and to do or say things that appear unjustifiable at times; but they should be willing to admit when they have got it wrong.
      9.2 pm
      Lady Olga Maitland: First, let me declare an interest, which must be unique in today's debate. I am not a member of the Select Committee; however, I have a particular interest. I am now a freelance journalist, and for 23 years I was a journalist employed by the Sunday Express.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: As a gossip columnist.
      Lady Olga Maitland: I am proud to have been a columnist, although I did many other kinds of reporting.
      Inevitably, some of my comments may be greeted with, "She would say that, wouldn't she?" But, in my position as gamekeeper-cum-poacher, I can see both sides of the coin. I think that this subject is important, because I accept that, in my role as Member of Parliament, I can no longer retain the privacy that I used to have.
      I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who feels that public people have a right to privacy. I believe that, where private lives conflict with public duties, newspapers are entirely justified in publishing the details. I do not accept, however, that they should publish the details of credit card accounts. The press should be guarantors of behaviour. There is a long list of corrupt politicians and business men in Italy, but who in the media ever wrote about them—or would not write about them? Anyway, the media did not write about them. That was a great mistake and a slur on Italy.
      I hold no brief for unprofessionalism. I have always contended that good stories and scoops can be obtained through perfectly legitimate means and I also believe that they must be accurate. I support totally the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) in his endeavours to highlight the importance of accuracy. In the newsroom of the Sunday Express there used to be a slogan saying, "Make it early, make it accurate or make it up." Those days are now gone.

      513
      Time has moved on. There is a harsh competitiveness today which, combined with modern technology, gives newspapers the means to bug and probe without the subject's knowledge. That has created a nightmare scenario reminiscent of the worst of Stalin's secret service. It is a paradox that the modern technology that can be such a boon in our lives can also be such a bane. A new market of information based on modern invasive technology has now grown up and become a curse.
      The press must accept responsibility. The press has enormous privileges and colossal power. I do not care for the arrogance that has been displayed in the press today, whether in the so-called quality papers or the tabloids, in their determination to dictate who runs the country. It is sordid and unacceptable. However, I would die for their right and freedom to publish as they think fit. I do not think that I have any right to censor that material, however unattractive and distasteful I may find it.
      By and large, the public outcry about the excesses of recent years in the performance of the media, together with the searching debates that have taken place in the House the Select Committee's report on privacy and intrusion, the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Hammersmith and the Calcutt report—have all served a positive purpose. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hammersmith. He may feel that I am not always in tune with him, but I am much closer to what he is trying to achieve than he may appreciate.
      A point has been made and the Press Complaints Commission has got the message. It has responded in many ways to the Select Committee's recommendations. The reality is that Fleet street is running scared. Those on Fleet street know that the writing is on the wall. The threat of legislation to control their behaviour is like a gun to the head. It makes them think very clearly. They recognise that we are serious and that we have the power to cramp their style devastatingly. It is revealing that in the Select Committee's interview with Mr. Kelvin MacKenzie, who some people thought was a braggart, he explained why he did not publish the Camilla tapes in The Sun. He said:
      "I could justify quite easily publishing those tapes in this country. We chose not to basically, I think, because we are in a curious cowed way at the moment in relation to the future of the press. I would not want to do anything which was going to cause us a bigger problem than we currently face".
      That is a telling statement. Having made our point
      Mr. Gorst: It was a most telling statement, but if my hon. Friend had had the time and patience to read to us some of Mr. MacKenzie's other telling statements, it would have become clear that they told a different story.
      Lady Olga Maitland: I accept that most of that interview with the Select Committee was not gratifying. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend must accept that even Mr. MacKenzie now knows that his peer group has developed different and higher standards and that, in the end, he will have to do likewise.
      We have made our point, and it must be recognised that the press is responding. I am sorry that the progress made by the PCC was barely recognised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). Since the hideous and intrusive journalism of the last year—whether it was dealing with the royal family or my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)—I can safely say that there has been no repeat of abuses on that scale. A start has been made, but there is still some way to go.
      514
      I am told that Fleet street editors, interestingly enough, are now turning on each other with ferocity. Survival is all. They are determined that one of their number will not make them all go down with him. I have been given vivid descriptions of almost farcical behind-the-scenes scrap-ping at the PCC. The heat is on one Sunday newspaper over its management of a complaint by the police. I am told that peer group pressure is pretty ferocious. If no satisfaction is gained, the other editors will press the chairman of the newspaper group to sack the editor involved. I am told that they plan to go even further and use editorials in their own newspapers to shame the paper in question, saying that the editor is not fit to continue in the job. They will leave no stone unturned because they now know that if they do not put their house in order, others will do it for them.
      As a consequence, there are stories floating around Fleet street about the private lives of public people which will never be published. Indeed, there is a story about the close relative of a former Cabinet Minister which will never see the light of day. Five years ago, that would not have been the case—the story would have been splashed across the headlines. Editors now know the penalties.
      PCC meetings now last for four or five hours, with editors wrangling and discussing complaints. It must be said that on the public platform—for example, when he met us in the House—the PCC's chairman, Lord McGregor, gave a rather academic performance. However, I am told that, in private, he can tackle his editors firmly. He has their respect, and it must be said that he, too, has learnt from his mistakes.
      Sir David English, the chairman and editor-in-chief of Associated Newspapers, which embraces the Daily Mail group, is as tough as hell, which is just as well given his present role as chairman of the PCC's code of practice committee. He would admit that, in the past, the Press Council was not a body that inspired fear in editors. Adjudications were conveniently buried on the back pages. When I worked for the Sunday Express, I did not take very seriously the threat of being taken to the Press Council. Today, Sir David recognises that the climate has changed. If he fails to deliver self-discipline, he knows that far worse will follow by way of legislation, which would be a very blunt instrument.
      Over-reaction could cripple the free press which any democratic society must sustain as the guarantor of its freedoms. I understand that the Secretary of State has recognised that fact. A poodle press would be no use at all. I therefore trust that, whatever the Government propose in the White Paper, they are clear about what precisely they are trying to achieve. We should be building on the considerable self-regulation developments that have occurred. They were, admittedly, sluggish to begin with, but positive progress has been made in the last year.
      The Government should not waste resources and effort setting up more bodies, such as a press Commission, with its statutory ombudsman and different procedures and powers. It is suggested that the Commission would deal with complaints and promote the freedom of the press, but it sounds like a recipe for total disaster. There would be procedural muddles galore, and a nightmare for aggrieved citizens, who would be expected to seek help from a body designed to protect and punish the press.
      I would not argue against a press ombudsman to serve as a right of appeal; that could be a timely reminder to the PCC that its code of practice must be effective. But more

      515
      thought must be given to the sort of powers that such a man should have. Swingeing and draconian powers with no right of appeal would devastate the press and make matters worse.
      The code of practice covers public concerns quite well. It ranges from accuracy to the opportunity to reply, from innuendo to privacy, and in that connection I cite an example of the way in which the PCC has been effective. A constituent of mine is the sister of a man who was arrested as a suspect in connection with the Wimbledon murder. It transpired that there were no charges, and eventually he was released. But during that time, that man became headline news. Everything about him was splashed across the newspapers. All his personal affairs and his lifestyle were exposed. His family was identified and their names and addresses given. It was a humiliating experience for them.
      The man was then set free by the police. There were no charges. The family complained to the PCC. The biggest apology appeared in The Daily Mirror. The second biggest apology appeared in The Sun. All the newspapers said much the same, although in slightly different ways. In other words, the PCC can be effective. All that happened in only the spring of this year.
      The code of practice also takes on board misrepresentation, bugging and harassment. Sir David is constantly reviewing the code and is planning to update it. For example, with regard to harassment, it is intolerable that private citizens should be chased by doorsteppers or by people telephoning. Sir David is seeking a common agreement with Fleet street editors to pull reporters back to their offices if they fail after making two or three approaches. It is not an easy task dealing with Fleet street editors, who have a pugnacity all their own. It takes considerable coaxing and bullying to bring them into line.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is there any justification for any journalist persisting in trying to make contact with somebody if that journalist has been told after the first attempt to go away?
      Lady Olga Maitland: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no excuse for harassment. I recall that when I worked in a news desk team, somebody might say in the first instance, "No, I don't think so," and then invite me in because he wanted to get whatever it was off his chest. But I agree with my hon. Friend that if somebody says no and means no, the reporter should withdraw. Up to now, the news desk would keep the reporter there and he has to carry on trying.
      The PCC is now trying to get a code of behaviour agreed by all concerned. Progress is being made. The time is coming when we shall have to consider what real sanctions the PCC might have over and above peer group pressure. Perhaps we might consider offering compensation of up to £1,000 in clear-cut cases to successful complainants, thus avoiding Mickey Mouse figures. The money would come out of a common fund set up by the PCC, which in any case is funded by a levy on the whole of the newspaper industry.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith. Why should not the code of practice also include all those who work in the media and electronic broadcasting? Those shots on television of hacks outside a house are filmed by
      516
      television cameras. Their invasive powers can be just as punishing. Why not go further, and extend the code to any citizen who seeks to sell material obtained by bugging, snooping or other illegitimate means? That would make it unlawful, for instance, to sell such things as the Camillagate tapes and the Squidgy tapes, thus putting the onus on both the vendor and the purchaser.
      I ask the Secretary of State to accept that Fleet Street editors are not the mad dogs of war any more. Progress has been made in the last year, and it is significant that the PCC supports general legislation to deal with electronic bugging and snooping. It takes a positive line on the proposed laws on privacy—a quagmire, may I say, for definition.
      I do not believe that a press Commission would serve any useful purpose. It would be far better to beef up the self-regulatory powers of the PCC, which in any case is already carrying out the proposals that have been put forward for the press Commission, particularly by having a board which is largely controlled by lay members.
      There are so many thoughts to bear in mind, but I believe that we have given Fleet Street a big fright. Fleet Street knows that it can no longer continue in the way that it has in the past. The time has now come to say that it has had its chance and we want it to stiffen up its discipline. I believe that we can put more into the White paper to enable it to do that, but it would be a great tragedy if we ever went down the road of statutory control of the press, which is ultimately the guarantor of our freedom.
      9.22 pm
      Mr. John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) started her remarks by saying that she was in a minority in that she is not a member of the Select Committee. I am in an even smaller minority among those speaking in this debate, in that I am neither a member of the Select Committee nor a journalist. The reason why I want to contribute is that this is an issue about which I care very deeply.
      As one who is a relative newcomer to the House, I have been impressed by the quality of the debate today. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) talked about the confrontational nature of this Chamber and how the scoring of party political points was in our lifeblood. I do not think that there has been any party political point scoring at all in this debate, and it has been improved by that fact.
      I am very pleased to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be replying this evening and that he has been present throughout the debate. He and I have worked together in the past, and I am very reassured by the fact that he will be responsible for taking the difficult and important decisions that will be required in relation to the topic that we are debating.
      I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) is no longer present. I was very pleased by his appointment to the Government, not only because, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), he is a fellow Essex man, but also because, in the short time that he was on the Back Benches after he returned to the House, he campaigned vigorously against the evils of Government regulation. I

      517
      fully supported him in that crusade, and I hope that he will continue it in his new office, not least with respect to the subject that we are debating today.
      That is not to say, of course, that the press does not require regulation. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said that he hoped that all of us who contributed would make it clear that we accepted the need for the press to be regulated. I disagree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith about a great deal —I was one of only 12 Members who voted against the Second Reading of his Bill—but on this issue I am entirely happy to take up his invitation.
      I accept that the press must be regulated. The press has great power and has a duty to exercise it responsibly. A code of conduct comprising well-defined guidelines is needed. That code would inform the press and allow it to be judged against those principles. Under the original Press Council there were no guidelines and, as a result, judgments by that council often appeared to be entirely arbitrary and unpredictable. That was bad for journalists, too, because they had no yardstick against which to measure their performance.
      Undoubtedly, some journalists took advantage of that and overstepped the bounds of acceptable or ethical behaviour. That resulted in the setting up of the original committee on privacy under Sir David Calcutt. The committee rightly identified the need for the code of conduct. However, the committee—I believe rightly—originally rejected the establishment of a statutory body and gave the press 18 months to set its house in order. Yet despite the establishment of the Press Complaints Commission some, including the Calcutt committee, have concluded that the press failed in that task and that there is now a need for Government intervention. I do not accept that view, first, because the existing system can be made to work, and secondly, because the consequences of a statutorily appointed body could be far more dangerous and pose a greater threat to our liberty than could any failure or flaw within the present system.
      Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I served for a time as a special adviser to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. At one time my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) held that position. I was in the Department when the Financial Services Act 1986 was going through the House. The Act established a system of regulation for the City and for the financial services industry. It came in the wake of some abuses, and at a time when the public were rightly demanding action to curb the behaviour of cowboys and crooks in the City. There was a great public demand for a statutory body to be created and for that body to have draconian powers enforceable in the courts.
      It would have been easy to succumb to those pressures, but the Government rejected that course. Instead of creating a rigid structure operating inflexible rules, the Government felt it better to allow the City to regulate itself. Several supervisory bodies were created with flexible rules that could be applied, not only to the letter but interpreted to reflect the spirit which lay behind them.
      By refraining from enshrining those rules in legislation, the Government allowed the self-regulatory organisations to adapt their rules to take account of developments in technology. The SROs had powers to tackle new abuses and close the loopholes that inevitably appeared. It was also recognised that it was in the City's own interests to
      518
      make self-regulation work and be seen to work if a statutory body was to be avoided. I remain convinced that that was the correct course.
      Those same arguments carry equal weight for regulation of the press today. But there is another and more powerful argument against a system of statutory regulation such as that proposed by the hon. Member for Hammersmith in his Bill and by the Calcutt review. As has been said many times in the debate, a free press is a bulwark of democracy. It is essential that the press should be able to criticise the Government and members of the Government and to feel no restraint in doing so. I suspect that anyone looking at today's newspapers would conclude that the press feels no such restraint at the moment and is taking maximum advantage of that freedom.
      A statutory body appointed by the Government to rule upon what the press can and cannot print would inevitably be a restraint upon that freedom. I have every confidence that, if such an authority were to be created and its members appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, it would be entirely objective and would not dream of using its position in any way for party political motives.
      I have equal confidence that if a Labour Secretary of State were to appoint members to a body, the same would apply. but in many countries and Governments the commitment to parliamentary democratic government is less wholehearted. This country and its Parliament are rightly regarded as beacons of democracy. If we were to have Government intervention in the press here, it is an example which would be eagerly followed by those with far less worthy motives.
      In its submission to the Calcutt review, the Australian Press Council said that the very motivation of its submission was
      "the fear that any recommendation of the Review for the statutory regulation of thhe press… would be of precedential value to governments throughout the commonwealth and beyond, in particular those where the press is less than free. This would be particularly so in those countries emerging from dictatorship, where a new legal system is not yet entrenched and where a free press is still a novelty."
      I therefore remain a strong supporter of self-regulation.
      After the publication of Sir David Calcutt's first report, the press responded speedily, spurred on undoubtedly by the threat that accompanied it of Government intervention. The establishment of the Press Complaints Commission within six months of the report, with the creation of the Press Standards Board of Finance to fund it and the drawing up of a detailed code of conduct to guide it, was impressive.
      The Press Complaints Commission has been subjected to quite a lot of criticism in the debate, some of it justified. But I welcomed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam in defending some of the things that the Commission has done, because I believe that it has done its best to respond to the complaints that have been made and to strengthen its code of conduct.
      As hon. Members have pointed out, the Commission has already accepted a number of recommendations in the Select Committee's report, such as setting up a helpline for members of the public and changing its membership so that lay members are now in the majority. Those were specific and very sensible recommendations of the Select Committee and I think that they will lead to a substantial improvement in the self-regulatory regime. However, I

      519
      hope that the Commission will also consider some further changes, some of which have also been advocated by the Select Committee.
      Some of the most recent cases of press stories relating to public figures, especially members of the royal family, have rightly led to great public concern. In most cases, but by no means all, I accept the Commission's comment that a tenable case for their publication can be argued, but the manner in which some of the stories have been obtained and the way in which they have been embroidered with lurid and tendentious detail is unacceptable. I therefore regret that the Commission has not always felt able to comment and rule upon some of these aspects.
      I understand that it is much more difficult for the Commission if it has not actually received a complaint from any of the parties involved, even when it has gone out of its way to invite such a complaint, but it is understandable that in some of the cases the individuals involved should not wish to complain because to do so would simply prolong their ordeal. I do not think that in these cases the Commission should then ignore the story and the issue that it raises.
      On occasions the Commission has felt able to make public comment without there being a complaint from the parties involved. In particular, it quickly and quite rightly condemned the publication of the Camillagate tapes. I hope that in future it will continue to speak out in condemnation of flagrant breaches of its code of conduct without waiting first to receive complaints.
      There is also a suspicion in the public mind that not all editors agree with the view expressed by the Commission in its submission to Calcutt that
      "a critical adjudication by the PCC is seen as a serious failure".
      Instead, there is a feeling that editors in a highly competitive market and under pressure to boost circulation would regard an adverse ruling by the PCC as a small price to pay for the sale of an extra 100,000 or 200,000 copies. The Commission stated in its submission that it
      "does not wield and will not seek enforceable sanctions… our powers are as weak or as strong as the moral commitment accepted openly by the newspaper and periodical industry under the Government's threat of statutory intervention."
      It is that moral commitment which, rightly or wrongly, some people now doubt. I hope, therefore, that the PCC will consider taking stronger powers than it has now.
      Since the motivation of editors is to sell newspapers and make profits for their proprietors, I agree that the Commission should have the power to punish transgressions of its code in this area. I support the recommendation of the Select Committee that the Commission should be able to impose fines and order the payment of compensation. Indeed, I would go slightly further: in extreme cases, as an ultimate sanction, the Commission might be able to order that a newspaper that had blatantly disregarded its code should suspend publication for one edition. That would be not only financially punitive but highly visible to the public.
      If the Commission followed these recommendations, it would become a body that would still command the support of the newspaper industry, but it would also possess the necessary teeth. I should hope that there would be no need for further regulation, such as the statutory
      520
      ombudsman proposed by the Select Committee. While marginally preferable to the statutory Commission which some have advocated, such a post would still be in the gift of the Government and it would still carry with it the dangers that I have described.
      Select Committee members who have spoken in the debate have stressed that they hope that the position will become a sinecure—that it would never require use—but there must be a danger, however small, that an ombudsman could become a state-appointed newspaper censor, and the Commission would either have to become subservient to it or irrelevant and ignored.
      The Commission made several other recommendations with implications that go far beyond the press. It recommended the protection of privacy law. There is a strong case for that, but I share the view of those who have said that such a law must not simply be directed at the press. It must apply to everyone in the country and not be seen as an instrument to punish journalists.
      Similarly, I should like to mention the laws of libel, which also need to be reviewed. The Prime Minister was absolutely right to initiate proceedings against the New Statesman and Society following publication of the outrageous and scurrilous story in that periodical. I am not sure, however, that it was right that the printing firm that printed the magazine—it is based in Colchester—should also have had to pay. It seems unreasonable to expect commercial printers to take responsibility for every word of every newspaper, book or magazine that they print. I hope that that will be considered when we come to look at the law in this area.
      This subject generates strong feelings because it touches on one of the fundamental components of a free society. We should think carefully before doing anything to interfere with the freedom of the press. I welcome the recommendations in the Select Committee report. I do not entirely accept one or two of them, but generally they are extremely sensible and they would improve the present regime of self-regulation. I hope that when my right hon. Friend comes to make his decisions he will conclude that the regulation of the press is a matter best left to the press and that there will be no need for the Department to introduce legislation.
      9.38 pm
      The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): This speech is being made at an hour when my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) told us it is impossible for anyone to say anything new. It will be a mixture of an initial response to the Select Committee and a wind-up to the debate on behalf of the Government.
      I congratulate the National Heritage Select Committee on its successful application for this estimates day debate, which gives the House another opportunity to discuss the important questions of press regulation and protection of privacy against media intrusion. Except for a moment during the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), I have had the pleasure of hearing every word of the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), who has sat here throughout the debate without granting himself the indulgence of making a speech.
      The debate has had the virtue of being wholly comprehensible to the Public Gallery. I do not know about

      521
      other hon. Members, but I have found that even English-speaking foreign visitors often think our affairs here as incomprehensible as cricket; but on this occasion we have been talking about a subject which would be comprehensible in any land.
      The Select Committee report was published on 24 March, much of it in direct response to Sir David Calcutt's review of press self-regulation, which he submitted to me in January. The Government welcome the Select Committee's report as a distinguished contribution to the public debate on these exceptionally difficult issues. Governments should normally seek to respond to Select Committee reports within two months, and I regret that it has not been possible to do so on this occasion.
      I have written to the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Manchester Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), to apologise for this and to explain the reasons. They are, quite simply, that the political range and importance of the Committee's recommendations, many going beyond the responsibilities of my Department, made a response within the normal timetable impossible. I assured the right hon. Gentleman, as I now assure the House, that the Government will do their best to ensure that their response is published before the summer Recess.
      We envisage a White Paper which, as well as responding to the Select Committee's recommendations, will set out the Government's final views on press self-regulation and report progress on those recommendations in Sir David Calcutt's review which, as I told the House in my statement on 14 January, the Government are able to accept.
      Although it is not possible for me at this moment to set out the Government's final views on any of these matters, I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I have listened to the debate carefully and that the Government will take full account of the points raised when we come to take decisions. I shall pick up some of the points addressed to the Government a little later, but, before I deal with the Select Committee's report, I shall set out briefly the Government's perspective on press regulation and self-regulation.
      The conflict between the freedom of the press to report and comment on matters of current interest and the rights and claims of individuals to be left alone is an old one, as students of the very vigorous press in the 18th and 19th centuries know well. But it is really only since the last war that the question whether, and if so how, the press should be regulated has become a hardy perennial.
      Successive royal Commissions generally concluded that self-regulation was the best form of restraint. In this, they were following the long-established tradition of not seeking to involve the Government in restraining or controlling the content of the printed press, except in so far as the general law—whether it be the law on defamation, incitement to crime or court reporting restrictions—imposed limits. At the same time, the Commissions generally concluded that self-regulation had not been fully effective.
      More recently, that was also the conclusion of the privacy committee, under Sir David Calcutt's chairmanship, and of Sir David's own review of press self-regulation, published in January. As hon. Members will know from the statement that I made to the House on 14 January, the Government accepted Sir David's conclusion that self-regulation under the Press Complaints Commission was not working properly, and urged the
      522
      newspaper industry to give attention to the failings that he had identified. We also accepted the case for new criminal offences of unwarranted intrusion, and for giving consideration to four other measures bearing on privacy. But we made it clear that we would be very reluctant to accept Sir David's central recommendation for a statutory press complaints tribunal, which would be a step of considerable constitutional significance, and we reserved our position on that. That remains the position, and we will report our conclusions on the tribunal in our response to the Select Committee.
      We are also considering the recommendations that the Select Committee has directed at the Government. As I have said, some of these go rather beyond my Department, but we will reply to them all in our response to the Committee. About half the Committee's recommendations are directed at the newspaper industry, which is also considering them. As hon. Members will know, both the Press Complaints Commission, and the Press Standards Board of Finance Ltd—Pressbof—which funds the Commission, issued statements on 4 May setting out their responses to some of the recommendations for better self-regulation which had been advanced by Sir David Calcutt and the Select Committee.
      My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister welcomed those changes at the time, adding that the Government would keep a close eye on their implementation. No doubt both bodies are considering the merits of implementing the remaining recommendations. Our response to the Committee will take into account the totality of the industry's response to the recommendations contained in the two reports.
      In the stimulating debate that we have just heard, hon. Members repeatedly asked for the Government's views on the Committee's various recommendations—with engaging patience about when we might be able to provide them. I do not want to anticipate the Government's response to the Committee, on which hon. Members will have to be patient a little longer. However, I should like to consider the debate that we have had before making one or two general remarks about the report.
      The right hon. Member for Gorton made a speech that was elegant, thorough and magisterial—adjectives which are also capable of being used about the Select Committee's report, even if they are not necessarily the words that leader writers used on the report's publication. The House will be grateful to him for the way in which he took us through the report of the Committee which he had so skilfully piloted. He gave us an insight into his advice to Lord Wilson to stop reading newspapers. I do not think that that advice would have been accepted by the first Earl Attlee, who relied on newspapers for reliable accounts of county cricket matches, as I do.
      The right hon. Gentleman believes that the Select Committee's recommendations have prompted the press concessions. We cannot make a conclusion one way or the other. I have a personal preference for the ancient Chinese view that one gets more done in the world if one does not mind who receives the credit. The important fact is that the press has responded to the public concern evidenced in pluralist ways.
      In a measured and thoughtful speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) asked about the timing of any announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I have sought to verify the answer during the debate, but I

      523
      can only say that my best understanding is that he intends, as we do in our own response to the report, to bring his work before the House before the recess.
      In a colourful and energetic speech, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) made a passing reference to the Stasi. He is not here, so I cannot ask him whether he knows the joke about the Stasi. When their function as police in east Berlin came to an end, they all became taxi drivers. They were the best in the world as all one had to do was give them one's name and they automatically knew one's address. The hon. Gentleman recommended all-party action. There has been near-unanimity in the debate. If Parliament legislates, there is much to be said for it to do so on the basis of all-party support.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) made an uplifting speech. He said that any sober critic would say that the press was slipping. It is most important that that view should be rationally buttressed in order to carry conviction in any legislative action that might arise.
      The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was a little more partisan. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) described it as an attacking speech. I found it not so much attacking as familiar—a comfortable old friend whose sampler stitch aphorisms I could now repeat in my sleep. I caught her saying that the Conservative party is against freedom of information and likewise heard her going on to say—and I paraphrase—that contempt for democracy marched hand in hand with a disrespect for freedom of information—the dying fall of implication being that the Conservative party is contemptuous of democracy.
      During the Committee stage of the Bill of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I cited the occasion when Professor Joad—not then a professor—went to take a scholarship at Oxford and was asked to write for three hours on the question: can a good man be happy on the rack? To which he replied, if he was a very good man and it was a very bad rack, yes; if not, no. He was awarded a capital alpha for his answer. I would have found the hon. Member for Cynon Valley a little more convincing if, when she described the Government and thus implicitly, myself, as secretive and authoritarian, she had not already included the editor of The Sun in a group that she categorised as well-trained sheep. I commend to her the editor's evidence to the Select Committee.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham made a compassionate speech and said that he regretted that the hon. Lady had introduced a discordant note into the atmosphere of unanimity which had been reflected in the Select Committee report. Given the elaborate investigatorial and legislative programme she spelled out in a somewhat premature version of the Queen's speech, I can see her difficulties.
      The hon. Lady's note of dissent was matched by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) who, in an appropriately austere and discriminating speech, after paying tribute to the Select Committee, raised probing misgivings about the statutory ombudsman. The hon. Gentleman and I were contemporaries at Oxford with the Master of the Rolls whose views on the entrenchment of article 10 of the European
      524
      convention on human rights has necessarily made a personal impact on me which I shall need to debate with him outside the House.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) made a reflective speech on a wide range of aspects of the Select Committee's findings. Although he correctly quoted the observation about the Englishman's castle, the original source of that stated fortification is Sir Edward Coke, the great lawyer of his age, who did not specify an Englishman but happily took a more generally Unionist view.
      The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) made a self-confessedly generalist speech and in the process reinforced the view that anti-surveillance legislation should be generally rather than narrowly framed.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North made a characteristically robust, wide-ranging and individual speech which in its coverage and vigour will bear retrospective re-reading. He personally introduced me to a ringing quotation by John Stuart Mill, who was a former Member of Parliament for part of my constituency, although for a party other than my own.
      When I made a statement on 14 January at the time of the publication of the Calcutt report, I said that we would delay our full response to Calcutt, not only until after the Select Committee had reported, but until after the debate on the Bill of the hon. Member for Hammersmith had run its course.
      I express appreciation to the hon. gentleman for the contribution his Bill has made to our general deliberations. I served as the Minister in the Standing Committee. That was an unusual innovation and, in the absence of a Government Whip, it reminded me how much I had forgotten about the detailed conduct of a Bill since I left the Whips' Office 10 years ago, not least because of the way that he arranged the evidence to be taken at the prefatory hearings prior to the Second Reading of his Bill.
      The hon. Gentleman has turned himself into an one-man Select Committee. He has on these subjects become, if I may coin a phrase, a personal walking appendix. He raised the historic inadequacy of the Police Complaints Commission. He will remember the failings that Sir David Calcutt identified and there is virtue in comparing how many of those criticisms Pressbof has responded to. His speech demonstrated the continuing interest he will take in the subject even when the summer is over.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) quoted Doctor Leonard Sussman, whom the chairman of the Select Committee had quoted at the end of the opening speech of the debate. My hon. Friend's speech, which was tautly relevant to the report, was also informed by his own personal experiences at the hands of the press.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) brought a different aspect of personal experience to the debate which helped to illuminate it from a different perspective. Indeed, all those who have spoken from a vantage point outside the Select Committee have added to our understanding.
      I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) for his personal remarks. I shall tell my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) what my hon. Friend said. We have only two Ministers in our Department and the other half

      525
      of the ministerial team is dining for the heritage tonight. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon that my hon. Friend's passion for deregulation has not deserted him. It was good of my hon. Friend to take part in the debate without either membership of the Select Committee or the journalists' profession and the debate has gained in the process.
      I said that I would conclude with a remark about the report. In its opening paragraphs, the Select Committee report seems to me to expose admirably the dilemma facing a democratic society which has to balance the right of freedom of expression with other rights. Of the other rights, privacy is not the only one, though it is probably the most important one, and it is certainly the one whose abuse by the press has caused the most concern recently among the public and in the House.
      As the report says, the right to privacy must not be exploited to withhold information necessary for making democratic judgments; nor must it be ignored by those whose main interest is in providing a saucy story.
      The Select Committee has been at pains to take and publish evidence from those claiming that their private lives have been harmed by injudicious, thoughtless or malicious reporting. I am sure that the House is grateful to the Committee for bringing those cases to its attention.
      Whether the Committee's prescription for correcting press abuses is appropriate is another matter to which the Government will return in our response. I assure the House that meanwhile, in developing our policy we shall be concerned solely with seeking the best means by which to restrain abuses of press freedom and by which to achieve a proper balance between the often conflicting rights of freedom of the press and the rights of individuals.
      The press argues that parliamentarians are preoccupied with defending themselves and that editors cannot identify a wider public concern about their behaviour. The freedom of the press becomes a talisman which is, at one and the same time, the covenant within the ark and the justification for all actions that the press may take. Parliamentarians have their own reasons for wishing the freedom of the press to be maintained. Our forebears in the House sought to create, to enlarge and to sustain that freedom; it is one of our national glories.
      The press periodically becomes apprehensive that Parliament is about to interfere with that freedom in greater or lesser degree, and the events of this year have embraced such a period. But I think it reasonable for Parliament to remark that the press is not serving the interests of freedom if it automatically, even casually and dismissively, uses the amulet of press freedom to justify whatever action it takes, especially when individual privacy is invaded.
      9.55 pm
      Mr. Kaufman: By leave of the House, I shall reply briefly. This debate will be read for many years to come, so may I first clarify a remark made by the Secretary of State about Lord Attlee's newspaper-reading habits? Lord Attlee read only two newspapers: the Daily Herald out of loyalty and The Times for the cricket scores. He otherwise paid no attention to what any newspaper said. He stayed in office for six years, and was a great and constructive Prime Minister. I once again recommend his practice to the present Prime Minister and to any of his successors in the remote future.
      526
      The Secretary of State need not have apologised in his comprehensive winding-up speech for not responding speedily to the Select Committee report. We on the Committee would far rather that the Government listened before acting. I and, I am sure, all my colleagues on the Select Committee are grateful for the fact that the Secretary of State has listened, has been here throughout the debate and has paid most serious attention to what has been said.
      The Secretary of State said that the Government will take into account the totality of the response from the press before making up their mind about their course of action. That is satisfactory, and well and good. However, although that attitude is perfectly proper and appropriate, it must be taken into account, as has been acknowledged by many participants in this excellent debate, that in so far as progress has been made by the press in voluntary regulation, it has been made in anticipation of action being taken to the extent that the press itself does not take action.
      Furthermore, my view is that if we have gone as far as we have, with the Government considering the matter carefully, with the Calcutt report, with Bills promoted by my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), and with our Select Committee report, and no action is taken, the press will slide backwards in the belief that it has got through its crisis and that it is now all clear for it to return to some of the deeply objectionable ways from which, we hope, it is beginning to emerge.
      I say to the Secretary of State and to the House that our Select Committee remains active on the matter. The Committee will, if necessary, return to the matter in the present Parliament, depending on the way in which the press decides to accept the spirit of the country and the spirit of the House. There is no doubt that there must be action and that that action should include not only greatly enhanced voluntary regulation by the press, but action of the kind that we suggest to the Government in our report. The House is ready for that action; the House is ready for the Government's announcement, to which we look forward.
      It being Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question which she was directed by paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 19 (Consideration of Estimates) to put at that hour.
      Resolved,
      That a sum not exceeding £26,720,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Department of National Heritage and the Royal Fine Arts Commission on administration.

      Statutory Instruments, &c
      Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

      DOUBLE TAXATION
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Ghana) Order 1993 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 26th April.
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (India) Order 1993 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 26th April.
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Ukraine) Order 1993 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 26th April.
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Uganda) Order 1993 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 26th April.—[Mr. Conway.]
      Question agreed to.

      REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
      Ordered,
      That, in respect of the Representation of the People Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Conway.]

      BROADCASTING
      Ordered,
      That Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory be discharged from the Broadcasting Committee and Mr. Greg Knight he added to the Committee.—[Mr. Conway.]

      FINANCE AND SERVICES
      Ordered,
      That Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory be discharged from the Finance and Services Committee and Mr. Greg Knight be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Conway.]

      Air Pollution
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
      10 pm
      Mr. John Austin-Walker: I thank the House for the opportunity to raise this pertinent and topical subject at a time when there is widespread concern about pollution levels, especially in London. We are accustomed to alarming stories about pollution in Mexico, Los Angeles and Athens, but the popular mythology was that Britain had cracked it—we had pioneered clean air legislation, and the industrial grime and the killer smog of the 1950s were no more. However, today we face even more dangerous pollutants in the air that we breathe—pollutants that we often cannot see but which can cause a variety of symptoms, including hay fever, eczema and asthma, especially among children, but which are also responsible for various forms of cancer.
      In Britain, we pride ourselves on having introduced air quality measures and on adopting standards set by the European Community and the World Health Organisation, but this week both EC regulations and WHO guidelines have been breached. Last week the Environment Minister launched a new Government air quality information service. I took the opportunity to dial Freephone 0800–556677. I was told that air quality was good in all parts of Britain except London and the south of England. I was advised that, if I was asthmatic, I should increase my treatment or talk to my doctor. Callers were advised to avoid exercise and to withdraw their children from games at school.
      The message went on to say that we could all play our part. It suggested that a major cause of much of the pollution was exhaust fumes from cars and lorries. Its advice was that we should not have bonfires, not drive too fast and not brake too sharply or accelerate too rapidly. While I am sure that those measures may help, they will have only a marginal impact. There is much more direct and dramatic action that the Government could and should take to stop London and other parts of the country choking to death.
      The Government acknowledge that there are regular breaches of EC NO2 guidelines. In the 1991 White Paper, they recognised that the only way to reverse the trend of rising pollution levels was to reduce the amount of vehicular traffic, yet they continue with policies that are anti-public transport and encourage more road use. Britain has more vehicles for every mile of road than any other EC country with the exception of Italy, yet the Government continue with a policy of substantial road building while failing to sustain adequate investment in public transport.
      When the President of the Board of Trade was Secretary of State for the Environment, he acknowledged that
      "for all the personal mobility the car can bring, we must be aware of the debit side."
      He told the Institution of Civil Engineers that the car was a major contributor of oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide, which he described as being harmful to human health and the environment. He faced fierce opposition from some of his colleagues. The former Secretary of State for Transport, Nicholas Ridley, said in 1984:
      "If people want to commute into London, who am Ito say they shouldn't?"

      529
      To him, it was a question of consumer choice.
      Nicholas Ridley's successor, Cecil Parkinson, felt that people's aspirations to use a car should not be "artificially constrained". But leaving aside the question of constraints, why do the Government adopt a policy of positively encouraging the growth in the use of private motor cars? Why do they have a policy that encourages the transport of freight by road rather than by rail or water? Why do they not recognise that any measures aimed at reducing car usage must provide more attractive alternative forms of transport?
      In November 1992, when London Transport's investment programme was cut by one third, the roads programme remained intact. It was not someone from the Opposition Benches or from the environmental lobby who said:
      "A demand-led approach begins by building a six lane motorway, in a few years moves to an eight lane motorway and not long afterwards, as is the case with junctions 12 to 15 of the M25, a 14 lane motorway."
      It was a true blue Tory. It was the then hon. Member for Surrey, East.
      In the five years from 1986 to 1991, NO2 levels in the United Kingdom rose by 35 per cent. In the same period, emissions of oxides of nitrogen from motor vehicles rose by 38 per cent. In the Warren Spring laboratory survey in 1991, 107 sites in the United Kingdom exceeded the EC guide value for NO2 and, of course, of the 20 sites with the highest concentration, 17 were in London.
      Successive studies have shown that London and the surrounding areas have higher NO2 concentrations than the rest of the country. But while central London suffers greatly, there are other areas of concern previously thought to be safe leafy suburbs. For example, Addlestone in Surrey, located close to the M25, had the largest increase between 1986 and 1991, rising by almost 100 per cent.
      Warren Spring laboratory predicts that the use of catalytic converters on new cars will reduce NO2 levels for a short period only, but they are predicted to rise again with the expected growth in traffic.
      I understand that a decision has been made today by the President of the Board of Trade to amalgamate the Warren Spring laboratory with the Atomic Energy Authority at Harwell. I hope the Minister will comment on the alleged leaked document which claims that the decision had already been taken to divide the work between the
      I seek an assurance from the Minister tonight that that action and decision by the Department of Trade will not jeopardise the national air quality monitoring network which Warren Spring runs. Will he tell us whether the Secretary of State for the Environment, or his predecessor, the current Home Secretary, were consulted on the matter by the President of the Board of Trade? I suspect that the intention is to save money and fatten up Harwell for privatisation.
      In central London, nitrogen oxide levels are almost at the EC limit value, and way above the EC guide value for which EC countries are supposed to aim. In December 1991, the average concentration of nitrogen dioxide in London was more than double the World Health Organisation's guidelines. We know that exposure to NO2 causes lung irritation, bronchitis and pneumonia and increased susceptibility to viral infections. Like sulphur dioxide, it is a constituent of smog and a cause of acid rain.
      530
      Carbon monoxide is another danger, most of which is attributable to vehicle exhausts from petrol engines. Already in London there have been occasions when the levels have reached double the WHO guidelines and the Government's own predictions are that, nationally, transport carbon emissions will rise from 38 million tonnes in 1990 to 62 million tonnes by 2010.
      One of the symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning is drowsiness, impaired brain functioning, slow reflexes and impaired perception and thinking. I wonder whether the Government's inaction in dealing with the problem may be attributable to a dose of carbon monoxide poisoning.
      Ozone is another pollutant on the increase. This is a secondary pollutant formed when nitrogen oxides mix with hydrocarbons from vehicle exhausts in the presence of sunlight—the infamous photochemical smog. But although ozone is beneficial in the upper zone, where it shields us from harmful ultra-violet and other rays, at ground level it is a dangerous toxin, causing lung irritation, eye, nose and throat irritations and headaches.
      To this lethal mixture have to be added hydrocarbons themselves, a third of which are directly attributable to motor vehicles. Emissions of hydrocarbons from transport sources rose by 60 per cent. between 1979 and 1988 and one of those hydrocarbons, benzine, is a dangerous carcinogen for which there is no safe limit. Benzine levels in London currently pose a threat to human health.
      Monitoring the situation is not an end in itself, but it should be used by Government to define the measures that need to be taken to improve air quality. It should also be used as a basis for making decisions in planning and transport. Britain, however, has fewer stations to monitor nitrogen dioxide in compliance with EC directives than any other EC country except Ireland and Luxembourg. Last year, the Government announced plans to increase the number of stations in its advanced urban monitoring network to 24, which compares with 200 in Germany and more than 85 in France.
      Another important factor is location. In 1990, London Scientific Services made the criticism that the Department of the Environment was not complying with the EC directive. Monitoring sites should be where pollution is likely to be highest, yet none of the United Kingdom sites is at the roadside, where concentrations of nitrogen dioxide are usually at their highest. Since the abolition of the GLC, monitoring in London has been haphazard. I admit that cost can be a major obstacle to effective local authority monitoring; that is not just my view, but the view expressed recently by the Conservative Local Authority Association for London.
      The London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities are co-operating with the South East Thames Institute of Public Health in presenting proposals for London wide air pollution monitoring. I must add that I consider the letter sent by Lord Strathclyde to the institute a regrettably negative response to a positive suggestion.
      Above all, we need straight factual information, open government and honesty from Ministers. Air quality is defined in the bulletins as very good, good, poor or very poor. The National Society for Clean Air has criticised those categories, on the ground that the jump across the boundary from good to poor is too sudden; it has suggested four bands—good, moderate, poor and very poor. Under the present classification, the "good" category allows up to 100 parts per billion of ozone,

      531
      whereas the World Health Organisation recommends a maximum one-hour guideline of 76 to 100 parts per billion. As the National Society for Clean Air has said:
      "to describe ozone levels approaching 100 parts per billion as good surely requires the use of rose-tinted spectacles."
      In response to criticisms from Friends of the Earth, the hon. Member for Loughborough, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, said:
      "WHO has set guidelines which are intended to be levels above which action should be taken to reduce pollution. They are not indications of a health risk as they incorporate safety margins".
      The World Health Organisation, however, says:
      "Since the air quality guideline value incorporates little or no margin of protection, widespread acute effects of the respiratory tract may be caused. The frequent and repetitive nature of ozone exposure might contribute to the development of irreversible decline of lung function as well as to structural lung damage".
      The WHO guidelines are frequently exceeded in the United Kingdom. Does the Minister stand by the remarks made by the former Health Minister, or will he now tell the truth? That would indeed be a breath of fresh air.
      It must be recognised that pollutants have different effects on different people. What may be reasonably safe for a healthy adult may have catastrophic consequences for a young baby or a frail elderly person; levels of atmospheric pollution that may cause the average person little discomfort can be crippling for someone with asthma or some other respiratory condition. There is also the question of the synergistic effect—the effect of different compounds acting together. I believe scientists call it the "potentiation factor": relatively low levels of some toxic substances act, in the presence of others, with increased toxicity.
      Day by day, we are learning more about the harmful effects. What may have been regarded as safe levels five or 10 years ago are now known to be harmful, so we must be somewhat circumspect when people talk about safe levels. A group of toxins that I have not mentioned is that comprising the dioxins, furans and polychlorinated biphenyls, many of which come from the incineration of domestic waste.
      I have not time to go into the subject tonight, but I draw the Minister's attention to the evidence given by Dr. Dean, the director of public health in the Cory inquiry, which will shortly be on his desk. She quoted Professor Bridges' study, which said that chlorine compounds can be transferred by the placenta to the developing foetus and through breast milk to the new-born child at 100 to 200 times the body concentration of the mother. That is a salutary piece of information, which we should hear in mind when talking about safe and acceptable levels of pollution.
      I represent a constituency with a higher than average level of respiratory illness and asthma among children. Also, a school in Abbey Wood in my constituency was featured in the BBC television programme "First Sight". That programme pointed out the serious consequences of asthma and respiratory illness for the children of that school. Ten per cent. of the pupils are regularly on medication which has to be on supply in the school, yet, in that area with such high levels of respiratory illness, the Government plan to build the east London river crossing, contributing another 1,000 metric tonnes of gaseous and particulate pollution into the area. It will pass by eight
      532
      schools, five of which cater for special education and health needs, including children with asthma, cystic fibrosis and heart disease. I invite the Minister to come to Greenwood school to see the consequences on those children of the Government's road building programme.
      We need action from the Government. We need better monitoring and information. We need to develop technical solutions to pollution emissions. Above all, we need to reduce traffic levels and improve public transport. We need to introduce fiscal measures that encourage public transport use and discourage the use of private cars. Above all, we need land use and planning policies to reduce to a minimum the need to travel. We need the Government to set targets. If they can set targets to reduce road casualties, they can and should set targets for reducing traffic and pollution, which is choking not only this capital city but other cities up and down the country.
      10.15 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I welcome the initiative of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) in raising this issue. Air pollution and health are important matters.
      We consider air pollution very seriously. Considerable progress has been made since the London smogs of the 1950s, but there are now different problems to solve. The measures we take must be well targeted and follow from a full understanding of air pollution.
      The nature of air pollution has changed dramatically over the years. In the 1950s, there were severe smogs in London and elsewhere, and these had a considerable impact on health. Such smogs arose mainly from pollution from coal being burnt in homes, offices and factories. The Clean Air Acts have made such smogs episodes of history.
      The main pollutants of concern today are those from road transport: nitrogen dioxides and hydrocarbon gases. In the presence of bright sunshine, such as we have experienced recently, those pollutants create photochemical oxidants, which at high levels may exacerbate respiratory problems for some people.
      Levels of such pollutants have been rising in cities throughout Europe as road transport activity has increased. It is important to recognise that London is not Athens or Los Angeles. Air quality in London is good or very good 97 per cent. of the time.
      In the environmental White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", we made clear our intention that action on air quality should be based increasingly on the acceptable standards for the protection of health and the wider environment. We want to ensure development of air quality standards, the provision of public information and the integration of air quality standards and pollution control, based on good scientific research; effective monitoring; and firm abatement policies.
      The technical complexity of air pollution makes it essential that we have the clearest possible understanding of air pollutants and of the way emissions are transported and transformed in the atmosphere, and of the way in which they impact on health. So we have a large research programme working on air pollution and its effects. The announcement today by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will in no way compromise that research programme.

      533
      Levels of pollution in our towns and cities are subject to review by an independent body, the quality of urban air review group, which is chaired by an eminent air pollution scientist. The review group's first report was published in January 1993. The report contains an assessment of current levels of air pollution and advice on what further research might be required.
      To provide advice on the impact of current levels of air pollution we have established an expert committee as an advisory group on the medical effects of air pollutants. The advisory group has published reports on ozone and on sulphur dioxide, acid aerosols and particulates. In addition, a working group has been established on the possible effects of air pollutants on allergic diseases, under the auspices of the British society for allergy and clinical immunology. The information from health advisory groups will be used by our own independent expert panel on air quality standards. The panel is charged with the production of advice on air quality standards.
      We are spending about £4 million a year on monitoring and co-ordinating monitoring of air pollutants. We have contracted a number of research bodies, many with international reputations. Sulphur dioxide and smoke are monitored at 278 sites in the country. Nitrogen dioxide is monitored at more than 1,000 sites.
      In 1990, we undertook to expand the coverage and scope of air pollution monitoring in urban areas using state-of-the-art techniques. Since then, our urban monitoring network has grown. A complementary network is being set up to measure hydrocarbons such as benzene, which come mainly from road transport. It is expected that the expansion planned for these networks will bring 12 sites into operation in each of these networks by the end of 1994. Two sites in the hydrocarbon network are planned for London, one of which will be sited in Eltham, Greenwich, near the hon. Member's constituency. Clearly, with so many sites, the quantity of data now available is large. We want as much information as possible to be available to the public. Our air quality bulletins systems are a first step in this direction.
      Monitoring information should be made widely available. Air quality information is available to the public by means of a free telephone information service and by the television text services, Teletext and Ceefax. Where possible, we provide regional information on the current levels of air pollutants and forecasts for the next day.
      In order to provide information as clearly as possible, air pollution measurements are banded, from very good through good and poor to very poor. Should air pollution rise above the threshold between good and poor, the public can obtain advice through the free telephone advisory service. We are determined that people should have as much information as possible, although I accept that it may take some time before people are used to seeing and interpreting it.
      We are taking action to combat air pollution. We are meeting the challenge. We have implemented tough legislation to control emissions from petrol and diesel vehicles. In the case of petrol cars, these are expected to reduce emissions from each vehicle by some 90 per cent. Economic growth is of course mirrored by growth in vehicle numbers and the miles travelled each year on our roads. However, we are already beginning to see the impact of the new emissions standards on emission levels,
      534
      and expect to see them reflected eventually in air quality levels as the new standards work their way through the vehicle fleet.
      There are many industrial sources of air pollution. Such emissions are subject to control, either by HM inspectorate of pollution or by local authorities. By themselves, controls on vehicles or on industry are not enough. Every one is responsible in some part for air pollution and has a part to play in reducing air pollution. We want to ensure that people are given useful, practical advice on what they can do to reduce air pollution—for example, the air quality bulletin system, the telephone advisory service, leaflets on summer and winter smog and on reporting excessive pollution from motor vehicles. Such information will enable everyone to help reduce air pollution, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to draw such information to the notice of his constituents.
      I have spoken about regulation and about empowering people to take action themselves. Economic instruments can also influence choice to reduce air pollution—for example, differential taxation rates for leaded and unleaded petrol. The use of unleaded petrol has grown rapidly in the United Kingdom and it now stands at over 50 per cent. of sales. That success encourages us to look further at ways in which economic instruments can impact on air pollution.
      Air quality in east London is an issue of concern to local people and local authorities, and to my own Department. Proposals to develop new industrial projects in the east Thames corridor have provided a focus for that concern. Nitrogen oxides are the pollutants of most concern. Although annual average levels may exceed the non-mandatory European Community guide value at the western end of the east Thames corridor, monitoring stations tell us that the mandatory EC limit value is not breached overall.
      New industrial projects must now go through a number of hoops before they can commence operation. Planning permission must be obtained from the local planning authority, and that will normally include the submission of an environmental statement by the operator. Authorisation must also be obtained from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.
      The Environmental Protection Act 1990 introduced IPC, integrated pollution control, in which BATNEEC—that is, the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost—should be used to prevent or minimise, and then render harmless, the release of substances in the environment. IPC also requires that any EC directives on air quality are met. HMIP scrutinises applications for authorisation to ensure that they comply with the objectives of the Environmental Protection Act.
      I know of 10 major new industrial projects planned for the east Thames corridor, and they are in various stages of the permitting process. A proposed municipal waste incinerator put forward by Cory Environmental in Belvedere, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, has had a planning inquiry. HMIP has so far issued authorisations for four developments. HMIP has carried out a detailed study of the effects of both existing and proposed industrial processes on oxides of nitrogen levels in the east Thames corridor.
      That assessment is near completion. The main conclusion of the study is that the proposed new developments are not expected to lead to a breach of the statutory EC limit value for nitrogen dioxide. New

      535
      industrial sources are expected to increase yearly concentrations by about 3 per cent. on existing levels. Existing industrial emissions also make a relatively small contribution, at most about 17 per cent. of existing nitrogen dioxide concentrations.
      As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, vehicles account for by far the vast majority of annual average concentrations—about 70 per cent.—in London. So it is important to keep the effects of major industry in perspective. The motor car is the chief cause of the relatively high levels of nitrogen oxides in east London, as elsewhere, and, as I say, we are taking positive action to tackle emissions from motor cars. The greatest benefit can be achieved through the control of vehicle emissions.
      536
      I recognise the genuine concern that people have about air pollution. The subject is taken seriously in Government. We have in hand measures which will have a significant impact on urban air pollution levels throughout the United Kingdom. We can all play a part in tackling air pollution. I have outlined some of the advice available on what each of us might do.
      Concerns about air pollution are understood and measures are being taken comprehensively to tackle air pollution. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concerns. We are determined to continue to tackle air pollution and to ensure that everyone in London, as elsewhere, can go about their lives confident that air quality is the highest that can possibly be achieved.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

EDUCATION

  Key Stage 3
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the weight and the number of packages involved in delivering the key stage 3 material to the average secondary school in England; and what assessment he has made of the capacity of such schools to store this material.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The weight and number of packages of the tests delivered will depend on the size of the school. A typical school would need approximately 1,900 test papers and associated mark schemes in English, maths, science, and technology for all their pupils undergoing key stage 3 testing. This would weigh approximately 99 kgs.

  As they were delivered shortly before the start of the tests, storage of the papers should not pose a long-term problem.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what percentage of schools conducted key stage 3 tests on 7 June; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what percentage of 14-year-olds sat key stage 3 tests on 7 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Patten
  Precise information is not yet available. Parents and the public more widely will rightly question why all schools did not administer the test which was a sound and straightforward basis on which to measure pupils' reading and writing skills. It provides vital information for teachers to help children who are failing in these areas. Schools which carried out the test will gain a clear idea of how their pupils perform in reading and writing against national standards.

ENVIRONMENT

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent communications he has received from the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels plc in regard to the future of radioactive waste arising from THORP.

  Mr. Yeo
  The chairman of British Nuclear Fuels plc has written to the Secretary of State on only one recent occasion, about the timing of authorisations for the Sellafield site.

  Electoral Registers (Sale)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has concerning the amounts of money raised by local electoral authorities through the sale of electoral registers.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information is not available centrally.

  Beach Awards
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the national beach awards made by the Tidy Britain Group.

  Mr. Yeo
  The seaside awards scheme was introduced by the Tidy Britain group (TGB) in 1992. It recognises beaches which have attained high standards of facilities, management, beach cleanliness and the water quality requirements of the Bathing Water Directive (76/160/ EEC). At present only those beaches which are entered for the scheme are considered for awards.

  My Department supports TBG in its operation of this awards scheme which encourages high standards at both resort and rural beaches. The criteria by which entrants are judged are exacting and in some cases more stringent than for the Blue Flag scheme for resorts.

  This year's awards, announced on 3 June, were presented by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 7 June. One hundred and thirty-three beaches received awards compared with 94 last year.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the standard spending assessments of each district council in England and Wales as a sum per head of population numbered in descending order.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested for English shire district councils, has been placed in the Library.

  Minister for Merseyside
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the name of the new Minister with special responsibility for Merseyside.

  Mr. Gummer
  Shortly.

  Poll Tax
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has of the amount of unpaid poll tax; what measures he is taking to encourage local authorities to collect the outstanding payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 7 June 1993]: I estimate that the level of community charge arrears for local authorities in England at 31 March 1993 was £2·4 billion. Authorities have, however, made provision for non-collection of £1·6 billion.

  We have provided authorities with a range of enforcement options. Once it has obtained a liability order from a court an authority may collect unpaid community charges by any of the following methods: an attachment of earnings order; distress; deductions from income support; charging orders (for collective community charges only); and bankruptcy and winding up. If, having attempted to levy distress, an authority is unable to find any or sufficient goods to distrain, it may seek to have the chargepayer committed to prison.

  Common Land
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement of his policy in relation to common land.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 8 June 1993]: It remains our policy to safeguard the status of common land and to strengthen the ways in which we protect and use it. We recognise that this policy requires legislation but I cannot say when such legislation will be introduced.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Drugs and Arms
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what direct involvement Her Majesty's Customs has had in the three discoveries of cannabis on a location off the west Wales coast over the last three weeks; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what action he proposes to take to increase surveillance to prevent importation of drugs and arms on the west Wales coast.

  Sir John Cope
  The bales of cannabis were trawled from the seabed by a fishing vessel and the master promptly and correctly notified Customs on each occasion. Customs subsequently took possession of the cannabis when the trawler returned to port at Milford Haven.

  Customs are constantly vigilant to prevent the importation of both drugs and arms on the west Wales coast as elsewhere and they deploy anti-smuggling teams, based at Swansea and Pembroke dock, to meet the assessed risk of such smuggling.

  The Customs strategy in relation to anti-smuggling controls is based on flexible targeting of resources towards areas of the highest risk at any given time.

  Debt Reduction
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on the United States proposal to join the international consensus on debt reduction on Trinidad terms.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government very much welcome the announcement by the United States Administration that it is seeking congressional approval for measures to enable the United States to join the Paris Club consensus for the implementation of debt reduction on Trinidad terms for the poorest and most indebted countries.

  Debt reduction on Trinidad terms was originally proposed by the Prime Minister in 1990.

  A modified version of the Prime Minister's Trinidad terms proposals, implemented by the Paris Club from December 1991, provide for 50 per cent. reduction in the debt payments due over a period of between one and three years. They also provide for consideration of the question of the country's whole stock of debt after three to four years, subject to satisfactory performance under IMF programmes.

  Approval of the legislation and necessary appropriation measures by Congress should allow the United States to give the 50 per cent. debt or debt service reduction under the Trinidad terms as presently implemented. The United States proposal should also allow the United States to participate in a Paris Club stock of debt reduction.
  292
  If the United States is able to implement Trinidad terms this is good news. It implies full international consensus at the Paris Club in favour of debt reduction. Moreover this should also facilitate in due course progress on other key objectives of the United Kingdom's strategy for official debt.

  The Government would like the present Trinidad terms improved so that they conform more closely to the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) actually put forward in Trinidad in 1990. In particular, we would like to see:

  — an increase in the rate of relief in excess of 50 per cent. on a case-by-case basis. For some countries, relief of up to 80 per cent. might be justified;

  — where a debtor has a good track record of performance under IMF programmes, immediate stock of debt relief should be given. There should be no need to have to wait three to four years.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of the Sino-British talks on the future of Hong Kong.

  Mr. Hurd
  There have now been four rounds of talks between Britain and China about electoral arrangements in Hong Kong. We have the responsibility to ensure that the elections to be held in 1994 and 1995 are fair, open and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. There should also be objective criteria for confirmation of members of the 1995 Legislative Council as members of the first legislature of the Hong Kong special administrative region in 1997. We are working hard for a successful outcome from the talks. But we also need to ensure that the elections are held on time. The talks will therefore need to be brought to a conclusion in good time to allow the practical arrangements for the elections to be made; they cannot go on indefinitely. We must make more progress.

  Serbia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss recent political events in Serbia with the Federal Yugoslav representative in London; and if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's view of recent developments in the Yugoslav Federation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. Recent developments in Belgrade were discussed at the EC General Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 8 and 9 June. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and his European colleagues condemned the repression evident in Serbia, in particular the physical abuse of the opposition leader, Mr. Draskovic and his wife, and the moves to ban opposition parties.

  Latvia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Latvian Foreign Minister about the development of democracy in that country and the position of the ethnic Russian minority; and if he will make a statement.
  293
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At the EC Troika ministerial meeting with Baltic Foreign Ministers on 19 April, we and our partners acknowledged the progress on political reform which Latvia had made. We also reiterated the importance we attach to the upholding of human rights. We do not accept Russian allegations of human rights abuses in Latvia, which have been shown to be unfounded by CSCE and UN fact-finding missions. However, Latvia needs to find fair formulae on citizenship and non-citizens' rights. We have urged Latvia to implement soon the recommendations of the report on Latvia by the CSCE high commissioner on national minorities.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports his Department has received on the conduct of the recent elections in Latvia; what were the nature of such reports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The elections were the first to have been held since Latvia regained independence. We are pleased that they were conducted successfully. Her Majesty's embassy in Riga has reported that the Council of Europe mission observing the elections concluded that they were free, democratic and independent.

  Greece
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Foreign Minister of Greece; what issues were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last met Mr. Papaconstantinou at the Foreign Affairs Council on 8 June.

  Among the topics discussed were the former Yugoslavia, EC enlargement, structural funds arid the GATT Uruguay round.

  Asylum
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom post in Zagreb received from Mrs. Sadeta Draganovic and her children an application to be granted asylum in the United Kingdom; when that application was forwarded to the immigration and nationality department of the Home Office; if the post in Zagreb received information as to whether a decision on the application has been taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Her Majesty's embassy in Zagreb received an application for entry clearance by Mrs. Draganovic on 28 April 1993. This was referred to the Home Office the same day. To date the embassy has received no response.

  Angola
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government are taking to ensure that legitimate government in Angola is maintained.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We fully support United Nations efforts to promote dialogue between the democratically elected Government of Angola and UNITA leading to a294
  ceasefire and full implementation of the Bicesse Peace Accords. On 1 June the Security Council extended the mandate of the United Nations operation in Angola for 45 days to allow these efforts to continue.

  Somalia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) representatives of non-Governmental organisations and (b) with commonwealth high commissioners about recent developments in Somalia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We maintain regular and close contacts with NGO's about the situation in Somalia, including the recent developments. Officials have been in contact with individual Commonwealth High Commissions.

  We have also expressed our condolences over the recent tragic death of Pakistani United Nations troops in Somalia.

  Malawi
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the referendum in Malawi on 14 June.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We sent three observers to Malawi as part of a coordinated EC mission to monitor the referendum voter registration process beween 12 and 21 April. A further five United Kingdom observers arrived in Malawi on 3 June where they will remain until 18 June to monitor the latter stages of the referendum process, including the vote and declaration of the result. In addition, we have agreed to provide financial support through the United Nations development programme to supply equipment necessary for the holding of the referendum.

  We are supporting the referendum process despite a number of concerns over reports of harassment, intimidation of individual multi-party advocates and lack of coverage of their views on the government controlled media. However we are encouraged that all the parties remain committed to continued participation in the referendum process. We have urged the Government of Malawi to ensure that the remainder of the campaign takes place under conditions which allow all Malawians to express their views freely.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Corrections Corporation of America
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the expected publication date of the report of the prison service investigation into the American prison firm CCA.

  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 June 1993:

  295
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about publication of the report of our investigation into CCA.
  Following various allegations about CCA in the media, the Prisons Board decided that one of its non-executive members, Mr. Bill Bentley, should visit the United States and investigate the background to these allegations. The results of Mr. Bentley's inquiries have been presented to the Board; in brief, he concludes that he was unable to find any evidence which would have affected the decision to award the contract from Blakenhurst Prison to UKDS, the consortium which includes CCA.
  This conclusion has been accepted by Mr. Peter Lloyd, the Prisons Minister, who has written to Sir Ivan Lawrence reporting the outcome of the inquiry. A copy of that letter has been placed in the Library of the House. Beyond that, we have no plans to publish a report on Mr. Bentley's investigation.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will delay the opening of Blakenhurst prison pending the outcome of the prison service investigation into CCA.

  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 June 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the opening of Blakenhurst Prison.
  Our initial review concluded that no information about CCA had come to light which would have affected our decision to award the contract to the UKDS, the consortium which includes CCA.
  The opening of Blakenhurst Prison therefore went ahead as scheduled, with the first inmates arriving on 26 May.

  Relocation and Amalgamation
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the sections and organisations within his Department for which there are plans for relocation or amalgamation.

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office has no major relocation or amalgamation plans at present, but a number of minor moves are being planned. In particular, the central research and support establishment will move from Aldermaston to forensic science service headquarters in Birmingham and the prison service tactical management and planning unit (TMPU) will move from Birmingham to London, both in September 1993. TMPU will also be amalgamated with the prison service headquarters section responsible for the managements of category A prisoners.

  Drug Abuse
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he plans to take to eliminate Temazepan capsule abuse.

  Mr. David Maclean
  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has recently completed consultations on its proposed changes in the controls over Temazepam and I expect shortly to receive its conclusions.

  Manchester Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any member of the initial Manchester gaol tender evaluation panel has been recruited by any of the firms involved in submitting tenders for running that prison.
  296
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated June 1993.
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question whether any member of the panel evaluating the bids for the management of Manchester prison has been recruited by any of the firms involved in submitting tenders.
  No actual or proposed member of the evaluation panel has been recruited by any of the tendering companies.

  Security Guard Uniforms
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take legislative action to prevent the staff of security companies from being uniformed so as to resemble police officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is already an offence under section 52 of the Police Act 1964 to impersonate a police officer with intent to deceive.

  North Sea Camp Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what savings would be made by using prisoners at HMP North Sea camp to drive lorries to deliver vegetables to other prisoners:

  (2) what plans there are to use convicted inmates as lorry drivers at HMP North Sea camp; what assessment has been made of the security implications; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what discussions have taken place with the Prison Officers Association and the Prison Governors Association about the use of prisoners in jobs previously held by paid staff.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 10 June 1993.
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about North Sea Camp.
  The Governor of North Sea Camp open prison is examining a proposal to use a suitably qualified prisoner to make vegetable deliveries to neighbouring prisons. This will release a prison auxiliary driver to take more prisoners to work placements in local communities, thus meeting an increased demand for such opportunities.
  There would be no financial savings since the auxiliary driver will be employed on other duties.
  North Sea Camp holds Category D prisoners who are judged to be able to be trusted not to abscond or commit further offences, and to present little risk to the public.
  The governor has consulted widely on the question of the use of prisoners as drivers. Members of the local Branch of the Prison Officers Association have not objected to the scheme. Likewise members of the Prison Governors Association at North Sea Camp have no objection. The governor is continuing to consult governors of neighbouring prisons to which deliveries would be made before he reaches a final decision.
  I am not aware of any other schemes which will use prisoners to undertake work previously done by paid staff.

  Doncaster Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a decision has yet been made on the date for sending out tenders for Doncaster prison; who will be sent the tender documents; and what is the closing date for bids.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 10 June 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply directly to your question about the tendering arrangements for the management of Doncaster Prison.
  The intention is to send out invitations to tender on 16 July 1993 with a closing date for the return of bids in mid September. The composition of the bidders' list will depend upon the response to the notice advertising the tendering exercise in the Official Journal of the European Community and a subsequent qualification assessment of the applicants.

  Group 4
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what clauses exist in the present contract with Group 4 escort services to allow renegotiation of the contract; and what would be the additional cost of renegotiating the contract in line with the increased number of prisoner movements;

  (2) what talks Group 4 has had with his escort duties; what projections were made about the number of prisoner movements by his Department as the basis for the contract with Group 4 escort services; what are the actual numbers of prisoner movements at the latest available date; and if he plans to amend the contract accordingly.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 10 June 1993.
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply directly to your two Parliamentary Questions about the contract for court escort services with Group 4 Services Ltd.
  The resources needed for the court escort service depend both on the numbers of prisoners to be escorted and on the distribution of their points of origin and their destination. These were measured in surveys carried out prior to the issue of invitations to tender and immediately prior to contract signature. The contract price was based on the findings of the latter survey.
  The contract recognises, however, that costs will vary with the requirement, and mechanisms exist to adjust the contract price in line with changes in requirement. Analysis of the present workload is underway in order to determine whether either the resource levels or the contract price, or both, need adjustment, and, if so by how much.

  Murder Cases
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many murder cases in the last two years there has been a delay of(a) more than 10 weeks, (b) less than 10 weeks, (c) less than eight weeks and (d) less than four weeks after death before defence solicitors agreed to the release of the victim's body to the family.
  298
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I regret that this information is not available. Coroners, with the encouragment of the Home Office, do all they can to keep to the minimum the delay in releasing bodies. I deeply sympathise with the families of victims to whom distress is caused by any delays.

  Asylum
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Immigration and Nationality Department received from the visa section of the British embassy in Zabred an application for asylum in the United Kingdom by Mrs. Sadeta Draganovic and her children; when the Immigration and Nationality Department is going to take a decision on this application; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  An application by Mrs. Draganovic and her three sons for visas to join members of their family admitted exceptionally under the special arrangements for ex-detainees was referred by the visa officer to the asylum division of the Immigration and Nationality Department on 28 April. A decision on the application will be made shortly.

  EC Immigration Meeting
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the main decisions taken by EC Immigration Ministers meeting recently in Copenhagen.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer to the answer which I gave the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 9 June 1993 at column 246.

  Mistreatment of Prisoners
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the inquiry into the allegation of mistreatment of prisoners in the United States in establishments controlled by the Corrections Corporation of America.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: Mr. Bentley has now completed his inquiries and has reported his findings to Derek Lewis, the director general of the prison service.

  In addition to the original allegations made against CCA and some of its senior management, I understand that consideration has also been given to further allegations contained in The Observer newspaper.

  From Mr. Bentley's findings it is clear that there is nothing to suggest that CCA or its senior managers are unfit to be shareholders in a company holding the contract to operate Blakenhurst or any other prision. In the circumstances, the contract awarded to UKDS for the operation and management of Blakenhurst prison will continue.

  I have written in similar terms today to Sir Ivan Lawrence, Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. A copy of my letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Polytetrafluoroethylene
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department and the Department of the Environment will produce a guidance
  299
  document on the use of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) based and composite buildings products both under construction and in existence; what representations on the potential dangers to the public and firefighters of this substance have been made by the joint fire prevention committee of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council over the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 9 June 1993]: The research to establish whether there are potential additional hazards to firefighters and the general public from fires involving structures roofed with PTFE-based materials concluded that in the event of a fire the probability of any additional threat would be minimal. Guidance for fire brigades on the use of such materials in buildings will be issued shortly by my Department and we understand that guidance for building control officers will be published in the autumn by the building research establishment.

  Progress of the research project and on the preparation of guidance notes has been reported at meetings of the joint fire prevention committee on 2 October 1990, when the interim conclusions of the research were available, 15 October 1991, 7 April 1992 and 6 October 1992. The final results were made available to the committee on 23 March 1993.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Network Marketing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what studies he has undertaken into the concept of network marketing; what evidence there is to link this concept with associated marketing techniques, such as pyramid selling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A network marketing scheme is subject to the same legal requirements as pyramid selling if it includes the elements specified in section 118 of the Fair Trading Act. We are reviewing the legislation governing pyramid selling and similar trading schemes.

  Transonic Wind Tunnel
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list the countries that have contracted to use the European transonic wind tunnel cycle programme; for what amount of time; and at what charge;

  (2) when the European transonic wind tunnel cycle programme will be ready for use; and what access countries outside the partnership have to the tunnel;

  (3) who are the European partners in the European transonic wind tunnel cycle programme; and what is each country's contribution in cash terms.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The partners in the European transonic wind tunnel (ETW) are United Kingdom, France Germany and the Netherlands.

  They are providing funds in the following proportions:

  Construction/Commissioning/Calibration Per cent.

  Initial Operation Per cent.

  United Kingdom

  28·0

  31·0

  France

  28·0

  31·0

  Germany

  38·0

  31·0

  Netherlands

  6·0

  7·0

  300
  Forecast final costs of the projects are as follows:

  DM million

  Construction, commissioning and calibration

  665·1

  Initial operation

  149·7

  The partners' contributions are therefore as follows:

  Construction/Commissioning/Calibration DM million

  Initial Operation DM million

  United Kingdom

  186·23

  46·41

  France

  186·23

  46·41

  Germany

  252·74

  46·41

  Netherlands

  39·90

  10·47

  ETW management has decided that the tunnel will be operated on a fully commercial basis, with charges set accordingly, and will be accessible to customers worldwide.

  Initial operation is scheduled to commence on 1 July 1994, with full commercial operation planned from 1 July 1997.

  The project has not yet reached the stage when contracts for use have been negotiated. Manufacturers in each partner country have, however, indicated their intention to use the tunnel in the early stages of initial operation.

  Trademarks
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to amend the law on trademarks.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A Bill to implement the proposals in the White Paper "Reform of Trade Marks Law" (Cm 1203) has been fully drafted, and will be introduced as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

  Warren Spring Laboratory
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the research contracts awarded to Warren Spring Laboratory in each of the last two years relating to all aspects of transport policy.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is as follows:

  Contracts Relating to Transport Policy

  Customer Department and Contract Title

  1991–92

  1992–93

  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (Marine Pollution Control Unit)

  Soft Sediments

  Expert Systems

  —

  Cleaning of Rocky Shorelines

  —

  Demulsifiers

  Sea Trials Model Validation

  —

  Underwater Releases Phase II

  —

  Persistent Chemicals

  Oil Thickness Determination

  Remote Sensing Validation

  Remote Sensing Contract Monitoring

  —

  Review of Refined Products

  —

  Vapour Cloud Modelling

  —

  Springsweep Maintenance

  —

  301

  Customer Department and Contract Title

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Process of Dispersion

  —

  Fate of Chemicals Spilled at Sea

  —

  Extension to Eurospill Model

  —

  Oily Bilge Water Filter Performance

  —

  In-situ Burning of Oil

  —

  Review of Sorbents

  —

  Modelling of Sinking Chemicals

  —

  Various Minor Issues

  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (Marine Directorate)

  IMO Consultancy

  —

  Iron Ore Concentrate Cargoes

  —

  Study of Health Hazards from Residues

  —

  Japanese Penetration Method Tests

  —

  Iron Ore Concentrates Phase III

  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

  Aircraft Air Pollution Advice

  Feasibility Study to Develop Computer Model on Fuel Consumption

  —

  Study on Runway Capacity in the South East

  —

  Additional Runway Capacity in the South East

  —

  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (Transport Research Laboratory)

  Catalyst Testing of Cars

  —

  Emission Abatement Measures in a Car Driven under Cold Conditions

  —

  Exhaust Emission Tests on Fifty Light Duty Vehicles

  —

  —

  DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Aircraft Emission Studies

  —

  DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

  Emissions from Vehicles and Fuels

  —

  Vehicle Emissions

  Polly Peck
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has required the administrator of Polly Peck to furnish him with a report under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The joint administrator reported to the Secretary of State on 16 June 1992.

  Mr. Asil Nadir
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a direction to proceed under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 against Mr. Asil Nadir.

  Mr. Heseltine
  On 25 November 1991 a bankruptcy order was made against Mr. Asil Nadir and he is disqualified from acting as a company director until discharged—normally three years. The Official Receiver is considering applying to the court to suspend the discharge period until Mr. Nadir has fully co-operated.

  If the suspension is granted then an application under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 will not be necessary.

  British Standards Institution
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what level of grant-in-aid the Government will pay to the British Standards Institution this year; and if he will make a statement about BSI's role in relation to industrial competitiveness.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The British Standards Institution (BSI) is an independent body incorporated under royal charter. BSI has made an important contribution towards industrial competitiveness over the past 90 years in providing a framework for the setting of standards for industry. I am pleased to announce that the Government will make a grant-in-aid of £4·5 million for 1993–94 and that my Department will contribute a further £2·7 million in support to industry for standards making purposes.

  In view of the changing nature of BSI standards, as a result of the increasing emphasis over recent years on the writing of standards at European and international level, and of the growth in BSI's quality assurance and testing activities, I have decided to review the need for Government financial assistance and the appropriate mechanisms for any future financial assistance, bearing in mind the need to ensure best value for money from public expenditure. This review is due to be completed by the end of September.

  My officials are consulting all interested parties about future funding arrangements and about ways in which BSI and standards can contribute further to improving the competitiveness of British industry. They are seeking views on such questions as the value of national and international standards in support of competitiveness; the effectiveness of BSI as a standards-making organisation in a world market; the need for new types of product standard, or for new product testing, certification and marking schemes in the United Kingdom; and possible alternative approaches to standards writing at national level and to United Kingdom representation at international level. I have placed in the Library of the House a copy of the consultation note which has been issued.

  Offshore Licensing
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was his Department's expenditure in 1992–93 on monitoring compliance with offshore licensing conditions; what is its projected expenditure in 1993–94; and what other bodies have a role in monitoring compliance with conditions.

  Mr. Eggar
  The monitoring of compliance with the conditions contained in offshore oil and gas licences is an integral part of the licence administration and technical support activities carried out by my Department, and monitoring is not separately costed. Other governmental bodies involved in monitoring particular aspects of the licence conditions include the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Scottish Office, the Health and Safety Executive, the Ministry of Defence, and the Department of Transport.

  Warren Spring Laboratory
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to maintain the knowledge and expertise in wastes management and recycling developed by Warren Spring Laboratory after the sale of its site in Stevenage.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 May 1993, c. 692]: I am announcing today the formation of a new national environmental technology centre (NETC). This is to be created by bringing together at Culham and Harwell the country's two main centres of environmental research, those of my Department's Warren Spring Laboratory (WSL) and AEA Technology. Together they will form a single centre of excellence in environmental technology.

  WSL and AEA Technology has each established national and international reputations in environmental science and consultancy, serving customers in Government, in the private sector, and overseas. They are already working together in certain environmental areas. The NETC will provide a more comprehensive service for all these customers, and better value for the taxpayer's money. It will combine the complementary strengths of WSL and AEA Technology in the environmental field. It will aim to provide the full range of services provided in the past, and will develop and extend them. The Government will remain an important customer, and will deal with the NETC on a fee-paying basis.

  This decision follows advice from PA consulting group on options for the future of WSL. The proposed relocation of WSL from its existing site at Stevenage to a greenfield site at Welwyn Garden City will not now proceed.

  WSL has now been an executive agency of the Department of Trade and Industry for four years. I have been impressed by its progress within this framework towards becoming a more customer-oriented and cost conscious body, and I am confident that this progress will continue following the merger with AEA Technology.

  The NETC will negotiate with all WSL's customers with the aim of taking on to the fullest extent possible the whole of WSL's business. WSL staff required to work on the business to be transferred will be expected to transfer to the AEA with their work. I am eager to see the greatest possible number of such staff transfer. The Department will seek to redeploy other staff, though some redundancies are likely.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy announced on 1 April that consultants were being appointed to advise on the practicability of privatising the AEA. I will want to consider the prospects of privatising the NETC activities in the light of that study.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what investigations his Department has been subject by the Data Protection Registrar in relation to a suspected breach of a data protection principle; if he will summarise the nature of each complaint and state when the complaint was made; and what remedial action was taken by his Department to ensure future compliance with the principle subject to the investigation.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 May 1993, c. 288–89]: My further inquiries have revealed that the complaint concerned a subject access request which was
  304
  not promptly responded to. By the time the Data Protection Registrar brought this to the attention of the office which received the subject access request a response had already been provided. No further action was necessary.

  EC Grants
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of EC grants available for 1992 remain unclaimed by the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply.

  As EC grants made under the structural funds are allocated on a multiannual basis, no annual figures for grants actually claimed are available. However, of the structural funds allocated to the United Kingdom for the period 1989–93, approximately 80 per cent. have been committed to projects. The remaining 20 per cent. is expected to be committed before the end of the year. Since there is no allocation specific to the United Kingdom in respect of other EC expenditure it is not possible to say what percentage of grants intended for the United Kingdom has been claimed.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Ballet Companies
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the current level of support from Arts Council funds to(a) the London City Ballet and (b) the National Ballet.

  Mr. Brooke
  This year's Arts Council grant to London City Ballet is £250,000. The grant to English National Ballet is £3,603,000.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Set-aside
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total acreage of arable land put into set-aside during the last three years.

  Mrs. Shephard
  A total of 54,317 hectares (134,000 acres) of land have been entered into the five-year scheme and 14,118 hectares (35,000 acres) into the one year scheme in the United Kingdom during the years 1990–92.

  I will publish details of the amount of land set-aside under the arable area payments scheme as soon as possible.

  Wildlife Habitats
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new measures her Department is considering to encourage or require farmers to promote wildlife habitats.

  Mr. Jack
  We are considering the results of consultations which we have just held on a range of new measures to benefit wildlife habitats, including new environmentally sensitive areas, a scheme to improve the condition of moorland and a habitat improvement scheme.
  305
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make provision under the new set-aside scheme for the preservation of good wildlife habitats created under the existing scheme.

  Mr. Jack
  We expect that farmers with land in the five-year set-aside scheme or in rotational set-aside will be able to enter land directly into non-rotational set-aside under the new arable area payments scheme. In addition, as part of our agri-environment programme, we are proposing a new scheme for the withdrawal of land from production for 20 years. Habitats of particular value created under the five-year scheme would be eligible for this new long-term scheme.

  Potato Marketing Board
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received from farmers in Cheshire on the future of the Potato Marketing Board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We have received 19 representations by or on behalf of farmers in Cheshire, all expressing support for the continuation of the Potato Marketing Board.

  Poultry Industry
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she next expects to meet representatives of the poultry industry to discuss the state of the sector.

  Mr. Jack
  I hope to be in regular contact with representatives of the industry. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary recently addressed the annual conference of the British Poultry Meat Federation.

  Agricultural Trade
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the balance of trade in agricultural produce between the United Kingdom and France and the United Kingdom and Germany; and what are the main British products involved.

  Mrs. Shephard
  In 1992 we had a trade deficit of £624 million with France and £403 million with Germany.

  Wine was the largest single import in each case.

  The largest British exports to both countries were meat and whisky.

  Agricultural Tenancy Law
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals she intends to bring forward for the reform of agricultural tenancy law.

  Mrs. Shephard
  The objective of agricultural tenancy reform would be to encourage more letting of land by giving landlords and tenants greater freedom to negotiate the terms of their own agreements. The industry has been consulted on proposals and its views are now being considered. The introduction of the necessary legislation will depend on parliamentary time becoming available.

  Farm Incomes
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average level of farm income in 1992; and what is the projected figure for 1993.

  Mr. Jack
  Aggregate farm income for the industry as a whole rose by just over 10 per cent. in 1992. It is too early to forecast figures for 1993.

  Bananas
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how she is monitoring the price of bananas.

  Mrs. Shephard
  Data on the price of bananas at all stages in the marketing chain from the point of import into the United Kingdom to final retail sale are collected on a regular basis and allow comparison with prices in other countries.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received about the proposed EC banana regime.

  Mrs. Shephard
  We have received a wide range of representations from interested parties at all stages in the marketing of bananas.

  These have included representatives of producer interests and companies involved at all stages in the marketing of bananas in the United Kingdom.

  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions are taking place on the criteria to be used for measuring quality within the new EC banana regime; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Shephard
  Council regulation 404/93 on the common organisation of the European banana market provides for the development of quality and marketing standards for bananas marketed in the Community.

  Details of these standards and how they will be applied will be decided by the Commission in consultation with member states.

  No discussion of quality standards has yet taken place.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on progress on deregulation.

  Mrs. Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Sykes).

  Scotch Whisky
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will arrange to meet representatives of the Scotch whisky industry to discuss the prospects for the industry and the workers employed in it.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend hopes to have frequent contacts with representatives of the Scotch whisky industry.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the United Kingdom is now designated as environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mrs. Shephard
  Just over 9 per cent. of agricultural land in the United Kingdom is now designated under the environmentally sensitive areas scheme.

  The Government have announced proposals for further designations which together are expected to bring the total area covered to approximately 15 per cent. by the end of the year.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she will take to improve the accuracy of food labelling.

  Mr. Soames
  It is already an offence under the Food Safety Act 1990 falsely to describe a food or to give information which is likely to mislead as to its nature, substance or quality.

  Food Advisory Committee
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she next intends to meet the chairman of the Food Advisory Committee to discuss the committee's membership.

  Mr. Soames
  I have no plans at present for such a discussion.

  The views of the chairman of the Food Advisory Committee are always taken into account when appointments to the committee are being considered.

  Less Favoured Areas
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she will next visit Dartmoor hill farmers to discuss the less favoured areas.

  Mr. Jack
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary (Lords), Earl Howe, chaired a meeting of the Hill Farming Advisory Committee on 2 June. Two of the members of the committee farm on Dartmoor and a range of issues related to farming in the less favoured areas was discussed.

  Equine Viral Arteritis
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the outbreak of equine viral arteritis.

  Mr. Soames
  On 7 June the Animal Health Trust confirmed an outbreak of equine viral arteritis (EVA) on a non-thoroughbred stud in Nottinghamshire. The trust is investigating a number of associated suspect outbreaks at various locations in Great Britain. This is the first reported incidence of EVA in the United Kingdom. The source of the infection is still under investigation and, although some reports have indicated a possible link with a stallion imported from Poland in September last year, this link has not yet been positively confirmed.

  EVA is not a notifiable disease in Great Britain and statutory disease control measures and movement
  308
  restrictions do not apply. Similarly, the disease is not specifically covered by EC animal health rules governing movements of equidae between member states. However, EC rules in relation to the import of equidae into the Community from third countries, to be implemented in Great Britain with effect from 1 July 1993, require that uncastrated males must either originate from countries which have been free of EVA for at least six months or the stallion blood or its semen must have been tested with negative results for EVA prior to import.

  The United Kingdom equine industry operates a voluntary code of practice for the prevention and control of EVA which is issued by the Horserace Betting Levy Board. In addition, importers are free to seek from the exporter or vendor the provision of private veterinary certification in respect of EVA.

  Officials attended a meeting organised by the industry last week. At that meeting it was confirmed that an application for an inactivated vaccine had been received by the veterinary medicines directorate and that it was being assessed as quickly as possible. In addition, the state veterinary service will increase the level of post import testing of stallions imported from third countries. All those giving seropositive results will be re-exported to their country of origin.

  We will continue to monitor the situation extremely carefully.

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received from the European Agriculture Commissioner concerning her proposed visits by Commission staff to member states to discuss the extent and nature of implementation difficulties concerning the integrated administration and control system procedure.

  Mr. Jack
  The Agriculture Commissioner has indicated that Commission staff will be visiting all 12 member states during June and July to monitor implementation of the integrated administration and control system in each member state. The Commission team will be visiting the United Kingdom in the week beginning 5 July.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps were taken by her Department to prepare the farming community for the introduction of IACS forms.

  Mrs. Shephard
  We kept farming organisations informed of the progress of the EC regulations governing the integrated administration and control system. We subsequently consulted them during the preparation of the explanatory booklet designed to help farmers complete their IACS application forms.

  THORP
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer by the President of the Board of Trade of 25 May,Official Report, column 488, if she will make a statement on the current timing of the decision in respect of the revised discharge authorisations in connection with the commissioning of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for the Environment have recently received a report
  309
  from the inspectors in response to consultation on draft radioactive discharge authorisations for BNFL Sellafield. Their report is currently under consideration and a decision on how we intend to proceed will be made as quickly as possible.

  Producer Organisations (Discipline Rules)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps require to be taken to implement the European Community regulation No. 3759/92 in the United Kingdom with particular reference to the extension of discipline rules with respect to producer organisations in the fisheries sector, including aquaculture.

  Mr. Jack
  Regulation 3759/92 does not require member states to extend the discipline rules of fish producer organisations to those who do not belong to such an organisation. It allows member states the option of doing so. There are no present plans for doing so in the United Kingdom.

  Brazilian Beef
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restrictions are placed on the importation of beef from Brazil to deal with environmental concerns at point of production.

  Mr. Jack
  Only beef produced in certain premises in Brazil, which are approved by the Commission, can be imported into the Community. All consignments of beef are subject to a documentary check on entry to the Community to ensure that the meat was produced at an approved plant. A percentage of consignments are also subject to physical checks carried out under the supervision of an official veterinary surgeon.

  Sheep
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current population of sheep; and what was the figure 10 years ago.

  Mr. Jack
  The total number of sheep and lambs on agricultural holdings in England estimated from the June 1992 agricultural census was 20,529,478. The corrresponding figure for June 1982 was 15,456,436. These figures include estimates for minor holdings.

  Fishing (Days at Sea)
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the average number of half days at sea provisionally allocated to fishing vessels(a) in each fishery and (b) in the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mrs. Shephard
  The average of provisional allocations to fishing vessels licensed by MAFF, SOAFD and DANI is 275 half-days. Individual vessels may prosecute a variety of fisheries and therefore figures for the average provisional allocation per fishery cannot be given.

  Codex Alimentarius
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the implications for food standards and for food standards 310
  regulations in the EC and in the United Kingdom of GATT proposals concerning the UN FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius.

  Mrs. Shephard
  Under the terms of the proposed GATT Uruguay round agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, any trade restriction imposed in conformity with internationally agreed standards such as the UN FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius shall automatic-ally be considered to be consistent with GATT rules. This shall not prevent the imposition of tighter standards where they are scientifically justified.

  Moorland Destocking
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received on which areas to target for support under the moorland destocking scheme.

  Mr. Jack
  I have received a number of representations supporting the Government's proposal that the scheme should be targeted on specific moorland in the less favoured areas where a reduction in sheep stocking would be most likely to achieve environmental benefit. Some respondents suggested particular areas or moorland types for inclusion.

  Veterinary Surgeons
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many veterinary surgeons are currently employed in his Department on questions of animal welfare, and at what cost; what was the figure 10 years ago; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  All veterinary staff of the animal health and welfare group are involved with animal welfare as part of their normal duties.

  In 1992–93 this work amounted to 10·3 per cent. of veterinary time, which is the equivalent of 43 man-years at a cost of £2,274,872 per annum.

  Ten years ago animal welfare work amounted to 10·5 per cent. of veterinary time, the equivalent to 57·6 man-years. Estimated cost then was £1,523,635 per annum.

TRANSPORT

  Maritime Safety
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which countries voted for and against the United Kingdom proposals for ferry survivability in the Maritime Safety Committee of the International Maritime Organisation on 24 to 28 May.

  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom proposal was not put to the vote, however the vote for a consolidated proposal put forward by Canada, Denmark, Belgium, Norway and Sweden and supported by the United Kingdom was 16 for and 10 against. A detailed record of the voting was not taken. Sixty-five countries attended the meeting.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decisions taken at the 62nd session of the International Maritime Organisation's Maritime Safety Committee meeting 24 to 28 May will have a bearing on
  311
  improving the safety of shipping in the English channel and in the shipping lanes for ferries between British ports and those in Belgium and the Netherlands.

  Mr. Norris
  Routeing and other navigational issues, including ferry routes, for the English channel were not discussed at the 62nd session of the Maritime Safety Committee.

  British Trent (Collision)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how and when he was informed of the collision between BP tanker British Trent and the bulk carrier Western Winner.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport's marine emergency operations room was notified by Dover coastguard of the incident by telex message at 07.36 on Thursday 3 June. The operations room informed Lord Caithness, the Minister for Shipping, who informed the Secretary of State at approximately 09.30.

  North Sea Supply Vessels
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many Norwegian ships are operating or have operated under contract or charter in the United Kingdom sector of the North sea supplying oil rigs(a) at present, (b) one year ago, (c) 18 months ago and (d) two years ago;

  (2) how many British ships are operating or have operated under contract or charter in the Norwegian sector of the North sea supplying oil rigs (a) at present, (b) one year ago, (c) 18 months ago and (d) two years ago.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government do not collect details of contracts placed in the North sea, but I have seen the following figures:

  Norwegian ships in United Kingdom sector

  British ships in Norwegian sector

  (a)

  27

  1

  (b)

  24

  0

  (c)

  22

  0

  (d)

  33

  0

  312
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, has recently written to the Norwegian Minister for Trade and Shipping about this apparent imbalance.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the channel tunnel terminal will be described on road signs on the principal motorways and trunk roads in the direction of Folkestone; what effect including the tunnel terminal on road signs will have on the current level of references to Folkestone on such road signs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The new fixed channel link will be described as "Channel Tunnel" on trunk road signs. This is a change from the earlier proposal to sign it as "Eurotunnel".

  The inclusion of "Channel Tunnel" on the signs does not itself affect the number of signs on which "Folkestone" will be shown, but the reclassification of the town in the mid 1980s from a super primary to a primary destination does.

  As signs are now being changed for other purposes, the references to Folkestone will be made consistent with its primary destination status. The major change will be on the M20 motorway. The town will continue to appear on all signs eastward from the western side of Ashford. Westwards from there it will no longer appear on advance direction signs but, in the light of recent representation made to my Department we have agreed to retain it on all distance signs on M20 and M26 back to M25. These are the signs which are located between junction and show destinations and the countdown mileages to them.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for rail freight travel and handling to take advantage of the opening of the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have supported investment by British Rail of over £400 million in preparation for channel tunnel freight services, and have asked BR to explore further the opportunities for maximising private sector involvement in their development. It remains the Government's objective to secure the transfer of this business to the private sector as soon as possible.

  Emergency Action Codes
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 17 March,Official Report, column 265, what progress was made at the United Nations working group meeting held in mid-April to consider proposals for incorporating the Hazchem warning system into proposed European legislation; what further action he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  An informal UN working group meeting was held on 19–22 April at the United Kingdom Fire Service college to examine possible ways of devising and displaying on road tank vehicles and rail tank wagons carrying dangerous goods throughout Europe a form of action code to be used by the emergency services in the event of an accident. The meeting was a result of United Kingdom initiatives in recent regular sessions of the WP. 15 group of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, at which the need for emergency action in the first few minutes of an incident and for coded information to be the same in all languages had been acknowledged.

  The meeting was arranged by the Home Office and chaired by my Department. It was attended by a wide representation from signatory countries to the UNECE's ADR agreement concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by road and from relevant international associations. A number of presentations illustrating from experience the benefits of the United Kingdom's Hazchem action code were made by United Kingdom interests. I am grateful to the commandant of the college and his staff for the efficient arrangements, including the vital practical demonstrations on the fireground. Although some participants remained satisfied with the present Kemler code in the ADR or that the UN substance identification number would be sufficient in future or that use of reference books was not a problem, a majority declared an interest in developing an emergency action code to be included additionally in the ADR. My Department and the Health and Safety Executive therefore will continue to promote formally our detailed proposals for amending the ADR agreement to include a composite placard.

  A representative of the European Commission recalled the succession of approaches to the Commission and questions in the European Parliament on this subject. He conceded that with this level of political concern in a member state, a derogation would have to be proposed for inclusion in the draft Council directive currently under informal discussion between the Commission services, member states and other parties that would, in effect, apply the provisions of the ADR to domestic transport. Following further discussion with the Commission, a provision has now been included in a new draft which would allow the continued use of existing emergency action codes for domestic journeys until an internationally agreed code is developed.

  I have placed a copy of the official report of the UN working group in the Library.

  A249
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about progress on the preparatory work for the dualling of the A249 from the 314
  M2 to the Kingsferry bridge; when he expects tenders to be invited; and what are the latest estimated dates for commencement and completion of this project.

  Mr. Key
  Tenders for the construction of the A249 (M2 to Iwade) improvement are expected to be invited later this summer with a view to starting work around the end of the year. The work is expected to take about two years to complete.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister is he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 June.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 June.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the number of Government political advisers for each year since 1980–81.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested has not been regularly collected centrally. The available information on the number of special advisers—including expert advisers—is as follows:

  Number

  July 1988

  30

  October 1989

  31

  October 1990

  33

  November 1991

  39

  November 1992

  38

  May 1993

  42

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total expenditure on Government political advisers broken down into salaries and other costs for each year since 1980–81 in(a) cash and (b) 1992–93 prices.

  The Prime Minister
  Precise total salary bills and aggregate figures for 1980–81—1987–88 are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The aggregate figures for 1988–1993 available are as follows:

  As at

  Paybill1 £ million

  1992–93 prices2 £ million

  June 1993

  1·37

  1·34

  September 1992

  1·30

  1·30

  September 1991

  1·10

  1·14

  July 1990

  0·95

  1·05

  June 1989

  0·93

  1·11

  September 1988

  0·74

  0·94

  1 Not including ERNIC and other personnel overheads.

  2Calculated using the GDP deflator.

  School Visits
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 27 May,Official Report, column 663, if he will give the date and name of each school which he has visited since taking his present office.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 27 May at column 663.

  Ministers (Severance Pay)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister how much in severance payments the right hon. Members for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) will receive following their departure from ministerial office; and to what extent such payments are free from income tax.

  The Prime Minister
  Severance payments for Ministers are determined under the provisions of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991. Under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, severance payments of less than £30,000—including those to former Ministers —are exempt from tax.

  Government Departments (Sub-contractors)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to require contracting suppliers of goods and services to Government Departments to exercise good practices in the prompt payment of their sub-contractors; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Following the announcement during the 1992 Budget, all Government contracts have been required to contain a clause requiring the supplier or contractor to pay its subcontractors promptly. In the absence of normal practice to the contrary for that type of contract or other special circumstances, the commitment should be to pay the subcontractor within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment as defined by the contract.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Good Government
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement defining Her Majesty's Government's concept of good government as a principle governing the United Kingdom's relations with other states; and if he will state what Her Majesty's Government's policy is towards those states which do not meet the good government criteria.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Good government includes the legitimacy, accountability and competence of the processes and institutions of government, along with respect for human rights and the rule of law. It is an important consideration in our relations with other countries. In consultation with our EC partners and others, we seek to encourage Governments not meeting good government criteria to take appropriate action.

  Good government issues significantly influence the effectiveness of aid and are therefore an important criterion, alongside other factors, for the allocation of aid
  316
  between and within countries. We use our aid programme in positive ways to improve the quality of government. Where standards are not met, for example where human rights are persistently abused, we are prepared to withdraw or reduce our assistance.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange talks with British-based voluntary groups involved in supplying aid to Bosnia to discuss action the Croatian Government could take to facilitate British aid reaching Bosnia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We maintain contact with a wide range of British voluntary agencies who are active in Bosnia-Herzegovina. However, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is responsible for coordinating the international community's response to this crisis, which includes regular dialogue with voluntary agencies and the various authorities in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Croatian Government about interference from Croatia with United Kingdom aid to Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have urged and continue to urge all interested parties to respect the right of international humanitarian agencies to free and unimpeded access to all parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina. We seek at all times to co-operate fully with them and to ensure the safety of their personnel as embodied in UN Security Council resolution 820 of 17 April.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further assistance the United Kingdom will be providing to Mozambique.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  At the Maputo Donors conference this week we pledged £7 million of humanitarian assistance of which some £4 million will be for food aid. With the £3 million we pledged following the signature of the peace accords this will bring the United Kingdom's contribution to £10 million. The non-food aid assistance will be channelled mainly through British non-governmental organisations in the form of seeds and tools provision and for demining work in Zambezia Province. Our delegation at the conference stressed the vital importance of effective donor co-ordination and the key role to be played in this by the UN's Department of Humanitarian Affairs.

EMPLOYMENT

  Lady Victoria Pit
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if a decision has been reached on the most appropriate location of mining records currently deposited in Lady Victoria pit at Newtongrange by British Coal on behalf of HM inspectorate of mines and quarries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am not aware of any such decision. It is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive and the British Coal Corporation.
  317
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with(a) HM inspectorate of mines and quarries and (b) British Coal on the most appropriate location of mining records currently deposited in Lady Victoria pit at Newtongrange by British Coal on behalf of H M inspectorate of mines and quarries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have had no such discussions on this matter.

  Public Sector (Strikes)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans Her Majesty's Government have to introduce measures which would render it more difficult for public sector workers to take(a) strike action and (b) any other form of industrial action.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government have no immediate plans for legislation beyond the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill currently before Parliament. We continue to keep all aspects of industrial relations law under review.

HEALTH

  Road Accidents
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis the fee for emergency treatment under section 155 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 has been calculated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The emergency treatment fee, collected under section 158 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, is payable for immediate medical attention following a road traffic accident. The fee represents a contribution towards the actual costs incurred. Orginally set at 12s 6d in 1934, it was not raised until 1969, since when it has been periodically uprated in line with inflation.

  BMA
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met British Medical Association officials; and what matters were discussed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met representatives of the British Medical Association (BMA) on 18 May. The meeting was held at the request of the chairman of the General Medical Services Committee (GMSC) of the BMA to discuss a range of issues of current concern to the profession,. including the patients charter, violence against general practitioners and complaints arrangements.

  I met the GMSC chairman on 24 May to discuss complaints arrangements.

  Contraceptives
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost to the NHS of prescribing the contraceptive pill to one woman for a year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available. The costs of different brands of oral contraceptives are listed in the "British National Formulary", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  General Practitioners
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her recommended maximum GP list size in the London implementation zone; what is the average GP list size; how many GPs there are in the zone; and how many have list sizes of(a) over 2,000, (b) over 2,500, (c) over 3,000, (d) over 3,500 and (e) over 4,000.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The maximum number of persons which a general practitioner may have on his list in all localities is specified in the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992. Regulation 24(2) provides that the maximum number shall be (a) 3,500 for a single-handed doctor (b) 4,500 for a doctor practising in a partnership, subject to a maximum average of 3,500 for each of the partners in the practice; and, where the doctor employs an assistant, a further maximum number of 2,000 for each assistant. There are no recommended maxima specifically for the London initiative zone.

  The London initiative zone comprises five complete family health services authorities (FHSAs) and seven part-FHSAs. The information requested is not available for part-FHSAs.

  As at 1 October 1992, there were 3,186 unrestricted GPs in the 12 complete FHSAs which lie wholly or partly within the London initiative zone. The average list size was 2,092. The number of GPs by average list size is shown in the table:

  Over 2,000

  Over 2,500

  Over 3,000

  Over 3,500

  General practitioners

  1,713

  643

  239

  94

  No data are available on GPs with a list size over 4,000.

  West Midlands RHA
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the vacant post of chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority was advertised publicly; and in what journals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Prostate Cancer
  Ms Lynne
  To asks the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of deaths per year from prostate cancer for males(a) between the ages of 55 and 65 years and (b) of 65 years and over.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of deaths from a malignant neoplasm of the prostate (International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision, code 185) for 1991, and for earlier years, can be found in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys publication "Mortality statistics: cause' Series DH2", copies of which are available in the Library. The number of deaths in 1992 for males aged:(a) 55 to 64 (inclusive) is 600; and (b) 65 years and over is 8,069. These figures are for England and Wales.

  Trent RHA
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the chairman of the Trent regional health authority is expected to retire or reach the end of his term of office; and if she will make a statement.
  319
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Sir Michael Carlisle's current term of office ends on 31 July 1994.

  Food Hygiene
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the recent Food Safety Week initiative; and what action her Department is taking to promote food hygiene.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 8 June at cols.242–43.

  Occupational Therapy
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been(a) the average and (b) the maximum waiting time for occupational therapy for patients within each district health authority in each of the last 10 years; and how many people were on each waiting list.

  Mr. Sackville
  Many patients waiting for occupational therapy are admitted under another specialty and are not recorded on separate occupational therapy waiting lists. For this reason information on the number of patients waiting for occupational therapy is not available centrally.

WALES

  NHS Administration
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of administrative staff and the administrative cost of the NHS in Wales in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is listed as follows:

  Administrative and clerical staff in post as at 30 September1

  Whole-time equivalents

  1987

  7,087

  1988

  7,279

  1989

  7,565

  1990

  8,069

  1991

  8,733

  1Including Managerial staff and staff employed by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  Aggregated administrative cost in financial year2

  Thousands

  1987–88

  57,811

  1988–89

  63,725

  1989–90

  73,767

  1990–91

  86,321

  1991–92

  106,439

  2Source: Summarised accounts of Health Authorities, Welsh Health Common Services Authority, Family Health Service Authorities (formerly Family Practitioner Committees) (includes the Dental Practice Board costs (and represents the 5 per cent. contribution paid by the Welsh Office to Department of Health in support of Dental Practice Board's running costs apportioned for salaries only)) and the Health Promotion Authority for Wales.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many homes in Wales are estimated to have radon gas contamination above 200 becquerels per cubic metre of air.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The National Radiological Protection Board survey estimates that up to 3,000 homes in Wales may have radon levels above the Government action level of 200 becquerels per cubic metre of air.

  As measurements are completed, householders whose homes are found to have concentrations above the action level, (which is half that recommended by the European Commission), are advised of the actions which they should consider.

  The results of further research, to more accurately delineate areas where concentrations may be higher than average, are expected in the spring of 1994. Meanwhile, free tests of radon levels are available to concerned householders living in areas where concentrations may be elevated.

  Diabetics
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the incidence of renal failure among diabetics, expressed as(a) the total number and (b) the percentage of all diabetics in each area health authority in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Secretary of State (Visits)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he has visited the Principality since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have visited Wales on many occasions in the past as part of previous ministerial duties; on business and in a personal capacity.

  Hospitals (Complaints)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many complaints were(a) submitted, (b) investigated and (c) substantiated for each hospital unit in Wales and for each year since the health commissioner was established.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the number of complaints received by the Health Service Commissioner for Wales, and subsequently investigated, since the office was established, are as follows:

  Complaints received

  Investigated

  11973–74

  21

  2

  1974–75

  51

  16

  1975–76

  43

  6

  1976–77

  43

  10

  1977–78

  41

  5

  1978–79

  52

  8

  1979–80

  31

  5

  1980–81

  42

  5

  1981–82

  38

  6

  1982–83

  33

  6

  1983–84

  49

  3

  321

  Complaints received

  Investigated

  1984–85

  37

  9

  1985–86

  34

  6

  1986–87

  44

  5

  1987–88

  39

  7

  1988–89

  37

  4

  1989–90

  33

  3

  1990–91

  51

  3

  1991–92

  79

  4

  1992–93

  67

  8

  1 From 1 October 1973.

  Complaints are often made up of more than one grievance. Information on those aspects of the complaint that are either upheld or not upheld is not collected separately for Wales.

  The information is available in the annual reports of the Health Service Commissioner, copies of which are held in the Library of the House.

  Consultant Surgeons
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what action he intends ,to take to ensure that consultant surgeons in Wales are giving the NHS value for money during their contracted sessions;

  (2) by what method he intends to monitor the hospital trusts in Wales to ensure that consultant surgeons are required to reach a threshold of operating time during their NHS contracted sessions.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is a matter for individual health authorities and NHS trusts to satisfy themselves that consultant surgeons are fulfilling the terms of their NHS contracts.

  Lead Water Pipes
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information his Department holds on the number of households in each local authority area that have lead pipes through which drinking water flows.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The most recent available information is from the 1981 Welsh house condition survey. Estates, for each county, of the number of dwellings with a lead service pipe to the cold water tap in the kitchen are shown in the following table. District information is not available.

  Number

  Clwyd

  19,600

  Dyfed

  12,800

  Gwent

  13,300

  Gwynedd

  6,600

  Mid Glamorgan

  34,800

  Powys

  4,300

  South Glamorgan

  65,600

  West Glamorgan

  33,500

  Information on lead water pipes is currently being collected in the Welsh house condition survey for 1993, the results of which will be available around the end of the year.

  Fertility Treatment
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many people in Wales have undergone fertility treatment in each year since 1987; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how much money has been spent by the NHS in Wales on providing fertility treatment in each year from 1987; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what percentage of those women who received fertility treatment in Wales in each year from 1985 to 1991 carried to full term; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Fostering
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children in Wales are in foster care between the ages of(a) 0 and four years, (b) four and eight years, (c) eight and 12 years and (d) 12 and 16 years respectively.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The most recently available information on the numbers of children in local authority foster care in Wales relates to the numbers placed at 31 March 1991 under the Boarding Out Regulations 1988. The numbers of age group are shown in the following table:

  Number of children in local authority foster care at 31 March 1991

  Age group

  Number

  Aged Under 5

  407

  5–9

  514

  10–15

  744

  16 and over

  285

  These figures do not include children placed under private fostering arrangements.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the total population, (b) the total capital budget for 1993–94 and (c) the total revenue budget for 1993–94 for (i) Colwyn borough, (ii) Aberconwy, (iii) Arfon, (iv) Taff-Ely, (v) Dyfed and (vi) Gwynedd councils.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  Forecast capital expenditure and revenue budgets for 1993–94 (a)

  Total population £000 (b)

  Gross capital expenditure £000 (c)

  Net revenue expenditure £000 (d)

  Colwyn

  56,500

  11,757

  7,899

  Aberconwy

  53,900

  8,978

  8,890

  Arfon

  56,100

  16,476

  10,169

  Taff Ely

  98,400

  11,096

  16,884

  Dyfed

  350,900

  17,814

  254,317

  Gwynedd

  240,100

  14,706

  166,859

  (a) Provisional.

  (b) 1991 mid-year estimate (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys).

  (c) Local authority April 1993 forecast.

  (b) Budget.

  NHS Staff
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) district nurses, (b) community midwives, (c) health visitors, (d) community psychiatric nurses and (e) practice nurses are or were employed in the national health service in Wales in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 7 June 1993]: Detailed breakdowns of nursing staff employed by district health authorities and national health service trusts into occupational groups such as those requested are not considered reliable. However information on the whole-time equivalent numbers of all nursing and midwifery staff is listed in table 1.

  Information on the whole-time equivalent numbers of practice nurses employed by general medical practitioners is listed in table 2.

  Table 1

  Nursing and midwifery staff employed by district health authorities and national health service trusts in post as at 30 September

  Year

  Number

  1988

  27,920

  1989

  28,037

  1990

  28,093

  1991

  27,962

  11992

  27,583

  Table 2

  Practice nurses employed by general medical practitioners as at 1 October

  Year

  Number

  1988

  194

  1989

  268

  1990

  459

  1991

  524

  1992

  519

  1 In addition there are about 1,000 student nurses who have been reclassified as students from nurses following the introduction of Project 2000 nursing education reforms

SCOTLAND

  Clyde Fishermen
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the number of applications for additional days at sea made by fishermen registered in the Clyde ports to date.

  Sir Hector Monro
  To date seven applications for additional days at sea have been received by fishermen with vessels registered in the Clyde ports. All such applications will be considered carefully and fishermen will be notified of the outcome of their applications in due course.

  Forestry Conservation
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) those areas of Forestry Commission land which are sites of special scientific interest and (b) those areas of Forestry Commission land which are eligible for sites of special scientific interest status but are not classed as sites of special scientific interest land.
  324
  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 25 May 1993]: The following list names those sites of special scientific interest which are wholly or partly on Forestry Commission land, grouped under each of the commission's forest districts. I am not aware of any areas of Forestry Commission land which are potentially sites of special scientific interest but which have still to be designated.

  ENGLAND

  Chilterns Forest District

  Dancers End

  Hodgemoor

  Homefield

  Maulden Heath

  Maulden Wood and Pennyfathers Hills

  Potton Wood

  Shabbington

  Waterperry

  Cornwall and North Devon Forest District

  Deptford Farm Pastures

  Goonhilly

  Marsland to Clovelly Coast

  Whiteleigh Meadows

  Dorset Forest District

  Avon Valley

  Blackdown

  Ebblake Bog

  Holt and West Moors Heaths

  Hurn Common

  Hyde Heath

  Lulworth Park and Lake

  Moors River

  Morden Bog

  Oakers Bog

  Poole Harbour

  Rempstone Heath

  Town Common

  Turners Puddle Heath

  Wareham Forest Sites

  Forest of Dean Forest District

  Dingle Woods

  Dymock Woods

  Edgehills Quarry

  Haugh Wood

  Meezy Hurst

  Nagshead

  Oakenhill Railway Cutting

  Shorn Cliffe Caswell Wood

  Soudley Ponds

  Speech House Oaks

  Upper Wye Gorge

  Kidder Forest District

  Birky Cleugh

  Butterburn Flow

  Cauldbeck Flow

  Christianbury Crags

  Coom Rigg Moss

  Falstone Moss

  Felecia Moss

  Gowany Knowe Moss

  Grain Heads Moss

  Haining Head Moss

  Hobbs Flow

  Hummel Knowe Moss

  Irthing Gorge

  Kershope Bridge

  Kielder Head and Emblehope Moors

  Kingwater

  Roman Walls Lough

  The Lakes

  Lakes Forest District

  Bowness Knott

  Buttermere Fells

  Claife Tarns and Mires

  Eden Gorge

  325

  Ennerdale Water

  Dodgson Wood

  Hutton Roof Crags

  Miterdale Head

  Pillar and Ennerdale Fells

  Scout and Cunswick Scars

  Skiddaw Group

  Whitbarrow

  Marches Forest District

  Elton Lane Cutting

  Granhams Moor Quarry

  Long Mynd

  Mortimer Forest

  Shrawley Woods

  Stiperstones and Hollies

  Wyre Forest

  Midlands Forest District

  Abbots Moss

  Black Lake, Delamere

  Burntwood

  Cannock Chase

  Dimmingsdale

  Forest Banks

  Pettypool Brook Valley

  New Forest District

  New Forest

  Northants Forest District

  Bedford Purlieus

  Bucknall Wood Meadows

  Castor Hanglands

  Clipsham Old Quarry and Pickworth Great Wood

  Eye Brook Valley Woods

  Launde Big Wood

  Owston Woods

  Salcey Forest

  Stoke and Bowd Lane Woods

  Sudborough Green Lodge Meadows

  Yardley Chase

  Wakerley Spinney

  North York Moors Forest District

  Allerthorpe Common

  Beck Hole

  Botton Head

  Castle Hill Wood

  Cockrah Wood

  Ellerburn Bank

  Ellers Wood and Sand Dale

  Frog Wood Bog

  Gormire

  Low Reclford Meadows

  May Moss

  Newtondale

  Ryedale Windy Pits

  Scar End Wood

  Seive Dale Fen

  Snaper Farm Meadows

  Troutsdale and Rosekirkdale Fens

  Rothbury Forest District

  Cheviot

  Gibside

  Harbottle Moors

  Holborn Lake and Moss

  Holystone Burn Woods

  Holystone North Woods

  Quarryhouse Moor Ponds

  Simonside Hills

  Strother Hill

  Sherwood and Lines Forest District

  Bevercotes Park

  Birklands and Bilhaugh

  Dark Peak

  Ginny Spring, Whitwell Wood

  Goyt Valley

  326

  Great West and Cocklode Woods

  Hardy Gang Wood

  Hatton Wood

  Mather Wood

  Newball Wood

  Redgate Woods and Mansey Common

  Roe Wood

  Scotgrove Wood

  Sherwood Forest Golf Course

  Shining Cliff Woods

  Stainfield Woods

  Wellow Park

  Wharncliffe Crags

  Wickenby Wood

  Somerset and South Devon Forest District

  Blackdown and Sampford Common

  Britty Common

  Bullers Hill Quarry

  Culm Davy

  Denham Wood

  Doverhay

  Haldon Forest

  Laughter Quarry

  Priors Park Adscombe

  Quants

  Ruttersleigh

  Shaugh Prior Wood

  Stoke Woods

  Thurlbear Wood and Quarrylands

  Tower Wood Quarry

  South Downs Forest District

  Botley Wood and Everetts and Mushes Copses

  Bouldner and Hampstead Cliffs

  Briddlesford Copses

  Butser Hill

  Fairmile Bottom

  Gurnard Ledge to Saltmead Ledge

  Kingley Vale

  Kings Quay Shore

  Mottistone Down

  Newtown Harbour

  Parkhurst Forest

  West Harting Down

  Suffolk Forest District

  Chalkney Wood

  Hales and Shadwell Woods

  Lineage Wood and Railway Track, Long Melford

  Sutton and Hollesley Heaths

  Thetford Forest District

  Beeches Pit, West Stow

  Cranberry Rough, Hockham

  Cranwich Camp

  East Wretham Health

  High Lodge, Mildenhall

  Rex Graham, Reserve

  Standford Training Area

  Swanton Novers Woods

  Thetford Golf Course and Marsh

  Weald Forest District

  Darwell Wood

  Lullington Health

  Orlestone

  St. Leonards

  Stone Hill Rocks

  West Blean and Thornden Woods

  West Downs Forest District

  Bentley Station Meadow

  Bramshill

  Castle Bottom

  Chiddingfold Forest

  Pasture Wood

  Puttenham and Crooksbury Common

  Sulham and Tidmarsh

  Warren Heath Ponds

  327

  Wilts and Avon Forest District

  Avon Gorge

  Ebsbury Down

  Roundway Down and Covert

  Savernake Forest

  WALES

  Ceredigion Forest District

  Coed Cwm Clettwr

  Coed Mynachlog Fawr

  Elenidd

  Figyn Blaen Brefi

  Llynoedd Ieuan

  Rhos Cilcennin

  Clwyd Forest District

  Berwyn

  Coed Bryndansi

  Coed Nant y Merddyn

  Coed Pandy

  Cynwyd Quarry

  Mynydd Hiraethog

  Rhyd y Foel

  Worlds End

  Dolgellau Forest District

  Brynllin Fawr

  Foel Friog

  Glasdir Copper Mine

  Hermon Copper Bog

  Pistyll Cain

  Llandovery Forest District

  Cwm Doethe

  Dolaucothi

  Dyffryn

  Garth

  Pembrey

  Slebech

  Llanrwst Forest District

  Aberllyn/Coed Mawr

  Coed Aber

  Cwm Crafnant

  Eidda Pastures

  Fairy Glen Woods

  Llyn Bodgynydd

  Llyn Bychan

  Llyn Cwellyn

  Llyn Goddionduon

  Llyn Mymbyr

  Llyn Pencraig

  Morfa Harlech

  Newborough

  Pandora Reservoir

  Tyn y Mynydd

  Morgannwg Forest District

  Blaen Nedd and Mellte

  Blaen Rhondda Cutting

  Craig y Llyn

  Cwmgwrelych/Nant Llyn Fach

  Darren y Dimbath

  Llethrid Valley

  Penmoelallt

  Plas y gors

  Newtown Forest District

  Breidden

  Copu Craig

  Dyfnant Oakwood

  Ffridd Mathrafal

  Stanner Rocks

  South East Wales Forest District

  Castell Coch

  Coed y Darren

  Craig Wood

  Livox Wood

  328

  Lower Hael

  Lower Linenwell

  Penarth Brook

  Pysgodlyn Mawr

  Talybont Reservoir

  Wyndcliff

  SCOTLAND

  Aberfoyle Forest District

  Ben An and Brenachoile Woods

  Ben Lomond

  Blackwater Marches

  Brig o'Turk Mires

  Comrie Woods

  Craigrostan Woods

  Cuilvona and Craigmore Woods

  Drumore Woods

  Eden Estuary

  Fairyknowe and Doon Hill

  Hawcraigs-Glenarbuck

  Lake of Menteith

  Lime Craig Quarry

  Lime Hill

  Loch Lubnaig Marshes

  Lochmill Loch

  Morton Lochs

  Pass of Leny Flushes

  Rowardennan Woodlands

  Tayport to Tentsmuir Coast

  Torflundie Mire

  Ae Forest District

  Longbridge Muir

  Moffat Hills

  Ayrshire and Arran Forest District

  Ard Bheinn

  Gleann Dubh

  Penwhapple Burn

  Borders Forest District

  Kielderhead Moors

  Langholm/Newcastleton Hills

  Palmers Hill Railway Cutting

  Buchan Forest District

  Bin Quarry

  Coreen Hills

  Gight Woods

  Greenhill-Strathdon

  Hill of Towanreef

  Mortlach Moss

  Morven and Mullachdubh

  Moss of Cruden

  Castle Douglas Forest District

  Abbeyburnfoot to Balcary Point

  Cairnsmore of Fleet

  Clatteringshaws Dam Quarry

  Ellergower Moss

  Lauchengie and Airie Hills

  Lea Larks

  Woodhall Loch

  Cowal Forest District

  Craigoyle

  Glen Loin

  Hell's Glenn

  Loch Eck

  Dornoch Forest District

  Bad na Gallaig

  Ben Klibreck

  Ben More Assynt

  Cnoc an Alaskie

  Kinrive

  Kyle of Sutherland Marshes

  Loch Meadie Peatlands

  Morrich More

  Oliclett

  329

  Oykel Gorge

  Shielton Peatlands

  Strathrory

  West Halladale

  Fort Augustus Forest District

  Affric—Cannich Hills

  Easter Ness

  Glen Affric

  Inverfarigaig

  Loch Bran

  Moniack Gorge

  Inverness Forest District

  Allt Mhor

  Belmaduthy Dam

  Corrieshalloch Gorge

  Little Mill

  Monadh Mor

  River Feshie

  Kincardine Forest District

  Muir of Dinnet

  Kintyre Forest District

  Artilligan and Abhain Strathan Burns

  Balnabraid Glen

  Bellochantuy and Tangy Gorges

  Inverneill

  Tarbert to Skipness Coast

  Lochaber Forest District

  Ben Hiant and Ardnamurchan Coast

  Ben Nevis

  Coille Puiteachan

  Garry Falls

  Loch Moidart

  Loch Shiel

  Lon Lianachan

  Mile Dorcha

  Parallel Roads of Lochaber

  Salen to Woodend

  South Laggan Fen

  Strontian River

  Loch Awe Forest District

  Craignure Mine

  Dalavich Oakwood

  Lorne Forest District

  Allt Brioghleachan

  Allt Malach

  Ard Trilleachan

  Ben More

  Coladoir

  Crom Allt

  Glasdrum

  Glen Nant

  Ross of Mull Coast

  S'Aird Beinn

  Sound of Mull Cliffs

  Lothian and Tweed Forest District

  Glenkinnon Burn

  Plora Wood

  Moray Forest District

  Culbin Sands

  Cutties Hillock Quarry

  Kellas Oakwood

  Lower River Spey

  Spey Bay

  Teindland

  Newton Stewart Forest District

  Blood Moss

  Cairnbaber

  Dowalton Loch

  Glentrool Oakwoods

  Merrick Kells

  330

  Mochrum Lochs

  Talnotry Mine

  Torrs Warren

  Tay Forest District

  Blackwood of Rannoch

  Forest of Alyth Mires

  Kinnoull Hill

  Logierait Mires

  Meall Reamhar

  Red Craig

  Schiehallion

  Wester Ross Forest District

  Alit Geod a'Hama

  Ard Hill

  Bealach Udal

  Glen Valtos

  Loch Maree Islands

  Loch na Dal

  Loch nan Eilean

  South West Strath

  Trotternish Ridge

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the names of public appointments that he has made, in each of the past six years, within the Strathclyde region, detailing in each case the organisation to which the appointment was made, the position held, the relevant qualifications of each appointee and the remuneration that each receives.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 8 June 1993 ]: The addresses of appointees to non-departmental public bodies are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. A full list of the names of appointees to NDPBs at 1 September 1992 was placed in the Library of the House in response to the question from the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) at column 392.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Lone-parent Families
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures for the number of lone-parent families living on income support; and what proportion they make up of all lone-parent families.

  Mr. Burt
  In 1991 there were about 1·3 million lone parent families in Great Britain1 of whom 0·871 million (67 per cent.) were living on income support2. In May 1992 there were 0·957 million lone parent families on income support2; no estimate is yet available of the number of lone parents in Great Britain in 1992.
  1 Office of Population Censuses and Survey.
  2 Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries May 1991 and 1992. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Maternity Allowances
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the level of(a) the maternity grant and (b) the maternity expenses payment would be in 1993–94 if they had been uprated in line with inflation since their introduction.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is:

  (a) maternity grant £75·30; and

  (b) payments for maternity expenses £113·55.

  Asbestos Claims
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost of a medical tribunal concerning the assessment of an asbestos claim.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to require the Benefits Agency to publish in its business plan and customer charter the precise arrangements for compensation and ex-gratia payments.

  Mr. Burt
  The contents of the Benefits Agency customer charter are currently being reviewed. The next version of the agency's business plan will be published in spring 1994 and decisions on its contents will be made nearer the time.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to act upon the recommendation made by the Social Security Committee in its third report of Session 1992–93 on the priority which should be afforded under the new community care arrangements and by the new independent living funds to people prevented from making a claim to the original independent living fund due to delays in processing claims for disability living allowance and attendance allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  All applications to local authorities and to the new independent living (1993) fund will be dealt with on their individual merits. However, we will ensure that the trustees of the fund are aware of the committee's recommendations.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disabled people had one or more of the weekly additional requirements for heating or laundry included in their supplementary benefit at the latest available date.

  Mr. Burt
  Such information as is available is for May 1987. At that date 189,000 people received an addition in respect of heating on the ground of disability. This figure does not include those disabled people entitled to a heating addition of a higher amount for reasons other than disability.

  A total of 553,000 people recieved a laundry addition. It is not possible to say what proportion received it on the ground of disability rather than other criteria such as illness, infirmity or inadequate washing facilities at home.

  The complicated arrangements of the supplementary benefits scheme were replaced in 1988 by the simpler income support scheme. This aims to direct extra help via premiums to groups identified as likely to have extra needs, such as the disabled.

  Source: Supplementary Benefit Statistics Annual Enquiry, May 1987.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many requests for a review of disability living allowance have been received to date by his Department;332
  and how many and what percentage of awards were (a) maintained, (b) allowed, (c) disallowed, (d) increased, (e) varied, (f) reduced and (g) outstanding.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is in the table. The figures are for the period up to 31 May 1993 which are the most recent available.

  Disability living allowance

  Number of Reviews

  Percentage

  Received

  133,234

  —

  (a) Maintained (Original award upheld)

  46,316

  34·8

  (b) Allowed (Original disallowance overturned)

  28,926

  21·7

  (c) Disallowed (Original disallowance upheld)

  3,794

  2·8

  (d) Increased (Original award increased)

  11,501

  8·6

  (e) Varied (Rate of award unchanged but duration varied)

  1,631

  1·2

  (f) Reduced (Original award reduced)

  124

  0·1

  Others1

  3,029

  2·3

  (g) Outstanding

  37,913

  28·5

  Notes:

  1 Others include reviews that are withdrawn, lapsed, defective or where there are no grounds for a review to be made.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were in receipt of(a) disability premium and (b) severe disability premium at the latest available date.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest available information for income support relates to May 1992.1 At that time the number of people whose applicable amount included a disability premium was 425,000. The severe disability premium was included in 100,000 cases.

  For housing benefit (HB) and community charge benefit (CCB) the latest information relates to May 1991.2 The number of HB and CCB cases not in receipt of income support with a disability premium or severe disability premium is in the table. Many CCB cases are also in receipt of HB.

  Housing benefit cases

  Community charge benefit cases

  With disability premium

  163,000

  217,000

  With severe disability premium

  15,000

  26,000

  Note:

  1Source: Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry, May 1992.

  2Source: Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit Management Information System Annual Sample, May 1991.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the numbers of people who claimed disability living allowance or attendance allowance prior to 3 September 1992 who would have met the qualifying criteria for the former independent living fund but had still not been notified of the outcome of their claim for either of these benefits by 25 November 1992.

  Mr. Scott
  It is not possible to make a reliable estimate.

  Income Support
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, in the light of the recent report by the National Audit Office on income support for the self-employed, what conditions apply to people who claim income support and are engaged in self-employment.

  Mr. Lilley
  A person claiming income support may carry out some part time work, but this must generally be for less than 16 hours per week. This is regardless of whether the person is an employee or self-employed. In general, however, they must be registered as unemployed and available for and actively seeking work as an employed earner. In addition, earnings above £5 per week (£15 for lone parents) reduce income support entitlement pound for pound. Some of the coverage of the national audit report in the news media did not sufficiently emphasise these conditions and may therefore have created a misleading impression of the extent to which support for those conducting their own business is available from income support.

  The principal benefit for people with children and who are working for 16 hours or more per week is family credit. Family credit is currently paid to 70,000 self-employed people, who receive an average of £55 per week each.

  Walsall Council (Bus Passes)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the latest position regarding his Department's contact with Walsall council over the latter's refusal to allow blind persons in receipt of the disability living allowance to have the concessionary bus pass.

  Mr. Scott
  On 24 May, the council wrote to the Department with its further observations on section 73(14) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. The Department replied on 25 May and remains engaged in discussions with the council.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to introduce regulations on the basis of European Court of Justice Case No. 328/91, 30 March; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he now expects the House of Lords to resume the proceedings of the case concerning Evelyn Thomas et al which was referred to the European Court of Justice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The European Court has remitted case No. 328/91 back to the House of Lords for final determination. We have not been notified of a hearing date. Legislative proposals will be developed in the light of that determination.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide an estimate of the expenditure and caseload take-up of(a) housing benefit for people who are not on income support and (b) community charge benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest available take-up estimates for income-related benefits are for 1989. Take-up of housing 334
  benefit for people not on income support is estimated at 83 per cent. by expenditure and 74 per cent. by caseload. Estimates for community charge benefit are not available.

  Smoke Alarms
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what studies have been made of the cost-effectiveness of providing deaf and hard of hearing people on low incomes with financial support to purchase smoke alarms.

  Mr. Burt
  No studies have been made.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Asil Nadir
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General how many(a) written and (b) oral representations he received from hon. Members regarding the case of Mr. Nadir before his departure from the United Kingdom.

  The Attorney-General
  I and my predecessor have received written representations from five hon. Members and can recall oral representations from two hon. Members about the Polly Peck investigation and prosecution.

DEFENCE

  Defence Analytical Services Agency
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Defence Analytical Services Agency for 1993–94.

  Mr. Hanley
  The agency's key targets for this financial year and beyond have been revised to reflect the continuing need to secure economies in defence spending and an increased capability to meet the Department's evolving needs. They build on progress already made by the agency in meeting those targets set at its launch in July 1992. The revised targets are as follows.

  Delivery of customer service

  (a) About three-quarters of the Agency's business is suitable for coverage by Service Level Agreements with customers, which set out targets and standards for the level of service, timeliness and quality of work. For this part of the business key targets are:

  (i) to increase the coverage to 75 per cent. for Service Level Agreements in the areas suitable;

  (ii) to meet at least 95 per cent. of the timeliness and quality targets set in the established Service Level Agreements.

  (b) For the remaining parts of the business (for which Service Level Agreements are not appropriate) the target is to meet at least 95 per cent. of the timeliness and quality targets in each Project Agreement.

  (c) For all parts of the business, a key target is to achieve, in the annual Customer Satisfaction Survey, at least 90 per cent. of customers expressing themselves satisfied or better with the timeliness, quality of work, and helpfulness of staff.

  Efficiency and use of Resources
  (d) The Agency will be expected, by using improved information technology, to produce its routine output more efficiently. The Chief Executive is therefore required to increase efficiency in the production of regular statistical reports by 5 per cent. in 1993–94 and by 10 per cent. over the two years 1993–95. In line with general Ministry of Defence manpower reductions the Chief Executive is, by 1 April 1994, required to complete a reduction in manpower to a level 20 per cent. below the 1990 baseline manning level.

  RAF Personnel
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) of 10 December 1992,Official Report, column 800, if he can now announce further conclusions about personnel numbers in the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Hanley
  All service manpower requirements, including that of the RAF are kept under continuous review.

  Over the next two years, the impact of civilianisation, market testing, developments in technology, economies in the support area and other efficiency measures, will lead to a reduced number of personnel required in the RAF. This reduction is made possible largely because of better use of manpower and resources.

  We are taking steps to bring down numbers in line with this changing requirement. In part, this can be done by natural turnover and by reducing recruitment. A number of redundancies will also be required to help adjust imbalances between manpower categories: in certain areas there is a surplus of manpower; in other areas there are shortages. The precise number will remain under review, but we estimate that up to 2,200 redundancies will be sought before 1 April 1995. The majority of these redundancies are attributable to factors which do not affect the operational capability of the service.

  The same redundancy terms will apply as for the previous phase of redundancies. Volunteers will now be sought. We hope that, as in the past, the majority of those selected for redundancy will be volunteers.

  These arrangements will allow the RAF to reduce its support costs while retaining the ability to meet its operational commitments.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to strengthen British forces in the former Yugoslavia theatre of operations.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Following the adoption of resolution 836 by the United Nations Security Council on 4 June, a squadron of Jaguar aircraft of the Royal Air Force is being offered to NATO to participate if necessary in air operations to support UNPROFOR authorised by paragraph 10 of the resolution.

  We have a battalion group deployed in Bosnia as part of UNPROFOR. We have no plans to send additional major units. We maintain contingency plans to provide additional protection for our forces should circumstances warrant, through both maritime and land based assets. To complement these existing arrangements, a number of Army units and individual officers and men are being placed at readiness to move to former Yugoslavia at short notice to provide a range of options should the need to protect our forces make this necessary. It will not be necessary to deploy them to theatre as part of this precautionary plan.

  Tomahawk Missiles
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his United States counterpart on the possible procurement of Tomahawk cruise missiles by his Department.
  336
  Mr. Aitken
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no such discussions.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many liaison officers from the United States Department of Defense have been stationed at his Department's chemical and biological warfare establishment at Porton Down since 1963; if he will outline the functions undertaken by such visiting liaison officers; and how many came as part of the technical co-operation programme;

  (2) what collaboration has taken place between his Department and the Government of Australia in relation to chemical and biological defence since 1962;

  (3) how many achievement awards have been granted under the technical co-operation programme at the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down in each year since 1963; what was the scientific purpose behind each award made; and if he will make a statement on the role and function of the technical co-operation programme.

  Mr. Hanley
  These are matters for the chief executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment and I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 10 June 1993
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many liaison officers from the United States Department of Defense have been stationed at his Department's Chemical and Biological Warfare Establishment at Porton Down since 1963; if he will outline the functions undertaken by such visiting liaison officers; and how many came as part of the Technical Co-operation Programme (Question 16, Order Paper, 27 May 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. Four US Army liaison officers were stationed at Porton Down from 1963 to 1973. After 1973, liaison has continued at a much reduced level through the US Army Standardisation Office in London. The original US Army liaison officers were first appointed in 1942 and pre-date the Tripartite Conferences and the later TTCP. They have their roots in informal World War II co-operation. Their functions appear to have been to act as a channel for the exchange of information and to observe and participate in relevant trials of interest to the United States.
  3. Since 1973, there have been a number of attachments of US civilian and military officers to Porton Down who have been engaged in the work of particular Divisions; they have not had a general liaison responsibility. These attachments have been under either the Technical Co-operation Programme or the UK/US/Canada Memorandum of Understanding on chemical and biological defence. During the past 10 years we have had some six attachments lasting for about a year or longer in addition to short term visits.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 10 June 1993:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what collaboration has taken place between his Department and the Government of Australia in relation to chemical and biological defence since 1962 (Question 18, Order Paper, 27 May 1993) has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. Collaboration between the United Kingdom and the Government of Australia on chemical and biological defence has taken place under the following international agreements which include chemical and biological defence in their scope:

  337

  a. The United Kingdom-United States-Canada-Australia American, British and Canadian Armies (ABCA) agreement between the armies of the four countries. This includes a group known as the Quadripartite Working Group (QWG) which has a Panel on NBC defence.

  b. The United Kingdom-United States-Canada-Australia Air Standardisation Coordinating Committee which has a sub group addressing CB defence.

  c. The Technical Cooperation Programme which involves the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is concerned with collaboration in defence research and has a sub group that is active on CB defence.

  d. The Anglo-Australian Memorandum of Understanding on Research (AAMOUR) which was preceded by the. Australian/UK Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in Defence Research and Development and which contained some CB defence related topics.

  e. A Memorandum of Agreement between the UK and Australia relating to a joint programme of reseach, investigation and material testing at the JTTRE which was an out-station of the Materiels Research Laboratory (MRL) of the Australian Department of Defence and is now designated as MRL-Queensland.

  3. In addition, I would refer you to the replies to several recent questions on the testing of chemical and biological defence equipment in'Australia (29 June 1992, Offical Report, Column 412; 16 July 1992, Official Report, Column 937; and 1 December 1992, Official Report, Column 162).

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 10 June 1993:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many achievement awards have been granted under the Technical Co-operation Programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down in each year since 1963; what was the scientific purpose behind each award made; and if he will make a statement on the role and function of the Technical Co-operation Programme (Question 21, Order Paper, 27 May 1993) has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemcial and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. At their 25th Anniversary meeting in October 1983 the Non-Atomic Military Research and Development (NAMRAD) Principals agreed that they should establish an award to mark outstanding collaboration in defence research undertaken under the auspices of the Technical Co-operation Programme (TTCP). The basic purpose of the award is to provide recognition to defence scientists and visibility to defence research which acids to the defence postures of all countries. Only outstanding co-operative research work is considered for such awards and must represent original research which can provide breakthroughs in defence technologies. The first award was made in 1985 and there have been three awards to CBDE scientists as follows:

  (a) In 1985 an award was made for research in the field of "Ion mobility spectrometry for chemical warfare agent detection".

  (b) In 1990 an award was made for research on the chemcial and biological threat of aerosolized agents.

  (c) In 1991 an award was made for work on the specification for ASC/TEDA charcoal.

  3. Insofar as to the role and function of the Technical Cooperation Programme are concerned, I would refer you to the reply given by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, The Right Honourable Archie Hamilton, MP, of 1 December 1992, Official Report, column 160 which sets out the original purpose behind the TTCP. The Technical Co-operation Programme provides a means of acquainting the participating countries with each others defence research and development programmes so that each national programme may be adjusted and planned in recognition of the efforts of the other nations. This process supplements each programme with the knowledge and capabilities of the other countries, avoids unnecessary duplication among the national programmes, promotes concerted action to identify and close important gaps in the collective technology base, and assure to each
  338
  country the best technical information available for advice to their Governments and military forces on all matters related to defence research and development.

  Bowman Project
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the allocation of the development contracts for the Bowman project.

  Mr. Aitken
  I expect to announce the award of the contracts for the project definition phase of the Bowman combat radio system within the next two to three months.

  Warheads (Plutonium)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 24 May,Official Report, column 456, what is his estimate of the amount of fissile plutonium contained in the 12,000 warheads to which he refers.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is difficult to give a precise figure but about 30 to 36 tonnes of fissile plutonium are contained in the 12,000 warheads.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what matters were discussed and what decisions taken in regard to nuclear non-proliferation in NATO's defence planning committee and nuclear planning group in Brussels on 25 to 26 May.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 17 of the communique issued after the meeting, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  F3 Tornado
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of F3 Tornados to be modified under the Airwork Services contract prior to the termination of the Airwork Ltd. F3 Tornado modification contract.

  Mr. Aitken
  Up to 134 Tornado F3 aircraft were due to be modified under the contract with Airwork Ltd.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects to decide on legal action against Airwork Ltd. with respect to damage caused to F3 Tornados in the course of the modification contract carried out at RAF St. Athan in 1992–93;

  (2) what estimates he has made of the cost of rectification of the damage done in the course of the F3 Tornado modification contract carried out by the Airwork Ltd. at RAF St. Athan.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Department intends to claim against Airwork Ltd. for the cost of rectifying damage to Tornado F3 aircraft and other financial penalties arising from Airwork's failure properly to execute the aircraft modification contract. It will take some time to establish the full extent of these costs.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the commission given to Royal Aeronautical Establishment, Farnborough, with respect
  339
  to the damage caused to F3 Tornados in the course of the Airwork Ltd. modification contract carried out at RAF St. Athan in 1992–93.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Defence Research Agency has been tasked by my Department to provide independent advice on the structural assessment which has been requested from the aircraft design authority—Deutsche Aerospace —for the relevant sections of the airframe.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact on United Kindom defence capabilities of the grounding of non-airworthy F3 Tornados damaged in the course of the modification contract carried out by Airwork Ltd. at RAF St. Athan.

  Mr. Aitken
  It has no significant impact on United Kingdom defence capabilities. The fleet strength includes an allowance for aircraft which are lost or grounded as a result of accidents or in-service modification programmes.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations were made by Airwork Ltd. regarding the termination of the contract for F3 Tornado modification work. carried out at RAF St. Athan in relation to the company's maintenance contracts in the middle east.

  Mr. Aitken
  I am not aware of any such representations.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations were made by Airwork Ltd. for an extension of the turn-round time for F3 Tornado modification work carried out at RAF St. Athan; what response was made by the RAF; and what was the final decision in relation to possible extension.

  Mr. Aitken
  Officials in my Department did receive representations from Airwork Ltd. requesting a relaxation in the turn-round time requirement of this contract. These were being considered at the time the contract was terminated.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations were undertaken into the ultimate ownership and credit worthiness of Airwork Ltd. of Hurn airport, Bournemouth, before the award of the contract for modification of the F3 Tornados for 1992–93.

  Mr. Aitken
  Airwork Ltd. is on the defence contractor's list, and as such has been the subject of our normal inquiries as to ownership and credit worthiness. We are satisfied that the company's financial position was adequate for a contract of this nature.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the termination of the Airwork Ltd. contract for F3 Tornado modification.

  Mr. Aitken
  The contract with Airwork Ltd. for Tornado F3 fatigue modification work was terminated when it was established that the company's performance was sufficiently unsatisfactory to justify such action on the grounds of breach of contract.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for assessment of the relative value of quality assurance certificate ISO9001 as against active quality assurance trials in subcontracted RAF aircraft modification work.
  340
  Mr. Aitken
  My Department's investigation into the contract with Airwork Ltd. for modification of RAF F3 Tornados will include a review of the adequacy of the quality assurance arrangements.

  Combat Aircraft (Modifications)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to re-assess the use of market testing, privatisation, compulsory competitive tendering, and contractorisation in modification work on RAF combat aircraft; and what proposals he has to include RAF in-house tenders in all such combat aircraft modification work.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have no plans to reassess these programmes which are intended to achieve better value for money from defence expenditure. It remains our policy to contractorise work which could be done by industry where it is cost effective to do so in a way that fully meets our requirements; we will encourage in-house bids where appropriate. We continue to place a heavy emphasis on ensuring that work carried out by contractors meets our exacting quality standards, and we will take firm action where we judge that this is not the case.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursant to his answer of 2 April,Official Report, column 510, if he has now obtained a copy of the CIA report on Iraq's military capabilities.

  Mr. Hanley
  No; although requested, a copy has not yet been passed to the United Kingdom.

  Military Presence Overseas
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are used for deciding which countries retain a British military presence and in which this presence is curtailed or abandoned.

  Mr. Hanley
  British forces are stationed overseas to ensure the protection and security of our dependent territories; as part of our contribution to the North Atlantic Alliance; and to contribute to promoting the United Kingdom's wider security interests through the maintenance of international peace and stability. These correspond to the three overlapping defence roles set out in the 1992 "Statement on the Defence Estimates". Overseas commitments are entered into, adjusted or ended only after lengthy consideration, and where appropriate consultation, on a case-by-case basis.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the annual costs of retaining a British military presence in each overseas country in which United Kingdom troops were stationed in the last year for which figures are available.

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

  Brunei
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of(a) British military personnel and (b) British military equipment in Brunei in (i) 1979, (ii) 1985 and (iii) the last year for which figures are available.
  341
  Mr. Hanley
  The costs of military personnel or equipment stationed in Brunei under the current memorandum of understanding with HM the Sultan of Brunei are met in full by the Government of Brunei. Records of the costs for these forces are not available in the form requested but the following information is available by financial year:

  £ million

  1981–82

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1992–93

  Personnel

  3·6

  6·1

  9·0

  11·0

  Equipment

  1·1

  2·9

  13·2

  4·2

  Total

  4·7

  9·0

  12·2

  15·2

  1 This figure includes elements that are not included in the equipment costs for other years but which are not separately identifiable.

  The costs of the Army's jungle training school in Brunei are met by the Ministry of Defence. The available full cost figures for this facility are as follows:

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Total cost

  2·3

  1·9

  Desert Storm Syndrome
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the United States authorities on the subject of Desert Storm syndrome.

  Mr. Hanley
  There have been no such discussions.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will establish an investigation into the illness known as Desert Storm syndrome amongst members of the British armed forces who served in the Gulf conflict.

  Mr. Hanley
  The health of all service personnel is monitored as a matter of routine and regular medical checks are carried out. There is currently no evidence of members of the British armed forces who served in the Gulf conflict suffering from any unexplained symptoms which would call for such an investigation.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the British armed forces who served in the gulf war have reported sickness popularly known as Desert Storm syndrome; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The armed forces medical services are not aware of any such reports being made by individual service patients. Nor are the armed forces medical services aware of changes in patterns of morbidity among the United Kingdom service population which would indicate the sickness popularly known as Desert Storm syndrome.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

EC Tobacco Growers Subsidy
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated cost of the subsidy to be paid in the current year by the European Commission to the growers of tobacco; and whether this represents an increase or decrease over the previous year.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, Community expenditure for 1993 is forecast at 1,401 mecu (that is, £1,113 million) as compared with 1,233 mecu (£875 million) for the previous year.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government have made any effort to stop this appalling waste of money on growing a commodity while at the same time financing propaganda to try to persuade people not to use it?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we achieved considerable success in last year's CAP reform to reduce Community subsidies on tobacco. As I said in reply to a Question on 4th May, the Commission estimates that between 1994 and 1997 Community expenditure will reduce by 25 per cent. or more. We shall make strenuous efforts in 1996 when the next review of the regime occurs to press for a further reduction.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, how can the Commission possibly justify continuing to spend money for the production of tobacco? One understands the idea of spending money to support people who previously grew tobacco but not for the production of a substance which everyone knows is extremely dangerous to health. If it were produced now, it would be banned in almost any advanced country.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I think that many Members of your Lordships' House will have considerable sympathy with what the noble Lord says. However, if the Community were to put an end altogether to tobacco subsidies, that would not only have undesirable social consequences for southern member states but also would in no way alter consumer demand for tobacco products. If the Community were not to grow its own tobacco, it would simply import it. That is why it is more sensible to tackle the problem at the other end by trying to reduce the prevalence of smoking and at the same time making sure that the tobacco that is grown in the EC is of the less harmful, low tar varieties.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend seek to inform the members of the southern member states to which he referred that in the days when Athens led the world in democracy, the arts and architecture, and Sparta in professional defence, crops were still grown in their countries? Since the discovery of America, all the Mediterranean crops, from potatoes to sweet corn, are available there and are grown there profitably and all citrus fruits which have come since those days from the Far East are equally capable of being grown there.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has made some pertinent observations. However, there are few crops such as tobacco which can be grown intensively, using family labour, which can give a comparable return per unit of land cultivated. There are in addition other considerations, including the lack of transport, the market infrastructure and so on in isolated areas and the need to avoid growing crops that are already in surplus.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the widespread allegations which have been made and substantially proved of massive fraud in this area of Community expenditure, how can Her Majesty's Government justify the increase in expenditure in this field under Title B.17 of the budget amounting to £101 million? How can they possibly justify that? Further, how can they justify having representation on the Council of Ministers concerned with the problem? How can they justify a Council request to the Commission to enlarge the budget in respect of Greece by £19 million? Those are matters which require urgent attention. They require subsidies by the taxpayers of Britain.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we are bound by the Treaty of Rome, which brings with it both obligations and benefits. The noble Lord is quite rightly concerned with the prevalence of fraud in the Community, but there are no specific figures for fraud in the tobacco sector. However, the establishment of control agencies and the reform of the regime to remove intervention and export refunds are steps which were agreed last year and which should reduce fraud in the sector.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, since we find it quite possible to pay farmers not to grow highly healthy and beneficial crops with the concurrence of the European Community, could we not find some way of paying tobacco growers not to grow a highly harmful crop?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have already explained that the Community has a number of incentive schemes to induce tobacco growers to switch to alternative crops or to move to less harmful varieties. I believe that that represents the most cost-effective way forward.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the argument which he has reflected—namely, that if tobacco is not grown in Europe it will be obtained elsewhere—is the classic argument of the drug pedlar and the drug smuggler; if we do not sell it someone else will? Does he further agree that that is a

1039
thoroughly disreputable argument to advance to support this kind of operation? Will he reject such an argument whenever it is put to him?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have already said that the Government believe that the absolute level of the Community budget for tobacco is too high. That is why we have been seeking to reduce it. But I also said that I do not believe that it was right to reduce it overnight. Some 200,000 families in the Community depend directly on the growing of tobacco, and about four times that number depend on it indirectly. What we have to seek to do is to reduce the absolute level of spending in an ordered way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, bearing in mind that this was just one of the nonsenses to which we signed up when we joined the Community in 1972 and the Bill was put through on a guillotine, is it not all the more essential that we should ensure that there is sufficient time to discuss the Maastricht Treaty Bill at a reasonable hour of the day and not through the night, so that all Members can have adequate time to see that they are not indulging the Government in more nonsenses like this?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend the Leader of the House has borne those considerations in mind when agreeing the business for the forthcoming few weeks.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those who have read the Maastricht Treaty will know that Article 130r sets out certain Community objectives, including,
"protecting human health [and the] prudent and the rational utilization of natural resources"?
Do the Government believe that the tobacco regime meets those objectives of the treaty?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I have already said, the Government are trying to tackle the problem at the other end by reducing demand for tobacco. The Health of the Nation White Paper identified a number of targets relating to smoking and related diseases which all government departments are working together to achieve. In particular, a reduction in the incidence of teenage smoking is a priority. We are taking a number of measures, including guidance to schools, a ban on advertising near playgrounds, stronger health warnings and so on.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, is it not a fact that we subsidise European tobacco of such high tar content that, thank goodness, the West will not accept it, and therefore it finds its way into third world countries, where it does the maximum damage to health?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point, which is why there is a conversion programme, as I have mentioned, to attract farmers towards converting their crops to lower tar varieties so as to obviate the very problem which he identifies.

EC Broadcasting Directive: UK Obligations
3.16 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that broadcasting organisations in Britain are meeting the United Kingdom's European Community obligations that a majority of programmes showed be made in Europe.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the BBC, the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority, the Independent Television Commission and holders of non-domestic satellite service and licensable programme service licences were informed by the Home Office in 1991 of our obligation under the EC Broadcasting Directive to ensure that all broadcasters, where practicable, reserve a majority of transmission time to European works.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware of the anxiety caused because the Government, having exempted BSkyB in the Broadcasting Act from the newspaper ownership provisions, seem tempted in practice to exempt BSkyB from the country's obligations under the European Broadcasting Directive in terms of the provision of European programming and the prevention of a total flood of American television imports? Will he give an assurance that in October of this year, when they come to survey the situation, they will insist that the same rules apply to BSkyB as apply to the ITV companies?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there is no question that BSkyB has been exempted from the majority European works requirement. The provisions in the directive apply equally to all broadcasters. We are in the process of compiling figures on performance in meeting the majority European requirement. Clearly, some channels are nearer to achieving it than others. A report will be made to the European Commission on the performance of all broadcasters later this year. It will cover the period 3rd October 1991 to 31st December 1992.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind when considering this matter that producers both in this country and in western Europe find it very difficult indeed to sell their excellent programmes and series to American networks? Is he aware that there seems to be a virtual ban on accepting productions from this country? Could the Government look for some equality? Otherwise, are we not forced to accept, at almost dumping prices, the huge production output from the United States, while they do not seem to want to take any of ours?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not aware of any bans in America on buying European or British programmes. The Question on the Order Paper relates

1041
to the EC and to our obligations regarding that. But a number of British programmes have been sold quite successfully in America.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on one evening during the past couple of weeks all four of the ordinary television channels (Channels 1, 2, 3 and 4) were showing American films or American-made programmes at the same time?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is a matter for the broadcasters what programmes they wish to put on at a particular hour, taking into account the wishes of their audiences.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I was unclear about the Minister's reply to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. Come October, will the Government's position be that the EC directive will be applied to Rupert Murdoch's satellites or not?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we shall consider each case individually, taking into account the particular circumstances of the channel concerned. Broadcasters must be free to show in general what the audience wants to watch. We do not have any rigid time limits. This is a new area which needs to be treated flexibly and each case considered on its merits.

European Air Fares
3.20 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made towards lower air fares in Europe since the adoption of the third liberalisation package.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the third aviation package was adopted on 1st January this year. Since then, several airlines have responded by offering substantial reductions on a number of services.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. It is good to know that British airlines, and in particular perhaps British Midland, have led the way towards lower fares. But does he agree that the one great danger to further progress and to our own airlines is illegal state subsidy to state-owned foreign competitors? Would he look in particular at the situation on the Heathrow-Dublin route, where Aer Lingus is cutting its business fares by up to £83 to match British Midland? It is a route on which Aer Lingus is already reported to be losing £15 per passenger? Moreover, does he agree that it is now apparent that Aer Lingus is looking to the Irish Government for state investment for restructuring? Will he ensure that the Commission is seized of this problem and, if necessary, raise it himself at the Council of Ministers?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as my noble friend so rightly says, it is rewarding to see a UK initiative bearing fruit. Indeed, my noble friend was the Minister responsible for pushing the aviation package to a successful conclusion. His hard work is
1042
your Lordships' reward. With regard to Aer Lingus, I wrote to the commissioner as soon as I saw some comments in the paper and asked him to make sure that he took a formal look at any application that was made by the Irish authorities. As yet, none has been made.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister said that reductions had been made. That was good news. However, there is a worry that a number of amalgamations are taking place at this time. Will he give an assurance that the British Government will encourage the relevant EC authorities to look carefully at any combinations to ensure that they do not lead to cartels and price fixing?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. We need to prevent cartels. One of the great advances of the third package was that we got rid of so much bureaucracy that had been thwarting the aviation industry. Britain has more airlines than any other country in the world except for America. A great many of them, something like 75 per cent., have international destinations.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many noble Lords on this side of the House have been waiting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, balance his impassioned intervention on an earlier Question with a welcome for the substantial savings for the travelling public that have been achieved by this package?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I too was a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, did not jump to his feet to commend the work of the United Kingdom. I know that he would prefer to pay the former price of £408 to fly from Manchester to Paris rather than the current £330. Of course, we would not have got that package had we not been in the European Community.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in deference to the House I rationed my interventions.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, since the Scandinavian and Nordic countries may well shortly be joining the European Community as full partners, is my noble friend aware of the scandalous situation on the airlines to Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway? Bearing in mind the increased amount of business which it is hoped will arise in those countries, does he agree that there is a real need, particularly for the Scandinavian airlines, for urgent action to be taken in that area?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, indeed we wish to see lower fares. If any of the EFTA countries makes a formal application that is accepted for entry into the European Community, they will have to comply with the third aviation package, although many do so at the present time.

Local Authority Staff: Pay Dispute
3.25 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will liaise with "UNISON—The Public Service Union", when it is in full operation after 1st July, to resolve the pay dispute involving local authority administrative, professional, technical and clerical (APT&C)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the pay of local authority administrative, professional, technical and clerical staff is entirely a matter for local government to resolve. The Government have no locus in these negotiations and no power to intervene.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that the organisations involved are the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the National Association of Local Government Officers and the National Union of Public Employees? Is he further aware that when they meet the local authorities, the local authorities always submit that they cannot move without some representation being made to the Government? I do not accept that and I hope the noble Lord will not do so. Will he accept that after 1st July there will be many more unions joining UNISON, and it will involve over 30 million of our fellow men and women in this country? If the problem has not been resolved by 1st July, will he be prepared to consider whether he might be able to receive representations from UNISON at that time?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that at the moment it is not a pay dispute but a negotiation. Clearly, negotiations should take place between the employers and the employees. In this case the employers are the local authorities. It is for them to decide how best to negotiate with either half a dozen unions or one single union.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when UNISON comes into being on 1st July it will be the most powerful public employee trade union in Europe? Does he agree that, because of that power and the cause for which they fight and in which they believe, it would be in the best interests of the country for the Government themselves to say to the local authorities, "Try to resolve this dispute speedily"?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, surely the history of the past 14 years indicates that it is the employers who must settle their pay decisions with their employees. Furthermore, if the new union UNISON is to be the most powerful union in the country, perhaps too it should also be the most responsible union.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in his reply to my noble friend Lord Molloy, was the Minister saying that the 1.5 per cent. limit outlined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his last Budget has no force in law and that the Government do not themselves believe in it? Did he say that the discussions and the negotiations should take place between the trade unions and the employers, who may make what concessions they like?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we take the 1½ per cent. target very seriously. Indeed, 25 per cent. of the
1044
public sector has already settled within the Government's zero to 1½ per cent. range. The point on this issue is that time and again noble Lords opposite tell us that we should not interfere in matters that are quite properly those of the local authority. That is the way that we prefer to keep the matter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister said that the Government do not interfere. Does he recall that in the 1992 Autumn Statement a 1.5 per cent. limit was put on public sector wage increases and that the revenue support grant to local authorities was fixed to that target? Is not that government interference? Does he further recall that the 1992 autumn statement was produced by the Chancellor of the day, Mr. Norman Lamont, who I understand is not in total favour with the Government at the moment? Will the new Chancellor be prepared to revise what is obviously quite an unrealistic revenue support grant to local authorities?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, absolutely not. One-and-a-half per cent. is an important target. Indeed, inflation is now only 1.3 per cent. and a 1.5 per cent. pay increase is positively inflationary. It is an opportunity for employees throughout the country to show that they are serious about the economy, about being competitive and about being responsible. As I have already said, it is up to local authorities to come to an agreement with their unions.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I agree that the Government should not intervene in the pay negotiations? Can the Minister, therefore, give the House an absolute assurance that, if local authorities settle beyond the 1.5 per cent. limit announced in the Budget and that takes them beyond their spending limits, the Government will not cap them as a result?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot give that assurance. Noble Lords opposite are continually talking about the Government cutting jobs and services in local authorities. If local authorities pay people too much then they will be responsible for the cuts in jobs and services.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the point is this; and surely the Minister can understand it. What is infuriating the unions is that when they try to negotiate with local authorities, the local authorities say that some aspects of their case are a matter for government. All I am saying is that if by 1st July the matter is not resolved, UNISON does not want to start off its career with any form of strike. It believes that the problem can be resolved but wants the more sensible local authorities and the Government to listen to the case, weigh up the situation and make a decision from which they can embark upon further discussion.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I certainly do not want to see a strike. I am sure that noble Lords opposite and local authorities do not want to see a strike. The best thing the unions can do is to accept a reasonable offer of 1.5 per cent.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister cannot have his cake and eat it.
A noble Lord: Why not?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that sums up the Tory philosophy.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister eats a great deal of cake and I am sure that it does him a great deal of good. Either the Government are saying that 1.5 per cent. is the limit and that is all that they will tolerate, or they are saying that local authority employers can negotiate to whatever limit they think is right. The two propositions are inconsistent one with the other. Where do the Government stand?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, 1.5 per cent. is a guideline limit. If the local authorities choose to break it. then that is up to them. However, it will mean cuts in jobs and services which noble Lords opposite have always pledged themselves against.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that is not good enough. On the one hand the Minister is saying that the Government do not believe in a wages policy; they believe in free collective bargaining in which they must not interfere. Yet on the other hand they say that if local authorities do not keep within their guidelines, the Government will cap their expenditure to ensure that they cannot pay the 1.5 per cent. That is what the Minister is saying and that is why my noble friend says that the Government wish to have their cake and eat as well. It cannot be done.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it can be done, and predict that it will be done. The point is that the Government have decided that there should be an overall limit of 1.5 per cent. Where the Government are not responsible for pay negotiations, such as on this issue, it is up to the employers—in this case the local authorities—to decide how much they should pay. We have given them a guideline of 1.5 per cent. If they break that guideline then there will be effects on jobs and services which, I repeat, noble Lords opposite have always set themselves against. The matter is really very simple.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if they break the guideline, will the Government cap them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that entirely depends on what happens, when it happens and what the overall restrictions are on government spending.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the Minister agree, if I can make a non-controversial point, that the vigorous defence of the unions by the Opposition would carry even more weight if its party was not financially dependent upon them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that that was a helpful non-controversial point that will have been taken on board by noble Lords opposite.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government are recommending a similar guideline of 1.5 per cent. to the executive side of private industry as an example?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, for a long time we have been encouraging the private sector to reduce their pay settlements. I am delighted to say that there are many instances where pay settlements have been below 1.5 per cent., in some cases even zero. That helps us to be more competitive and to provide the long-term prosperity that we all want.

Business
3.35 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Education Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for around one hour and that during the adjournment the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) (Revocation) Order 1993 will be taken.

London Underground (Jubilee) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Unibank Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Education Bill
3.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Judd: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene at this moment to mention a matter which is causing concern on all sides of the House. To date, in total the Government have tabled 793 amendments to the Bill; 278 at the Committee stage in the other place; 78 at the Report stage in the other place; 256 at the Committee stage of this House; and 181 before the first day of the Report stage here today. The total to date is therefore 793, with 437 in this House.
I wish to point out that 80 amendments were published only yesterday, leaving insufficient time for serious consideration of their implications. I understand that yesterday evening and today they were still being tabled. At the Committee stage in this House, 51 amendments were published on 30th April for debate on 4th May, which meant that because 3rd May was a Bank Holiday there was not a single working day between their being tabled and being debated. There was no time for any kind of consultation with the many people involved in education throughout the country who were affected by the amendments.

1047
The inevitable conclusion that any neutral observer would draw is that the Government do not have the slightest interest in the observations of anyone else on their proposals. If Ministers claim that they do, then that would be extremely hard to justify given that not only do they table numerous amendments at the last minute—important ones as well as technical ones, and obviously we need to scrutinise both carefully to ensure that the technical ones are technical, which is not invariably the case—but also Ministers frequently fail to explain adequately the meaning of complicated amendments.
In our own Committee stage my noble friend Lord Peston complained of just such a problem, suggesting that this Chamber could hardly be regarded as debating seriously if 30-odd amendments were put forward at quarter-to one in the morning, without even a full speech to explain them. It is not a new problem. Over 1,000 amendments were made during the Lords' stages of the Education Reform Bill in 1988.
If the Government claim to be a listening government willing to respond to criticism, surely five years later some improvements in the length of notice and the quality of explanation can be expected. Letters bouncing on to the desks of noble Lords at the 11th hour-plus is just not good enough. Perhaps a charter for legislators is needed with targets for greater efficiency in dealing with future legislation. I hope that today we can have substantial reassurance from the Government.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise to the House for some of the amendments that have been tabled rather late. However, I find some of what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said rather discourteous. I have spent many days between Committee and Report stages of this Bill personally writing to him and his colleagues and other Members of the House who have particular concerns. A large number of the amendments that we are to deal with today are a direct response to concerns of Members of this House. In addition, I personally saw the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and spoke about the amendments that would be coming forward. I categorised those that were purely technical, those that were consequential upon amendments passed at earlier stages in this House, those that fulfilled promises given in another place and those resulting from concerns in this House. I just wonder how much public consultation has taken place, for example on the numerous amendments that have been put down today to Clause 1. I have seen those amendments only in the past day or two. Very little public consultation on those has taken place, and I am not complaining about that.
I understand it to be the prime job of this House as a revising Chamber to consider legislation carefully and to make judgments. Even at Committee stage, when I was called to account by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and accepted that enough time had not been given, I withdrew the amendment to allow more time for consideration. I can only repeat the argument I have used before. With
1048
a Bill of this size it is inevitable that there will be significant numbers of government amendments. The vast majority are technical, drafting and tidying-up amendments that raise no issues of any substance. In addition, I have brought forward amendments in response to points made in Committee. I hope that we can now move on to the real business of the day, because there is much to do.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the Minister for responding in the way that she has. But I am sure that, fair-minded person that she is, she will recognise that there is genuine concern on all sides of the House. I make two points. First, amendments are not private matters between Ministers and Opposition Front Bench spokesmen; they are the concern of the whole House and should be available for scrutiny by the whole House. Secondly, it is not simply a matter of letters, which are appreciated; it is the substantive form of the amendments with which we must be concerned.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that that is also discourteous. Referring to the large number of amendments touched upon by the noble Lord, he counted every single amendment that had been put down in another place. In respect of many of those amendments there were many days—in some cases weeks—in which to consider them. Some of the amendments referred to by the noble Lord today are put down for business next week and the week after. There are many Members of this House, not just Front Bench spokesmen, who have had personal meetings with me or have heard from me in writing concerning amendments tabled for this stage of the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Blatch. Although I have not been in this place for very long, I have never known a Bill where the Minister has taken so much trouble, exercised so much patience and indulged in such a degree of consultation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Report received.
Clause 1 [General duty of Secretary of State]:
3.45 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("including the provision by local education authorities of sufficient schools for their areas in accordance with their duties under the Education Acts.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 39 which seeks to leave out Clause 10 and insert the following new clause:
"In exercising their duties under the Education Acts to secure the provision of sufficient schools for their area a local education authority shall have regard to the views of the funding authority, consulting it in such manner and on such time scale as may be specified by the Secretary of State".
The purpose of these amendments is to re-insert the general duty of local education authorities to provide education and give them a planning role in perpetuity.
This week there has been a good deal of debate about subsidiarity. I believe that the question many people are asking is where subsidiarity begins and

1049
ends. Is subsidiarity just a matter of Westminster versus Brussels or, in a rich democracy, is it something that goes beyond Westminster into the heart of our country; that is, local authorities democratically elected by identifiable communities? That was the strength of the Education Act 1944. It recognised the quality of our democracy, the interplay between the centre and local communities and the partnership in provision. That is what has been swept away by what the Government put before us.
At the Lords Committee stage of the Bill the issue was debated in great detail. In discussing an amendment to Clause 1 the Minister said that she readily acknowledged,
"the vital role carried out by the local education authorities." —[0fficial Report, 20/4/93; col. 1387.]
She went on to say that Clause 1 was designed to stand the test of time and therefore she did not think it appropriate to include all of the bodies with educational responsibilities. Am I wrong to deduce that arguably there is a suggestion in that comment that in future local education authorities will not have the vital role that she currently believes them to have? As the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has pointed out, the reality is that local education authorities will be left with the bits that nobody wants.
In considering who should have the lead responsibility for the planning and provision of school places under Clause 10 of the Bill the Minister pointed out:
"The local authority will continue to be required to discharge the duty under Section 8 of the 1944 Education Act, which is to secure that there are sufficient schools available for children in its area."—[Official Report, 20/4/93; col. 1503.]
She went on to say that because of the duty up to the 75 per cent. point, in that sense the local authority was the lead body with the prime responsibility to make sure that there were places for children in schools. However, she made a distinction between the duty to plan and the duty to provide places. She indicated that the duty to provide places would rest either with the grant-maintained schools sector, if that was appropriate, or with the local authority. Later in the debate, the Minister noted that if a local education authority was not carrying out its Section 8 responsibility it would be for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to the local authority.
Since the Minister is indicating that up to the 75 per cent. level the local authority in effect has the lead planning role, in order to clarify the position surely it is helpful to put that wording on the face of the Bill where it belongs so there can be no doubt in anybody's mind. If that is the Government's understanding of the situation, why are they reluctant to clarify the position by putting this lead responsibility on the face of the Bill? What is their motivation in refusing to do it? The main purpose of these amendments is to re-insert the general duty of LEAs to provide education and to give them the main planning role in perpetuity.
In introducing these amendments, I do not believe that in any other part of the Bill the difference between the party opposite and those on this side of the House can he more clearly illustrated. On that side of the House there is a fatalistic surrender to the principles of
1050
the market on the basis of school against school and a vague relationship with the centre—a relationship that I suspect will become bureaucratic and sinister over a period of time.
On this side of the House—I believe between people sitting in different parts of this side of the House—there is a deep conviction about community, a conviction that nothing is more central to the community than the care and education of our children, a conviction that any education system to take us into the 21st century should be one that rests in the community with a sense of community responsibility for children and gives children and their teachers the opportunity to feel part of the community.
What I think this introduction to the Bill so sadly illustrates is the total lack of vision and the total lack of values and philosophy in the Government's approach. I believe that we need to put back that spirit of partnership which was central to the 1944 Act, which was brought about on a basis of real consensus with most of the country behind it, whatever the changes that followed, in terms of adaptation and modification, in the years afterwards.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I wish strongly to support the amendment to which I have added my name. We on these Benches believe that the role of local authorities in education must be preserved, partly for the reasons already stated by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I expect the noble Baroness will tell us that she has no intention of further undermining the position of local authorities, but we need confirmation of that. The best confirmation we could have of it would be to have on the face of the Bill the assertion that the local authority's place is firmly there. Otherwise, the likelihood is that encouragement of more and more schools to opt out and the restriction of the role to be played by the local authority will mean that the local authority's contribution to local education and the democratic link between the electors and local authorities will disappear. Once that has disappeared it is very difficult to see what democratic link there will be in the development and control of education.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, these amendments are based on a recognition that a democratically elected local body, with years of experience of planning of all kinds, is best equipped to mastermind the provision of education in schools, whatever the proportion of places it may actually fund.
There was talk at Committee stage of putting the clock back. I thought that what we were doing was trying to preserve the best of the status quo—a classic conservative stance which it is strange to be defending in the face of a Conservative Government.
Local authorities are not yet dead. There has been no real debate about the greatly diminished role which this Government would like to see for them, and of the constitutional implications that flow from this. Until this happens I feel it is quite wrong to strike them out of Clause 1, so hastily done in another place, which sets the tone for the rest of the Bill, and which, as

1051
drafted, signals a major concentration of power at the political centre. This, my Lords, we have always regarded as a dangerous thing in this country. Maybe this Government will only come to understand why when their own long reign is broken and an opposing philosophy holds sway on the Government Benches. The fewer the checks and balances, the more freely the educational pendulum will swing from one extreme to the other.
My Lords, the arguments for having one lead body in the planning role for school places have already been rehearsed. I believe that it is for the long-term benefit of our children that that body should be the LEA, and I support these amendments.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, for once I am not able to understand the logic of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I do not wish in any way to deal or trade in polemics or subsidiarity or in any political matter concerning an approach to local authorities. But this amendment is wholly inappropriate. Let us cut out the political aspect and look at it quite coldly. Clause 1(1) states:
"The Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales".
The amendment states:
"including the provision by local education authorities of sufficient schools for their areas in accordance with their duties",
under other Acts. Where on earth have your Lordships ever seen in any legislation a measure of such order and body? Under our process of legislation, if duties exist in one Act, one does not bring in another Act to say that duties have to be enforced in accordance with that Act. It is not a conventional form of legislation. We have far too much legislation and far too many words in that legislation anyway.
I come to the next grouped amendment, Amendment No. 39, which suffers from the same fundamental drafting vice. It states that in exercising their duties under other Acts local authorities are, so to speak, exhorted under this Act to perform those duties. The third grouped amendment, which excises Schedule 2, is perhaps more relevant—I do not know quite why it has been grouped here—to the next amendment, Amendment No. 2, particularly as paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 is concerned with nursery schools. But whatever may be the effect of the last of these grouped amendments I hope your Lordships will not indulge in a wholly novel and otiose form of legislation which is a total departure from tradition.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has made some serious points about the drafting and placing of this amendment. They are not, of course, any answer to the solid substance behind the amendment. If the Minister were willing to accept the solid substance behind the amendment, I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would be willing to be flexible about precisely where within the Bill it should be placed.
The specific point that the amendment directs us to is the provision of sufficient schools. That is more than all others in education a local function because it is not
1052
simply an educational function. To ensure the provision of sufficient schools one needs to know about the pattern of employment; one needs to know which firms are expanding and which are contracting; one needs to know where planning permission may be likely to be given for a new factory. Who can know that better than the body that would be responsible for giving it? One needs to know the pattern of transport. One needs to know which bus services may be expanded and which are likely to be cancelled. In fact, one needs to know the community. That is why a great many of us are really rather anxious about how far the funding authority will have the necessary knowledge to do this job.
In just one way I think that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, sold the amendment short. He said that those on the Benches opposite are hostile to it. Well, of course, not all of them are. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in 1988, interviewed by the Sunday Times, said that the Department of Education and Science simply could not make all the decisions with regard to schools because it would not know the circumstances. As the House knows, I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, is always right. But I do not think that she is always wrong, either.
When I raised this point at Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that there will be arrangements for notifying the funding authority about the closure or building of a factory or a housing estate. That is something. It is welcome as far as it goes. But what one needs when planning schools which may be working, one hopes, for 20 or 30 years or possibly even longer is some sense of the likely future development of the community. I do not see how a formal notification process can do that. One needs to know the local area. That is why we think that this has to be a job for a local authority.
4 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is quite right to draw our attention to the substance of the amendment. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, did not speak to its substance so much as to the spirit of the division, as he saw it, between these Benches and his own as regards the views of local authorities and their role in the education service. I believe that he is right in saying that this has become a very important issue, particularly in regard to the passage of this Bill.
I say to him that I do not believe that it is at all helpful to the debate about the provisions of this Bill to politicise it in this way and to politicise the issue of the relationship of local authorities to national government. When one considers the education systems of the world there is absolutely no correlation between the powers of central government and those of local government in respect of education and the political nature of those countries. For many decades in socialist Sweden and socialist France there was a wholly centralised system of education. There were centralised curricula and planning and centralisation even to the planning and design of school buildings. I have been told the favourite French joke by French officials themselves of the building put up in southern

1053
France. It was built for a hot climate when in fact it was situated about 3,000 feet above sea level and extremely cold and so forth. We all know stories like that about countries with centralised systems.
The noble Lord also spoke very strongly about the passionate belief which he has in the community. For myself and from these Benches I also have a passionate belief in the importance of the community in the education service. This Bill opens up the opportunity of the genuine community and its definition which relates to those who have an investment through the education of their own children in the quality of the school. I very much welcome a Bill which reduces the context of the community in the running of the schools to that genuinely local and interested party. I have absolutely no evidence that a local authority of the size, for example, of a huge county or of a very large metropolitan borough, is specifically and uniquely better placed to take the kind of decisions which are necessary about one school than the people who have, as I say, a personal investment in it through the education of their own children.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest three brief reasons why the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, should not be accepted. The first is because it is unnecessary. I am sure that he refreshed his memory of the Education Act 1944, especially as regards Section 8 which spells out the duty of local authorities most beautifully. For example, it states:
"the schools available for an area shall not be deemed to be sufficient unless they are sufficient in number, character, and equipment to afford all pupils opportunities for education offering such a variety of instruction and training as may be desirable in view of their different ages, abilities, and aptitudes and of the different periods for which they may be expected to remain at school, including practical instruction and training appropriate to their respected needs".
The noble Lord's amendment adds nothing whatever to that. We should not legislate on the basis of merely repeating what is already on the statute book and well understood and established. That is my first short reason.
My second reason is a drafting one. I know that the noble Lord is familiar with it because I have mentioned it before in his presence. I shall not quote the lawyers' Latin tag which sums it up. His amendment amplifying the duty of the Secretary of State to promote the education of people in England and Wales is not simplified or made more certain by adding the words,
"including the provision by local education authorities of sufficient schools",
and so on. There is a rule of interpretation of our law which I believe is generally understood and not only by lawyers. It is that if one expresses one example one is deemed to exclude others. The last thing we want to do is to exclude the various other duties which the Secretary of State for Education will have. So as a drafting matter that amendment is not sound.
I now come to my third quick point. We have had a chance to study the admirable amendments made to Clause 1 which were made under pressure from all sides of the House at Committee stage. Those amendments now make Clause 1 right. I suggest to the
1054
noble Lord that adding the words that he intends at the end of the first subsection do not fit in well with the government amendments which we shall consider next.
My only other point is one which I wish to make in favour of the noble Lord. In Amendment No. 39 he has tabled a beautifully succinct amendment of only four lines. That leaves out Clause 10 which runs to more than a page. It contains all kinds of opportunities for the Secretary of State to make secondary legislation without adequate scrutiny by your Lordships' House and the other place. As a matter of form and drafting I would favour his amendment, but when we consider its effect and that of leaving out Clause 10 and substituting his amendment, I fear that as a matter of principle it is best to leave the Bill as it is.
The same can be said of the massive Schedule 2 to the Bill. It is very long indeed. It would have been lovely to leave that out, but it is necessary in order to amplify and implement Clause 10. Therefore, although I would love to support the noble Lord just for the sake of shortening the Bill, I am sorry to say that in substance I do not believe that it is right to do so.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, turning to the amendments to this clause I have a feeling of déjà vu. I can remember noble Lords opposite on both Benches saying much the same things when the polytechnics, the further education colleges and the sixth form colleges were given more autonomy. All the evidence we have is that they are flourishing under that real independence and devolution, and not centralisation, of local control.
This clause brings education legislation up to date; and beyond that, looks forward to a changing educational landscape. Much has been said in this House, and in another place, about the merits of the Education Act 1944. I fully recognise that that Act was a landmark in the history of publicly funded education in England and Wales. The framework it established served us well, and for some considerable time.
But we have clearly moved on. The education picture of the future will be characterised by the increasing prevalence of self-governing institutions, each with the ability to respond flexibly and effectively to the needs of the people they serve, a point made very well by my noble friend Lady Perry. That process is already well under way.
In the higher education sector, the former polytechnics (now universities) are enjoying and making positive use of the independence that universities have always enjoyed. In April, FE and sixth form colleges gained their independence from local authorities, and I have no doubt that their customers—students and employers alike—will reap the benefits of colleges' new freedoms.
Grant-maintained status represents the logical conclusion of the progress towards autonomy that virtually all our schools have now embarked upon via local management of schools.
Five hundred and seventy three schools have already attained grant-maintained status. I am

1055
entirely confident that the numbers will continue to grow as an increasing number of parents seek the positive advantages which self-government can bring for schools and their pupils. The number of affirmative ballots is now well over 800.
This clause reflects the changed and changing face of education in England and Wales. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote education in England and Wales. It recognises the vital roles to be played by a wide number of bodies in the provision and delivery of education, and it stresses the key educational objectives we are striving to achieve: improved standards, greater diversity and increased choice.
Amendment No. 1 seeks to secure a continuing and specific role for local authorities. But as I have already said, this is no longer appropriate. Local authorities will have a continuing important role to play. Perhaps I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, that if he, like me, had been watching closely the work of the Local Government Commission for England, he would agree that the role of the local authorities is most certainly not dead. It is alive and kicking out there and is coming closer and closer to the communities which are served.
However, the nature of that role is changing, and will continue to change, and the number of schools for which LEAs have responsibility will decline as more schools become grant-maintained. Local education authorities will no longer have a pre-eminent role in the provision of education. It would be wrong, as my noble friend Lord Renton has said, to single out the LEAs for mention in Clause I as opposed to any of the other organisations—for example, the FAS, the FEFC and the HEFC—which have important roles to play in the provision of education.
Local education authorities will retain important functions, and among these will be their responsibility under Section 8 of the 1944 Education Act. Your Lordships will realise that Amendment No. 39 would require the LEA when fulfilling this function to consult the funding authority. It appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the way the new arrangements will operate.
Local education authorities will not be able to bring forward proposals in respect of grant-maintained schools. If this amendment were to succeed, it would mean that the LEA could act to remedy a deficit of places in its area only by providing additional places in the LEA sector. If all the schools in the particular locality where the need for places arose were grant-maintained schools, the LEA would have to establish a new school, and this surely would not be an economical use of its resources. Neither would the LEA be able to take action to remove surplus provision in grant-maintained schools. The Secretary of State's powers are limited with regard to any overall planning, and it would be unrealistic to rely on the governors of individual grant-maintained schools to co-operate to bring forward proposals to remedy a deficit of places or to remove surplus places. The funding authority's powers to bring forward proposals in respect of grant-maintained schools are
1056
dependent on orders under Clause 10 being made. Without Clause 10 there can, therefore, be no effective overall planning of provision in the grant-maintained sector.
As I have said so many times during the previous debate on Clause 10, we see no difficulty with the LEA and the funding authority having a parallel duty at stage 2 to secure the provision of school places. Once an order has been made under paragraph 10(1) (a), responsibility for securing the provision of sufficient places will rest on both the LEA and the funding authority. Separate and distinct duties will be placed on each body. This will mean that each body will be separately accountable for whether it has fulfilled its responsibility. The LEAs will continue to be required to discharge the duty under Section 8 of the 1944 Education Act, which is to secure that there are sufficient schools available for children in their area, but in addition a separate duty will be placed on the funding authority so that where the schools which are available for an area providing relevant education are not sufficient the funding authority will be under a duty to publish proposals for securing the availability of sufficient schools. These two separate duties will ensure that where there is a shortage of places both the LEA and the funding authority will be prepared to act to remedy the position.
In practice, of course, at stage 2 both the LEA and the funding authority will have the power (as distinct from the duty) at any time to propose a significant enlargement of an existing school or the establishment of a new school.
As soon as a proposal by the funding authority to provide a new school has been approved by the Secretary of State and implemented, the duty on the LEA to secure the provision of sufficient places has been met. In its planning the LEA would, of course, be able to take account of the fact that a proposal had been approved in relation to the grant-maintained sector.
If there was a need for a new school and there were no proposals from the funding authority, the LEA would need to act to ensure that there were sufficient places. If the LEA failed to act and there became a shortage of places the LEA would clearly be in default of its Section 8 duty. At the same time, the funding authority would come under a duty to bring forward proposals to make good the deficiency. This duty will not apply where for the funding authority to act would be inconsistent with the efficient use of resources. For example, where there were no grant-maintained schools in the area and the only cost-effective solution was to make a significant enlargement of an existing local authority maintained school.
It would, of course, clearly be desirable for the LEA and funding authority to discuss with each other which of them would be the more appropriate to act in a particular situation but if, following any such discussion, both bodies still wished to bring forward proposals then clearly the final decision about which type of school would be established will rest with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
When 75 per cent. of pupils in maintained primary or secondary schools in the area of an LEA are in

1057
grant-maintained schools, or earlier if the LEA requests, the Secretary of State may make an order giving the funding authority sole responsibility for securing the provision of sufficient school places. Local education authorities will no longer have a formal duty to provide school places. They will, however, continue to be responsible for managing schools which have chosen not to become grant-maintained. This will include the responsibility for bringing forward proposals for the alteration or closure of their schools. The funding authority will have no power over LEA schools. The only limitation on the LEAs' powers to reorganise school provision in the LEA sector at stage 3 will be that, unless directed by the Secretary of State, they will not be able to propose the establishment of a new school except where that school will provide education for pupils who were attending another school which the LEA is no longer required to maintain.
Local education authorities will at this stage continue to be required to keep their school provision under review and, using his powers in Clause 19, the Secretary of State will require them to submit annual reports on the supply of places in their sector as well as providing the funding authority with relevant demographic and related information to enable them to carry out their duties, particularly their duty in respect of the provision of school places. Even at stage 3 there will, therefore, continue to be a need for close consultation and co-operation between the funding authority and the LEAs on the matter of ensuring that there are sufficient school places available for children in the local authority area.
Amendment No. 286 proposes to remove Schedule 2. As noble Lords will realise, Schedule 2 is an essential part of the structure which will enable the LEAs and the funding authority to function side by side. Again, my noble friend Lord Renton made this point very well. The schedule, which is in four parts, sets out the distribution of functions between the LEA and the funding authority with respect to their duty to secure the provision of sufficient school places once the Secretary of State has made an order under Clause 10.
I think that it was the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who was concerned about where power lay—about whether it was central or local. As I have said, I believe that devolution to schools is the best form of devolved operational control right down to the unit of management that makes most sense to local people. The noble Earl then went on to refer to something which my noble friend Lady Thatcher said in an article in The Times some years ago—I am not sure whether he was quoting. In the context in which she said what she did, I believe that my noble friend was absolutely right. The Department of Education and Science, as it was then, and the Department for Education, as it is now, cannot make all the decisions. As my noble friend Lady Perry said, the whole thrust of the Bill is that the decision-making for many of the day-to-day functions rests with schools, but the determination of whether a school should be closed or newly established lies, of course, with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. That is the
1058
position at the moment and, indeed, as it would be under the amendments proposed by noble Lords opposite.
I have already explained why we consider this structure essential for the effective management of the school system, and I trust that noble Lords will therefore reject the amendments.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that the House will have listened with great attention to the Minister's reply and, as always, she has endeavoured to be detailed. First of all perhaps I may say how very much I appreciated the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and how sad I was that he could not allow his goodwill towards style to carry him through to the substance.
I find myself perplexed—this is again for me equally an unusual occurrence—by the position of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. Education Acts, as we have known them, are not taken in isolation. We do not ditch all the existing Education Acts and then have a completely new situation. There is an evolution. There is a relationship one to another. There are references in one to another, and so it is not a totally new situation. The basis of our position on this side of the House is that the Government are removing an explicit relationship, a partnership, that existed until now. We put a contrary thesis: that that should not be removed. That is our position. There is an honest distinction between us.
If that is the case, we believe that our position that education rests best upon a partnership between the centre and local communities should still be spelt out explicitly in the Bill. There have been all sorts of references to the interplay between the two Acts. But I come back, and it is inevitable that I do, to what the Minister said in Committee. I shall not repeat all that I have quoted. She emphasised, honestly, that local authorities would be required to discharge the duty under Section 8 of the 1944 Education Act, which is to secure that there are sufficient schools available for the children in their areas. Later, as I pointed out, she said specifically and honestly that it would be for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to the local authority if it were felt that the LEA was not carrying out its Section 8 responsibilities. If that is so, we are putting—I do not believe it is an exaggeration to say this—the local authority into a position of serfdom, where it is not in an honest partnership and dialogue with the centre. There is not a wholesome sharing of responsibilities. There are certain residual tasks which it is expected to carry out because that is convenient for the centre.
Not for the first time, the wise observations of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have underlined the position. His words provide the reassurance—if I needed any—about the stand that we are taking on the amendment, because, of course, society is complex. The United Kingdom does not have a monolithic society, and thank God for that. We are a highly diverse community, with many differing local circumstances. It is difficult to imagine, however professionally excellent they may be in performing their central strategic tasks and in approaching the big, broad strategic issues of the country, that there

1059
are many among officials of the DFE—officials of ability, standing and status—who would be so foolish as to pretend that they begin to have a detailed understanding of what makes a local community tick or of the interplay between different parts of local community services and the rest, to which the noble Earl referred. For that reason, and because there is an honest difference—we have to face it—we shall be pursuing the amendment to a vote.
4.23 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No.1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 149.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Judd, L.

Airedale, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Listowel, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Longford, E.

Attlee, E.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Aylestone, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Milner of Leeds, L

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Molloy, L.

Blackstone, B.

Monkswell, L..

Bonham-Carter, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mulley, L.

Bottomley, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Nicol, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Northfield, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Redesdale, L.

Donoughue, L.

Richard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Eatwell, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Foot, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.].

Gallacher, L.

Scrota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gregson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tenby, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hooson, L.

Warnock, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B

Howell, L. [Teller.]

Wigoder, L.

Hunt, L.

Williams of Elvel, L

Jay, L.

Williams of Mostyn. L.

Jeger, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abiger, L.

Blatch, B.

Aldigton, L.

Blyth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Boardman, L

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L

Allenby of Megiddo, V

Brabazon of Tara, L

Alport, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Arran, E.

Cadman, L.

Astor, V.

Caithness, E

Auckland, L.

Caldecote, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Beloff, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Bessborough, E

Carnock, L.

1060

Carrington, L.

Manchester, D.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mancroft, L.

Chelmer, L.

Marlesford, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Merrivale, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mersey, V.

Clark of Kempston, L

Milverton, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cockfield, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Coleraine, L.

Mottistone, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L

Mountevans, L.

Cox, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Munster, E.

Cranborne, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crathorne, L.

Nelson, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Northbourne, L.

Davidson, V.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Donegall, M.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Downshire, M.

Oxfuird, V.

Dundonald, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Eccles, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Pender, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elles, B.

Pike, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Porritt, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Quinton, L.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ferrers, E.

Reay, L.

Flather, B.

Renton, L.

Foley, L.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Romney, E.

Gainford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Salisbury, M.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Geddes, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goschen, V.

Shannon, E.

Hacking, L.

Sherfield, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Slim. V.

Harlech, L.

Stewartby, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hemphill, L.

Strange, B.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hesketh, L. Teller.]

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

[Teller.]

Howe, E.

Sudeley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swansea, L.

Ingrow, L.

Swinfen, L.

Ironside, L.

Swinton, E

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Terrington, L..

Kimball, L.

Teviot, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thurlow, L.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lucas, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lyell, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wakeham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

[Lord Privy Seal.]

[Lord Chancellor.]

Westbury, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Young, B

Malmesbury, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("including nursery education provided by local education authorities in accordance with section (Nursery Education) below.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 33 (which is a substantial amendment) and Amendments Nos. 35 and 36.
The purpose of the amendments is to place a duty on local education authorities to secure the provision of nursery education for all children whose parents want that for them. The local education authorities had that duty until 1980. The amendments also require the Secretary of State to ensure that both capital and revenue resources are available for the provision of nursery education, whether they come locally or nationally. In other words, if a local authority were capped so that it could not supply nursery places, it would fall to central government to provide the resources.
The amendments also seek to ensure that the funding authority does not take over the duty to secure the provision of nursery education. However, that is not to say that the grant-maintained schools may not contribute to the provision of nursery education as they do now in their nursery classes. The amendments seek only to ensure that the planning of nursery provision and the duty to secure it remain with the local education authority.
I shall be told that we have been through all this before, as indeed we have. I have been told in rough terms by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and in dulcet tones, by the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State, that such provision cannot be afforded. I am perfectly aware, as we all are, of the financial hole in which the Government find themselves. Furthermore, from long experience I am aware of the extreme irritation that is caused by people who say, "I know that we need to economise —but not in my favourite area". No one who has had anything to do with a university or a college could be unaware of how angry that makes people, and generally quite rightly.
Nevertheless, I wish to make two points. First, we are told that things are really not so bad. We are told that 49 per cent. of all three and four year-olds are in nursery school, and that more than 90 per cent. of that age group receive pre-school education through playgroups or other means. Those figures are misleading. Many of that 49 per cent. of children in nursery school (including one of my grandchildren) go to school for no more than one half day per week because nothing more is available. Equally, among those who attend playgroups, most attend for similarly short periods—that is, a few hours every week. That is not enough.
That leads me to my second point. The difference which is made to a child, especially a child who is deprived, abused or neglected at home, by regular and structured pre-school education is inestimable. It is inestimable except in financial terms because we know that money spent at this end of the educational ladder will save vast sums currently expended at the other end. We know that potential problems and difficulties can be overcome at this stage of a child's development with relative ease—at any rate, with an ease totally unmatched by the later difficulty that that child will have in having his needs met and in overcoming his difficulties. Our awareness of these facts is growing all the time as a result of research carried out here and in the United States.
For that reason, I am not ashamed to reintroduce the amendment. I believe that it is the most important of all the commitments which your Lordships should consider to be necessary if education is to proceed properly in the future. It is one of the most important —if not the most important —matters for debate today and in the following days. Although I am not ashamed to reintroduce the amendment, I must confess to shame as I reflect that it is the Home Office rather than the Department for Education which is now taking seriously the research results on the consequences of nursery education. The Home Office is interesting itself in the high-scope project. Organisations such as Crime Concern and the Thames Valley Police believe in the efficacy of nursery education and are saying so increasingly loudly. It will be a truly disgraceful day if the opportunity is missed for a government commitment—even for the future —to nursery education, as the Bill goes through this House. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy for the substance of what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has said. In so far as it is reflected in the grouped amendments, Amendments Nos. 33, 35 and so on, which I have been through—I agree that one has to go through some of these rather quickly because they arrived rather late —at a later stage I should like to consider in further detail what is said on the substance of those amendments. However, I hope that your Lordships will not accept Amendment No. 2 because there are various simple reasons why it is unacceptable.
If the substance is in those subsequent amendments, it would be quite wrong to try to alter the drafting of Clause 1 to try to take in and improve the substance of those later amendments for various reasons. One of those reasons is that it would disturb the balance, effect and interpretation. We have had a great deal of trouble trying to get Clause 1 right, in which I have been involved, to some extent on the margin. Having got it right with Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 and 17, which I gather are acceptable to all sides of the House, it would be a great pity to re-open the debate. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will not accept this amendment to Clause 1.
Furthermore, strictly speaking, as a matter of drafting the Bill states:
"The Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales".
Children who attend nursery schools are people and the greater, as a matter of the prime canon of construction, includes the lesser. Therefore, without wishing to be over-technical, there is no sound basis on which the amendment should be carried into the Bill. However, I want to hear much more about the substance of the following amendments, and until I do I am not in a position to speak to them.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I wish strongly to support the amendment, or at any rate the intention behind it; namely, to ensure that nursery schools are available in this country. I remember what was said in Committee. This is in no way a criticism or attack on pre-school groups, which are doing a very good job.

1063
However, they are not appropriate or available for the whole range of children. We need to have genuine nursery education, with properly trained nursery teachers, dealing with the children for whom it is planned.
Of course, that is expensive but it is a case of taking a long-term rather than a short-term view. As the Government are being reminded constantly, short-termism does not get you anywhere very fast.
We are deeply concerned in this country—and I am sure this is true of all Members of your Lordships' House—about the educational and social failure of many groups in our society. Far too many people leave school with an inadequate education. Those people contribute to our economic and social problems. They are human problems in themselves. There is a great deal of evidence which shows that an early start with good nursery education gives the best opportunity to reduce the numbers of such people who enter into that group as non-achievers. For that reason, I urge the noble Baroness to strengthen provision of nursery education in this country and to accept this amendment, or some modification of it if the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, are accepted.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I rise to support very warmly the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. As I have said before—and I hope that she will not be embarrassed if it becomes a refrain—there are few people who speak with more knowledge, sensitivity and experience of such issues than the noble Baroness. It is a joy to join with her in an amendment.
The value in being able to reconsider this issue is that in replying to the debate in Committee the Minister overlooked totally a key element in what we are proposing. We are proposing that nursery education of this kind should be available to the children of all parents or guardians who wish it for their children. That is terribly important.
In the Minister's response she said that the proposed amendment would mean that the pre-school playgroup movement would cease to exist. Reference has been made to that. However, that would be true only if parents no longer wished to make use of pre-school playgroups and asked instead for nursery education. In that instance only—and only in that instance—would 100 per cent. of children be provided with nursery education rather than pre-school playgroups. Therefore, if pre-school playgroups were to fade, that could only be because parents preferred nursery education.
Since the Government repeatedly put on record their position in favouring parents having choice, surely the Minister cannot object to parents being able to choose nursery education if they felt that that was more appropriate.
I hope that we do not distort reality in our debates. A big challenge in all this is to recognise the sterling work being carried out by countless committed and devoted childminders throughout the country and by many playgroups and to work with those involved in
1064
building up the best possible provision for our youngest children. The people involved in those other activities have a great deal of insight and experience to offer. It is not an either/or situation. It is the best possible mutually supportive system of services which we need.
That the local authority has a key role to play in that respect cannot be doubted. After all, it is the local authority which can bring together the various services which should be working together, not least care and transport. Flexibility will always be essential if nursery education is to be generally available for all those who seek it rather than only for those whose professions or family arrangements dovetail more easily with it.
In 1989 the House of Commons Education, Science and Arts Committee conducted an investigation into the education of young children. That report recommended, among other things, that day care should include elements of planned nursery education. As was pointed out in the earlier debate, in its report, Aspects of Primary Education: The Education of Children under Five, published in 1985, the inspectorate said that children under five in nursery schools and classes generally received a better balanced education than those admitted early to primary classes.
Before I conclude, I ask the Minister whether she is in touch with her colleagues in other departments. I am extremely interested to read that the Home Office Programme Development Unit is currently funding a three-year High/Scope nursery education project in four inner city areas—Liverpool, Manchester, North Tyneside and Lewisham. That is being done because the conclusions of a study comparing the experiences of 123 young African Americans from a deprived inner city area of Michigan who went through the High/Scope nursery programme in the 1960s with those of a similar group who did not. The conclusions were clear. Children born in poverty who participated in a high quality, active learning pre-school programme at ages three and four have fewer criminal arrests, higher earnings and property wealth and a more stable family life as adults.
Earlier results from the same programme indicate that pre-school participation can increase the proportion of young people who at the age of 19 are literate, employed and enrolled in post-secondary education. Results show also reductions in the proportion who dropped out of school, were labelled mentally retarded, had been arrested or were on welfare. Indeed, a cost benefit analysis of the programme and its long term effects at the age of 19 revealed returns of six dollars for every dollar invested in a one-year programme and three dollars for every one in a two-year programme. The latest research shows the returns to be even greater at age 27, yielding economic benefits to the public of quite considerable income for what has been invested.
As long ago as 1972, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher (then Mrs. Thatcher), pledged that there would be nursery places for every child aged three and four whose parents wanted it. In 1980, Chris Patten, the former chairman of the Conservative Party said:

1065
"It is a considerable pity—indeed it is a great deal more than that—that more children have not had the benefit of nursery education…I have seen how much my own children have gained from it".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/2/80; cols. 1296–97.]
Until 1980 legislation laid down that it should be the duty of the local education authority to provide nursery places for those children whose parents or guardians wanted it under Section 9(2) (b) of the Education Act 1944. Let us remember that that Act was introduced in the midst of a war, with all the inherent pressures on the economy. Those visionaries then saw the value of nursery education and what a sound investment it would be in the future of the country. The amendment would return to that position.
The second part of the amendment would require the Secretary of State annually to satisfy himself that sufficient resources were available to local education authorities to carry out that duty. Clearly it is important that local authorities are able to fulfil their duty and the funding to do so is a necessary part of it. I cannot think of any single act of policy which is a better investment in the future of our children than nursery education. That is why we on this side of the House are so deeply committed to its provision for all who desire it. That is also why we totally fail to understand the repeated shortsighted intransigence of Government Ministers opposite in not recognising a good investment when they see it.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I strongly support Amendment No. 33, but I rise to speak more specifically to Amendment No. 30 which is tabled in my name and which is a mere mouse of an amendment compared to the former. It is designed as a backdrop if the Government are unprepared to accept the much more ambitious targets of Amendment No. 33. What I am suggesting need not require any additional resources, although additional resources in the education and care of under-fives are undoubtedly needed. I am suggesting targeting of existing resources, plus a few more if the Government can see their way to providing them, upon the children and the families who have most need.
Nursery education and pre-school care is most essential for those children who have the least family support. It need not cost that much money. On Monday I visited a pre-school group in the primary school in my village of Northbourne. It has 15 children and is run by a trained nursery teacher. I must here give credit to the Government's policy of local management of schools because it was LMS which released the energy of the parents. They grouped together, raised funds and obtained money to set up the project. They also continue to raise funds so that those parents who can afford it pay £3 a day for three mornings a week, while those parents who cannot are subsidised by the fund-raising effort. That is possible in a relatively opulent rural area, but clearly would not necessarily be possible in some inner cities.
The real concern that a number of organisations have is that it is not entirely clear, as I understand it, how the withdrawal of funds from the local authorities to fund the funding authority for schools will work. The proposals on the common funding formula are
1066
apparently still out for consultation. Under the funding formula, it appears that full-time nursery education may be funded by the funding agency and those funds recovered from the local authorities. The fear of the caring organisations is that, in recovering those funds, the schools which are most likely to opt out are probably those with the more opulent parents. That is because those parents are more active, and so on. Therefore, the local authorities are likely to be left with the poorer schools in the deprived areas. The funding will be transferred to the funding authority from the local authorities' standard spending allowance, and the local authorities will be left with little or no money to fund nursery schools in the areas where they are really needed. That is the great fear.
If the Minister could give me comfort on that issue, I believe that it would help a great deal. I say that because this represents negative targeting; it actually represents targeting funds away from the areas of greatest need. That must be wrong and cannot be what we all want. Therefore, as I said, if the Minister could give me some comfort in that respect I should be most grateful. Alternatively, and better still, perhaps she will be able to accept my amendment or take it away and improve it.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment No. 30. In an ideal world I would support the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, because I believe that nursery education is ultimately absolutely essential; indeed, it would bring us into line with our colleagues in France and Germany who have nursery education by statute. But, having heard the previous debate, I know that the Government feel that they cannot accede to universal nursery education. I am frightened that if we do not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, we may not achieve anything at all. I have the kind of feeling as in, "… one step enough for me". For goodness sake, let us take one step towards the ideal. Therefore, while I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, reality leads me to say that I support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, as a first step.
There are pre-school playgroups which are enormously well supported in the country. I believe that parents should have the right to choose. Therefore, because I believe in nursery education, and because reality tells me that we shall not get it universally at this stage, I support Amendment No. 30 in order to take the first step towards achieving that aim.
Lord Rix: My Lords, with such respected Members of your Lordships' House putting forward amendments, I feel that my voice in their support is somewhat surplus to requirements. However, I should like to put in a word for those children with special needs; that is, those with learning disabilities. As we are all aware, LEAs have a statutory duty to ensure that the identified special educational needs of children between the ages of two and five are met. It is difficult to see how they can ensure that without having knowledge and control of the nursery education system. I am sure that noble Lords are

1067
aware that early learning is even more vital for children with learning difficulties than it is, perhaps, for others.
If the amendment is accepted—indeed, if any of them are accepted—LEAs will be able to continue to offer a flexible, co-ordinated service to all young children, and children with learning disabilities will actually be able to have the service to which they are entitled. I am certain that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will have no difficulty in accepting this straightforward amendment, which is supported outside the House by the Special Educational Consortium made up of no less than 140 organisations concerned with those with special needs.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I trust that the House will allow me to introduce my own amendments and then I shall reserve my right to reply at the end of the debate. I refer to Amendments Nos. 281 and 283. They are there to ensure that in relation to the provision of places for the under-fives the Funding Agency for Schools will be in the same position as local education authorities. In short, it will be under no obligation to provide such places at any stage. Of course, that is not to say that it will be precluded from proposing the provision of such places at grant maintained schools. The funding agency may make proposals to do so after the necessary consultation and in accordance with the statutory requirements governing proposals. The amendment makes clear that the duty to secure sufficient places applies at all stages to the compulsory age range only. Accordingly I ask noble Lords to accept these amendments. I shall respond to the general debate later.
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is perfectly true that we debated nursery education in Committee but I can quite understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and others who have spoken in her support, wish to raise the matter again. I do not think there is anyone in your Lordships' House who does not believe, as a matter of principle, that nursery education, for those parents who want it for their children, is a good thing. Therefore, to argue against these amendments is to suggest that one does not agree with nursery education and one feels children should not receive it. That is not, of course, the view that we take, and the reasons for not supporting these amendments are somewhat different.
It is right, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, that we should have an opportunity to reconsider what was said in Committee. However, some of the difficulties have been pointed out. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway referred to them on the first of these amendments. This is not a technical matter at all; it is an important matter of law. Leaving that aside, there are a number of arguments to be considered. I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, say there was not a strong case for pre-school playgroups. Some parents prefer to send their children there rather than to a nursery school.
1068
There is no reason why they should not do so. I believe in variety, and I believe that both kinds of nursery provision should be supported.
However, I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister says on the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Most local authorities give priority to precisely those children who receive free school meals. I would be interested to know how many children who receive free school meals do not receive nursery education. I do not have the figures but I should be interested to know them. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, also said that because schools have local management of resources, funds had been released for staffing nursery classes. I understand this is occurring in various parts of the country and it is a good development which is much to be welcomed. As regards opting out, the noble Lord said that it was not usually the poorest schools that opted out. I have been asked to become a patron of an inner city girls' school which by no stretch of the imagination can be regarded as a school where rich people send their children. A high proportion of the pupils receive free school meals and that school is considering opting out.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The point I was making was that because the richer schools will opt out and will take money away from local authorities, local authorities will be left with less money to support the poorer schools.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not wish to pursue that argument. I do not agree with the noble Lord because at the moment we are discussing nursery education. Amendment No. 33 causes the difficulty. It is similar to the amendment that was tabled at a previous stage. The amendment commits the Government to an enormous increase in expenditure. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, felt I was hard on her on a previous occasion. However, as someone who has been a Minister I feel it is quite wrong for your Lordships' House to make these large commitments. I said on a previous occasion that such action was irresponsible and I do not renege on that statement.
That is not to say that I am not pleased that the numbers in nursery education are increasing. I understand that between 1983 and 1992 the number of under fives in maintained nursery schools and classes rose by a third. That seems to me a good record. Although I accept that some pupils spend only a small proportion of the week in a nursery school, that is much better than not being there at all. The overall figures for nursery provision are increasing year by year. I have no reason to believe that that will not be the case in the future. I am sure the whole House understands the point about nursery schools, but I feel it would be quite wrong, for a number of reasons I have given, for the Government to accept these amendments this afternoon.
Baroness White: My Lords, I hesitate to take part in this debate because it is 30 years since I had the privilege of being president of the Nursery School

1069
Association. I had to relinquish that post in 1964 when the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, as he now is, decided I would be more usefully employed in the Colonial Office. However, I have retained a strong interest in the value of nursery school education since that time. The changes that have occurred in our social and family structures since that time have meant that the need for nursery education is greater than it has ever been.
The needs of small children remain the same but the need for nursery education is increasing. In certain favourable circumstances the need can certainly be met through pre-school playgroups. However, it is quite misleading to suggest, as I believe the Minister suggested in earlier debates on this Bill, that such favourable conditions generally prevail in our urban areas. I stood up for the pre-school playgroups in their early days but only in appropriate situations where the majority of children came from literate homes and where those who ran the groups usually included former teachers who were taking a break while bringing up their own children.
I enlisted, on the sole occasion in my political career, the personal help of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. We were concerned then with the extremely unsatisfactory position of pre-school children who lived in the towering blocks of flats which were then springing up in our cities and major industrial areas. When the committee that was studying the matter proposed supervised play in places where no nursery school was likely to be made available, the noble Baroness demurred that parents should look after their own children and that supervised play should be paid for. I am afraid she was in a minority of one for most of the time on our committee, although in other respects we greatly valued her help.
However the noble Baroness, Lady Blotch, clearly has something of the same outlook. She should not mislead herself by relying on her personal experience in East Anglia, as I believe she did in an earlier debate. The situation in East Anglia, after all, is a case of favourable circumstances. It is quite misleading to transfer that situation, which she quite properly described, to that which confronts so many young children in other parts of our society who have no such gifted person as the noble Baroness to inspire their pre-school playgroups. If the noble Baroness does not realise the limits of the pre-school playgroups and the need for much fuller professional teaching for many children in nursery schools, I am afraid a good many children will be shortchanged.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady White, as she mentioned the year when I began to think about nursery education. I remember asking the staff in the department where I worked why they considered education in a series of stages comprising primary, secondary, further and university education. I said that surely one person has one life. If public money is to be invested in this matter, we should find out at what stages in an individual's life it is most worth while investing that money. No one could answer my question. I also asked personnel in universities at what stage in an individual's life it was most worth while spending
1070
money on education according to what an individual could absorb at a particular age. The university personnel could not and would not help me.
Time has passed. I go to America a good deal. There they have done a great deal of research into the value of education before the age of five in relation to the rest of a child's life. So far as I can make out, that is a very high priority. We do not spend very much money on it here because we have not been used to spending money on it. We know what government departments are. They do not want ever to switch the budget from one item to another because somebody will he hurt.
I believe that we have reached the point when we must ask the Government whether they have any knowledge of the importance of spending taxpayers' money on children under the age of five. I believe that they will find it very difficult to get an answer. I believe that the answer will be that it is highly important and in many cases more important than spending money on some other stages of education.
Let us suppose that there is not enough money. My noble friend on the Front Bench said when I was here last some months ago that it was money which had prevented her from including nursery education in the Bill. She said that it was money which made playgroups more attractive because they were cheap. I suppose that parents like them because they want somewhere where they can get rid of the little dears for a few hours and a playgroup will do. However, that does not meet the educational need.
What do we do if there is not enough money to go round? We then have to consider whether the money spent on education is enough in relation to what the Government spend on other matters. We have to consider whether money should be transferred. One cannot always continue to provide the same shares for everybody. The world is advancing in many directions and those shares have to be changed. I do not believe that it is as important to spend money on keeping people alive at my age as it is to teach children under the age of five. I believe that we spend too much money on the end of life compared with what we ought to be spending on the beginning of life.
Ministers never think about those issues these days. If they did they would say so. All they do is give us brilliant Civil Service analyses of what is going on in one small section. It is the business of Parliament and of Ministers to look at life as a whole and to ask whether we are doing the right thing. I do not think that we are doing the right thing.
I do not like to vote against the Government, but I think that I shall vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, if he presses it to a vote. I believe that this question goes far wider than the amendments we have considered today.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before I ask the Minister a simple question perhaps I may refer to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and say that there is all the world of difference between pre-school playgroups and nursery schools. I do not for one moment underrate what is being done at

1071
pre-school playgroups. When I was an education officer I used to fiddle equipment and other items for the pre-school playgroups. It is probably not wise to say that in your Lordships' House, but I say it to show my commitment to pre-school playgroups and the splendid work that they do. However, as my noble friend said, there is a great difference, in terms of qualified teachers and much better equipment. I am glad to see that the noble Baroness agrees with me at least to some extent. I hope that we shall not confuse the two because the nursery school question is very important.
I am glad that the noble Viscount intervened because my question is very much related to what he said. My question is this: is the only reason why the Government will not adopt the policies contained in these amendments one of money? There is a great deal of evidence about the value of nursery education. The filing cabinets of the Department for Education must be stuffed with all the reports which have been produced over the years about how good and valuable nursery education is. I do not believe that that is a matter for argument.
It was interesting that my noble friend Lord Judd raised the latest report from the United States. I mention it because, first, it is a wee bit different. It talks about the benefits—and I suppose that this is typically American—not just of a reduction in criminality but also in terms of job success, home ownership and car ownership. That is perhaps a new aspect to all the research that has been done.
I asked the Minister that question because one of the findings of the study is that every £1 spent on nursery education would save the taxpayer £7 by reducing criminality, unemployment and the need for handouts. I am sure that the Minister will take that on board in the attempts that I hope she will make to persuade the Government that the policies advocated in the amendments are worth while.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister is offered a choice of ways forward in this group of amendments. There is a very wide option in Amendment No. 2, which would interfere with Clause 1 which, for reasons my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway explained, would be regrettable. There is the wide one in Amendment No. 33. In addition, there are two different methods of targeting. The first is in Amendment No. 30, which is tied to the school meals profile, and the second is contained in Amendment No. 13 which offers the ingenious route via parents.
I recognise that my noble friend the Minister is under tight financial constraints, but I hope that she will not take the advice of my noble friend Lord Eccles and reduce the amount of money spent on keeping people like him alive. There are two reasons for saying that: the first is that he is too valuable to lose, and the second is that the saving would be minimal because so far as I know there is nobody else like him anyway.
I can endorse the American research to which my noble friend referred, which is paralleled by that to which the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, referred. I ask my noble friend the Minister to have two points in mind. First, the education of children
1072
has one similarity to the maintenance of a house, in that the sooner one spends money on it the more damage one avoids and the better the value one receives for the money spent. Therefore, it is a question of virement of money between age groups. There ought to be weighted consideration.
Secondly, I ask my noble friend to look very carefully at the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in Amendment No. 30. With the greatest respect, I believe that my noble friend Lady Young may have slightly misunderstood that amendment—or I have. As I see it, it is not aimed at encouraging local authorities per se to spend more on disadvantaged children, but at ensuring a fair distribution between local authorities and other funding authorities when the children in an area are split between them and there is a disparity of need between them. The noble Lord has found an indicator —the provision of pre-school meals—which I believe is worth considering. As he pointed out, it will not cost a penny more in toto because he is suggesting that the money is distributed pro rata between the two according to the number of free school meals issued. I believe that that proposal is worth considering.
Finally—and briefly, because we have spent rather a long time on the amendment—I should like to refer to Amendment No. 13. That amendment suggests that it should be the duty of the Secretary of State:
"to ensure that local authorities and schools secure adequate support for parents in their role as a young child's first teacher".
I believe that there are two things wrong with it.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not believe that the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, refers is in this group.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am sorry. I assumed that it would be and misread the grouping. In that case I shall merely ask your Lordships to consider carefully what I have already said, and then I shall sit down.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, perhaps I may voice one or two reservations. While of course one must be in favour of nursery school provision—not to be in favour of it is not to be in favour of mother's milk—in particular one must be in favour of pre-school provision for children from families in areas of high deprivation. Having worked in the community as a nurse I have nothing but admiration and sympathy for mothers who have to bring up small children in high-rise flats in very congested and dangerous urban areas.
However, that having been said, I believe that there is a strong case for a mixed economy, mixed provision. I do not believe that the case has been entirely made for nursery school provision as compared with the different kinds of provision which currently prevail and which perhaps need to be encouraged. While I agree very much with the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to try to ensure provision for pre-school activities and stimulus and support for areas of high social deprivation, there is a big question mark about the educational assumptions underpinning the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock.

1073
Research has been mentioned with regard to the American study. I wish to ask the Minister whether there is any research available showing the significance of pre-school nursery provision in this country as compared with other kinds of provision. I have two queries and doubts about the educational assumptions underpinning the amendments. One is that research has shown again and again in the country that what matters in the educational attainment of our pupils is what goes on in the schools as they currently exist for the ages of five and upwards. There is, for example, the kind of teaching methods used for reading. The decline in reading standards and increase in illiteracy at the age of seven are associated much more with changes in the way in which reading is taught than with pre-school provision of education before the age of five.
In that context, I should be interested to see research studies examining the influence of schools and educational attainment in countries where, for example, formal education may not begin until the age of six or seven. That happens in some European countries where, compared with our country, they seem to achieve perfectly satisfactory educational standards by the end of their schooling. I suggest that we do not have sufficient research-based evidence on which to make hard claims for pre-school education before the age of five of the nursery school kind, compared with the provision of some pre-school opportunities for companionship, stimulus, respite for mothers with young children at home, which is provided by the present mixed economy provision.
Therefore, I believe that there are grave reservations about the amendment in terms of the educational assumptions on which it is premised. Given that, I must support noble Lords who have expressed reservations on the amendments on other grounds as well.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady White, my interest in the subject of nursery education goes back a long way, although not quite as far back as hers. I completed a PhD thesis on the subject in 1969, nearly 25 years ago, and I too have gone on taking an interest in policies towards nursery education ever since.
The short debate that we have had on the subject has been interesting because no one in your Lordships' House said anything other than that nursery education is a highly desirable form of educational provision and one that we ought to provide for our children. If that is our view, why are we not using the opportunity that this huge piece of educational legislation provides to make it available for all our children?
I was extremely interested in what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said. We must consider, when we are legislating, what are our priorities and what it is worth spending money on. Of course, it must be worth spending money on something as important as allowing all three and four year-olds whose parents want it to have the opportunity of a good educational experience at that crucial stage in their lives.
Again, following what the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, expenditure on
1074
education at this stage provides more in terms of value added than at any later stage. We know from countless pieces of research by educational psychologists and others that children learn faster at the ages of three and four than they do later. I say that as someone who works in the university sector. I would far rather that we invested more money in the provision of education for young children than in the provision of education at the university stage.
For the Government now to say that this is something they cannot afford I find extraordinary. We have just had a huge expansion in higher education; we could afford that. We are expanding provision for young people aged 16 to 19 which is highly desirable; we could afford that. But why is it that we are saying yet again that we cannot afford the expansion of provision for children at this crucial age?
I should like to pick up what my noble friends Lord Dormand and Lord Judd said. There are huge, long-term benefits from the provision of early childhood education and a great deal of research evidence to support that.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that of course I accept that there will be costs in going down that route. But when we legislate, we constantly bring about new forms of provision right across the board, not just in education, which leads to increased costs. That does not mean it is not desirable to do so. There will be short-term costs, but there will be long-term benefits. I should like to remind your Lordships' House that yesterday the Prime Minister said that this was not a short-termist government. If that is true, then we should be willing to invest in nursery education for its long-term benefits.
Perhaps I may make two or three other points. While I accept that pre-school playgroups are valuable, it is nevertheless the case that most parents—not all—when offered the opportunity of sending their children to a good nursery class or to a good nursery school, will prefer that to the rather more limited provision that it is possible to make in a playgroup. Playgroups have in many ways filled the gap in those areas where there is inadequate pre-school provision.
Nursery education first came on to the statute books in 1918. The provision that was made then was reinforced in the 1944 Act. We then had the Plowden Report in 1967 which advocated a major expansion of pre-school provision so that all young children whose parents wanted it could benefit. That was then put into the 1972 White Paper, as I think has been mentioned.
However, the history of nursery education in this country has been very much stop-go. Would it not be right now, 75 years after the 1918 Act, if in the 1993 Act we should make it a requirement that local education authorities should provide nursery places for three and four year-old children whose parents want it? I believe that it would be an enormous benefit. It would make this piece of legislation one that thousands of parents would welcome, not just today's parents but future parents, because it would end the territorial injustice involved in a situation where those parents who happen to have the good fortune to live in the area of a local authority where nursery

1075
provision is made can send their children to it. Those parents who do not—and about half our children aged three and four do not have the opportunity—are unable to do so. That seems to me grossly inequitable and unfair. We owe it not just to those children whose parents' income makes them eligible for free school meals but to all our children to provide this important and significant educational opportunity.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask her a short question.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, we are on Report.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, we are indeed on Report but before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask her a short question.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: No. She has sat down.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand from the Clerk that my noble friend is allowed to ask a question of the noble Baroness.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this is quite a serious matter. I am asking the noble Baroness for her help from her vast knowledge and experience. I have an open mind and I ask for her assistance. She has spoken about the cost. What is the order of that cost if we are to try to implement the view that she advocates? How is it in context with the cost allocated, for example, to further education? Can one remove an element attributable to further education? I do not know. What is it, and can one move it across to nursery education? What is involved?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot give precise, up-to-date figures of the current cost per nursery place multiplied by the numbers of children who are eligible for nursery education. I can tell the noble Lord that the cost of nursery provision is hugely less than the cost of a place in a sixth form or the cost of one in a further education college. It is less, if only because the pay of nursery teachers is lower than the pay of those who work in post-school education and it is also less because the numbers of children in a nursery class will be considerably larger than the ratio of staff to students in post-school education.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we must be careful in trying to draw general conclusions from the very particular circumstances of the Perry pre-school study in the US which has been adduced by so many noble Lords today. To give noble Lords further figures from that study, the pre-school group experienced 126 arrests per 100 persons and the control group experienced 230. While that is an admirable improvement, those levels of criminality are vastly in excess of the average in this country and even of the averages in the United States.
The amount spent on the pupils in that pre-school experiment in 1960 was 5,000 dollars per person per
1076
year. That is vastly in excess of any likely expenditure on pre-school education in general in this country in the foreseeable future.
The right reaction to this study is surely that of the Home Office; namely, to have particular projects in areas of particular need where the expense can be justified. To take that sort of expense and make it national on the grounds of research which has no relevance to national conditions must surely be wrong.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may start by addressing the question that was put by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I am advised that the cost is over £½ billion. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is wrong. Nursery school teachers are paid as teachers. The staffing ratios are indeed higher at the nursery school level. I am talking about nursery school teachers—
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I did not make a comparison between nursery school teachers and teachers further up in the school system. I was asked to make a comparison between what happens at the nursery stage in terms of costs and what happens in terms of post-school provision. That is a completely different point to the one that the Minister makes.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was an out of order comment. This is Report stage. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that when she reads Hansard she will know that she made a comparison between the cost of nursery school teachers as opposed to the cost of teachers higher up in the system.
Baroness Blackstone: I mentioned post-school provision.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we shall read Hansard tomorrow.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for being somewhat baffled and for imagining that noble Lords opposite have never been in power since the early part of this century. The noble Baroness said how strongly she felt about nursery education all those years ago. The noble Baroness, Lady White, said exactly the same. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, was wringing his hands about how anxious he was when he was an education officer because nursery education was so important. I can only say to the noble Lord that he was entirely free at that time to take a view —at the time higher education was very much in the hands of local government; so, too, was further education, sixth-form colleges and polytechnics—that money spent at that end of the spectrum would be better spent for nursery school children. It was possible to take the money from the police authority and spend it on nursery school children. It was also possible to take it from transportation.
I served in local authorities. One of the functions that we had as local authority members was that we could vire from one heading to another. We were given one sum of money from government, and with that sum we could determine priorities. Had we wanted to spend it on nursery school children at the

1077
expense of some other service within the local authority, then we were entirely free to do so. But what it—
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, this is Report stage. Perhaps I may continue. It is a question of priorities. It is about saying that there is only one sum of money, and it is finite. It is a question of the proper application of that money. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that the nursery education provision that comes before my department for consideration by the Secretary of State is indeed targeted. The policy is one of targeting areas of greatest need. That is true not only in the department. We believe that the local authority record is one of targeting the money they spend on nursery schooling on the areas of greatest need. I believe that that approach is right. But in the absence of being able to operate a blank cheque policy, is it not right that we should allow quality play-group provision to flourish?
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady White: yes, I was anecdotal for a moment at Committee stage when I used my East Anglian experience. But I have been all over the country, from Cornwall to the borders of Scotland. Up and down the country there are fine examples of the local community making its own provision. There are parents, sometimes retired teachers and mothers with great experience who are doing quality training. My own department has vastly increased the money that we allow the pre-school playgroup for training so the whole issue of quality is addressed. We must allow that to flourish unless we are going to support, as some of the amendments do, an absolute blank cheque policy to provide nursery education for all children.
I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, in answer to his question that the issue is not only about money. Of course, it is predominantly about money. If we are to say, as Amendment No. 33 says, that any parent of any child in any part of the country can simply seek, on demand, a nursery school place, then local authorities must have available to them year on year, just in case that demand is made, resources to provide for education. It is not just a question of the £½ billion that I mentioned to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in answer to that question. It is a matter of all the capital costs. What happens in regard to the three-teacher, three-classroom school, with just a hall and a few parents, in a few villages seeking nursery education? They will require capital costs as well as the current costs. That puts an enormous burden on local authorities and pre-empts their moneys, whether they like it or not. It does not give them powers to determine their own priorities. It is not only about money, especially when the additional cost of what is proposed (as we estimate) is over £500 million. It is also, we believe, wrong to take the view that pre-school provision should all be state funded, which is again a presumption in these amendments. There are genuine strengths in what my noble friend Lady Cox says and in what she has described as the mixed economy. There are some fine examples of private education.
1078
Nor should we be so very coy when we come to compare what happens in the United Kingdom with what happens on the Continent. My noble friend Lady Faithfull mentioned a number of countries where nursery education is universally provided. Apart from the Netherlands, Britain is the only European country to begin compulsory education at the age of five. The starting point for statutory schooling is six, or in one case even seven. In France, Germany, Italy and Spain compulsory education begins at the age of six. In those countries pre-school provision is not all state funded. It is both privately and publicly funded. In Germany, for example, 71 per cent. of nursery education is privately funded. That has no place in the amendments before us. We say that nursery education shall be provided on demand for all children under the age of five, wherever they are; and it shall be funded, and pre-empt local authority moneys.
To my noble friends Lord Northbourne and Lady Faithfull, speaking to Amendment No. 30, I say that we recognise that underpinning nursery education is very important. When the noble Lord spoke to his amendment I found myself in agreement with everything that he had to say. He described the small grouping of 15 children coming together with the nursery school teacher. That is not what these amendments are saying. They say something quite different.
The funding of both local education authority and self-governing schools currently is based on pupils already attending those schools, including pupils who are nursery pupils. So for a school in the LEA maintained system that has a nursery provision attached to it, whether it remains in the LEA maintained sector or moves into the grant-maintained sector, the funding moves with the children. The school does not take anything that it did not have when it was an LEA maintained school. To allocate by reference to free school meals would take nursery education away from many children who now have it. Following Amendment No. 30, if a school from the LEA maintained sector became a grant-maintained school and had a nursery provision attached to it, the provision would cease to apply if some of those children were not on free school meals. I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord meant, but it is a consequence of the amendment.
As I said, pupils in disadvantaged circumstances, as represented broadly by those who are eligible for free school meals, have a priority claim to a nursery education and I am not able to answer my noble friend Lady Young about just what proportion of children with free school meals do attend pre-school provision. Having been a member of a social services committee and having served nationally both on that committee and on the education committee, I know that local authorities do their very best to meet the needs of the most needy families and that includes finding provision for the under fives. If I am permitted to be parochial, my own playgroup had a safety net system for those families who could not afford even playgroup provision so that it was provided. We worked together very well with social services, as indeed social services worked with playgroups and

1079
nursery schools across the country. So it should not be for central government, which is what these amendments advocate, to allocate funding precisely by reference to free school meals. It should be a matter for local authorities to develop their own policies.
On the particular issue of fair allocation between grant maintained and local education authority schools, I can give an assurance that money which transfers relates only to LEA overheads—no other money is taken from schools—in the relevant sector, primary or secondary. It should not draw on the nursery school budget of a local education authority. So there is no question of money being taken into the grant-maintained sector that would have been for nursery education in the LEA maintained sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was fairly scathing in his criticism of this Government. But his own party's government were in power for a very long time. That Government were in power when the 1944 Education Act was on the statute book. I do not remember an extension of nursery education then. My noble friend Lady Young gave the figures; namely, that since 1979 a third more children are in nursery education provision. I have no difficulty in adding myself to the number of those Members of this House who have spoken in favour of nursery education provision and indeed provision for the under fives. We are talking now about means to ends; about whether we have a blank cheque policy for on-demand nursery school provision.
I want to challenge the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who will speak again in a moment. I wonder whether he will answer one question. If he accepts that money is finite, would he take it from the higher education sector, the further education sector, the police, the social services, transportation or from where? I can recall the large number of issues and debates that I have witnessed in this House. I have heard many comments from the other side of the Dispatch Box, and I know that whatever the issue, the noble Lord advocates more spending on it.
This is a question of priorities. Nursery education and under-five provision are increasing. We want to encourage that to happen but to do it in a way that allows local determination by local education authorities—and, when it is up and running, the funding agency for schools—to do just that.
Lord Judd: My Lords, before the Minister sits down I should like to seek clarification on what she said on three specific points. First, she referred to the previous Labour Administration. Does she agree that all the records demonstrate that there was a steady growth in the provision of nursery education at the end of the Labour Government's period of office which was reversed when the Conservatives came to office? Secondly, she spoke several times now and on other occasions about our commitment to universal provision. But has she read Amendment No. 33? Amendment No. 33 says quite specifically:
"whose parents or guardians indicate that they desire such education to be provided".
1080
As I said earlier, it is not an either/or situation. It is about being able to provide genuine choice of the right mix. For the second time the Minister has failed to address that point.
She asked me what I would be prepared to do to pay for it. That is a very fair question. I do not dodge it at all. The question is absolutely right and basic to sound government. If one wills the ends one must will the means. But what the Minister fails to answer every time that she speaks on that matter is the question: how can we afford not to go on paying for ever if we know the future savings that can be made by providing nursery education now?
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was a wholly inappropriate intervention, given that the noble Lord has spoken to his own amendment. They were not three straightforward questions. The growth in nursery provision was not reversed by this Government. I gave the figures. There is more nursery provision and under-five provision today than ever before. So the situation was not reversed.
The point I made about Amendment No. 33 was that the amendment is entirely open ended. It has potentially to provide nursery provision for every child in the land. It is on demand for any parent of any child, and according to the law the money has to be made available. I simply say that the money has to come from somewhere and the noble Lord has not said where it should come from.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I find myself somewhat confused at the moment about which amendment we are discussing. I started by introducing Amendment No. 2 which was preliminary to Amendment No. 33. I hope that every amendment to Clause I will not be met with the response that Clause 1 is perfect and absolute and set in tablets of stone. There are other amendments to Clause 1 which ought to be debated. The point of Amendment No. 2 was simply to pave the way for the substantial amendment which I shall introduce; namely, Amendment No. 33.
Amendment No. 33 certainly would give an obligation which is much wider than that sought by Amendment No. 30. Personally I should like to support Amendment No. 30, provided that the principle of nursery education had been lost, which would be the case if Amendment No. 33 were put to the vote and defeated.
I find it depressing that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and other noble Lords have said that we are all in favour of nursery education and there is nobody in this Chamber who does not believe that nursery education is a good thing. That treats nursery education as a kind of optional extra—lovely if one can afford it. It is like giving somebody who has everything a leather blotter from Harrods for Christmas —very nice if one can afford it, but not really necessary.
The centre of my argument is that nursery education is a necessity. It is a necessity for the reason I gave. But linked with that is the reason given by my

1081
noble friend Lord Rix; namely, that in the course of nursery education, numerous problems are picked up and many children who may have special educational needs in the future when they get to school can be picked out and given the help that they need, which often prevents their having any special education need when they reach school at the age of five. Things can be noticed and put right far more easily between the ages of three and five. Language can be introduced to children who have not been speaking at all up to the age of three, and by the time they reach school they are speaking children and can take their place in the classroom.
That is a feature of enormous importance. It is at that point we save money if we spend it early enough. The people who say that nursery education is very good but we cannot afford it, have failed to appreciate the point of the argument; that is, that nursery education saves money. If we failed to pay for music lessons—I choose that case advisedly because it is that about which I feel most passionately—I would willingly sacrifice those musical children for the universal provision of nursery education for those children whose parents want it or for children who need it, if it could be provided as a statutory right. I do not believe that anything except a statutory right would meet the case.
I do not want to repeat the arguments about pre-school playgroups. I am thankful for them when they occur where nursery education does not. But that is not the same as the field within which one can detect children's difficulties. The number of children who literally do not speak when they come to school is increasing all the time because of the number of single parents who live in situations where all they want to do is to get rid of their children, put them in front of the television and not speak to them. That social phenomena is on the increase and therefore the need for nursery education is far greater than it was in 1944 when it was part of the Education Act.
I cannot withdraw the amendment; this is a matter of principle and not something extra and lovely if we can have it. I know that it involves expense, but it is such an important principle that it would be a tremendous shame were we not to vote to show how we felt about it.
5.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 123.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Broadbridge, L.

Airedale, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Ardwick, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Attlee, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Aylestone, L.

David, B.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Desai, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Eatwell, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Eccles, V.

Boston of Faversham, L

Erroll, E.

Bottomley, L.

Faithfull, B.

Brightman, L.

Falkland, V.

1082

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Northbourne, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ogmore, L.

[Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gregson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Richard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Hanworth, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rix, L.

Hollick, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rochester, L.

Hooson, L.

Russell, E.

Howell, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Jeger, B.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Scrota, B.

Judd, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Kagan, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Tordoff, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Longford, E.

Warnock, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Waverley, V.

Mayhew, L.

Westwood, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Wharton, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

White, B.

Monkswell, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Young of Darlington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Elton, L.

Aldington, L.

Flather, B.

Astor, V.

Foley, L.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Geddes, L.

Barber, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Goschen, V.

Beloff, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hemphill, L.

Birdwood, L.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Blyth, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Boardman, L.

Howe, E.

Bolton, L.

lronside, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Killearn, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Cadman, L.

Layton, L.

Caithness, E

Leigh, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lucas, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lyell, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Chelmer, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Mancroft, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Marlesford, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Merrivale, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Mersey, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mottistone, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cox, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Moyne, L.

Cranborne, V.

Munster, E.

Cranworth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Nelson, E.

Cross, V.

Newall, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Davidson, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Donegall, M.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Downshire, M.

Pike, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Quinton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elles, B.

Reay, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rees, L.

1083

Renton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

[Teller.]

Romney, E.

Sudeley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Swinfen, L.

Seccombe. B.

Swinton, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Ullswater, V.

Slim, V.

Wakeham, L.

Stewartby, L.

[Lord Privy Seal.]

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Young, B.

Strange, B.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("his") and insert ("The Secretary of State shall exercise").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 17 tabled in my name.
It was made clear both at Second Reading and during Committee consideration of this Bill that your Lordships were uneasy with the formulation of Clause 1. In particular, noble Lords were concerned that the clause in some way extended the power of the Secretary of State over institutions in the higher education sector beyond those powers he is already given in statute. I am afraid that my best efforts in reassuring your Lordships that that was not the case were in vain; and your Lordships were still concerned with the amendments I tabled at committee which were intended to put minds at rest. I promised to return at Report stage with a further redrafting. I hope that noble Lords will be satisfied with the amendments now tabled in my name. They make clear that the Secretary of State should have a general duty to promote the education of all people in England and Wales, regardless of whether that education is provided in schools, colleges or universities. I trust that your Lordships will agree that this is wholly desirable. This is set out in what will be the new Clause 1. The new clause is entirely free standing. New Clause 2 has no impact on higher education.
The amendments reflect the outcome of discussion with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I am enormously grateful to them for the help that they have given us over the past few weeks, and indeed to my officials who have worked painstakingly on this matter. They have also benefited from the drafting of parliamentary counsel. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway, Lord Blake, Lord Beloff and Lord Butterworth who have withdrawn the amendments that they have tabled on this issue. It was their persistence that made sure that I went away and did some homework. I trust that the amendments in my name will be acceptable to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the Question having been put, I am not sure that I am in order in raising a point before the noble Baroness sits down. Normally, the layout of a clause is a matter for the draftsman. But in this case the alteration and splitting
1084
of the clause is most important. I wonder whether the noble Baroness will read it out as it will be. I happen to know it because she has been good enough to write to me about it. It is almost impossible to follow it from the amendments on the Order Paper. If the noble Baroness cannot lay her hand upon it I have it here.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not so much a matter of laying my hands on it but in order to read it out I will have to take each of the amendments and displace some words and replace others. The new Clause 1 will simply say that the Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales. That will become Clause 1. I believe that simply to read out the amendments will not help. When I come to wind up at the end of the debate I will try to put it all in place and read what will then be Clause 2 in its entirety in a more fluid way than I am able to do at the Dispatch Box, interpreting each amendment.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I hope that I can assist the House in pre-empting debate. Universities will not be as fractious as nursery school children have proved themselves to be in the course of the past hour or so. I am authorised to say by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals that the universities are happy with the amendments that the noble Baroness has tabled. On behalf of the university community I thank her for the extraordinary efforts that I gather have been necessary in order to make possible this happy outcome.
What we are left with is the first sentence that speaks about promoting education at all levels. I suppose that we can regard that as very much a matter of form, as though the Secretary of State for Defence has to promote the defence of the realm against foreign invaders, except perhaps if the invaders are based in Brussels. One may also say that it is so obvious that it does not really need saying, but if people insist on saying it the universities are happy about it. I should like to point out to the noble Baroness very respectfully that once again the House of Lords has been proved right. The warnings given in your Lordships' House about the clause have been accepted. That happened with the last Education Act when academic freedom was inserted by your Lordships' House. I say in a friendly way to the Minister that there are one or two other issues on which I expect the Government to come round to the views expressed in the House of Lords—higher education, the immediate question of a humanities research council and, in the not too distant future, perhaps the substitution for the Jackson loan scheme of a graduate tax.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness very warmly for the amendments. Through her, I should like to thank her officials and all those who have helped and who have been involved in highly skilled consultative work. The amendments are a fine achievement of draftsmanship. They reconcile objectives that at first I thought could not be reconciled, and I believe that they do so with complete success. Like Winnie the Pooh, I do not want to seem

1085
greedy but I hope I can be forgiven if I say that in proving the virtues of consultation perhaps they illustrate that on another occasion the time of the House may be saved if the consultation takes place before the publication of the Bill rather than after it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, having been involved in this matter on the margin, perhaps I may associate myself with everything that has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Russell; in particular what he said about the Minister, the Secretary of State, the department and the draftsman. I am wholly satisfied—I have taken an independent line—that the amendment wholly resolves the question of vulnerability on which I addressed your Lordships at Committee stage. In a sense it constitutes far more than that. It represents an expression of the good faith of the Minister and the Secretary of State, which was never in question, but we are grateful to have it on the face of the Bill.
We need to have the clause set out for the record in some form whether it be at the beginning of the Official Report or at the end because its presentation on the Marshalled List is very confusing.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, as I took some part in the subject of academic freedom from interference by a government department both in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 of last Session and the earlier stages of this Bill, perhaps I may be associated with the gratitude to the noble Baroness. We should also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who, both in regard to the earlier Act and again on this Bill, has played a vital and strenuous part in what has been achieved.
In expressing gratitude we should be careful that now that the Baroness has let go of her end of a rope on which we have been tugging, we do not all fall on our backs. This is not the first time that academic freedom has been threatened. I reminded your Lordships at Second Reading that it started with the Education Reform Bill of 1988. In Committee on that Bill the essential safeguards were wrung from the Government with considerable difficulty. But the Department of Education then made its grant both to the universities and to the polytechnics subject to conditions. Those conditions had to be satisfied by the individual institutions. As they certified that they had satisfied the conditions the share of the withheld part of the grant was released to them. That was clearly in gross conflict with the amendments wrung from the Government in the 1988 Act.
The matter came before the court, which ruled against the department. But it went further, because the department put forward a general argument which would have completely nullified the concessions wrung from the Government. I mention that because I am going to ask the noble Baroness in due course to give certain assurances. The matter, however, did not even stop there. The department, having been defeated in the court, brought in the Further and Higher Education Bill reinstating the original provisions of the 1988 Act. There was then a fierce struggle in your Lordships' House, in which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, played a prominent part. Finally, at the very
1086
last stage of Third Reading, an amendment was carried against the Government on a Division and the safeguards were reinstated. So it is with very considerable alarm that the universities see Clause I as it now stands in this Bill.
The words at the end of subsection (3), on the face of them, permit the Secretary of State, for example, to stipulate that university A shall teach subject X; that university B shall cease to teach subject X; that university C shall take a certain class of intake of student; and that university D shall recruit staff of a certain character—in other words, all the things that were so feared and could have been done under the 1988 Bill and the 1992 Bill until they were amended, one in another place and the other in your Lordships' House.
The obvious course that should have been taken at the outset was to divide the clause into two. That has now been done. The new Clause 1 states a general duty on the Secretary of State as to the whole field of education. It sets out the new circumstances desired by the Government—in other words, without the same prominent role for the local education authorities that was contained in the 1944 Act which this clause supersedes. The new Clause 2 does not expressly state that it is not to apply to universities. That was desired at one time by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. It also appeared in the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Campbell of Alloway. But so to stipulate would really have been to rub the department's nose in its own mess. And, after all, the universities have to live with the department. So that was dropped.
The only question that remains is whether there is a clear implication in the new Clause 2 that it is not to apply to universities. In my respectful opinion, that is a clear implication and it is not therefore necessary to deal with it expressly. That is the view, I know, of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. It is also the view of two academic lawyers of outstanding eminence, Sir David Williams, the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, and Dr. Peter North, the Vice-Chancellor elect of Oxford.
For what it is worth, I would recommend your Lordships to accept the amendments as fulfilling what your Lordships sought to do at earlier stages. But in view of the history I would respectfully ask the noble Baroness to give certain assurances; first, that in her understanding the new Clause 2 does not apply to universities; secondly, that it will not be argued at any stage that it does—what I said about the case that was brought in the court demands that assurance as well—and, thirdly, in view of what has happened in the past, that there will be no further attempt at intrusion on the freedom of the universities to manage their own affairs.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I do not wish to oppose the acceptance of this amendment but I do, however, suggest that it is markedly inferior to the amendment suggested in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. It is inferior because, with respect to the first two lines of the clause, they have been left unaltered. Those first two lines empower and instruct the Secretary of State to promote the education of the

1087
people of England and Wales. That refers, as the Minister made clear in her introduction, to all levels of education, including universities. It sounds rather grand. But are we to suggest that as regards education in the universities the clause contains some hidden dangers? The very nature of teaching and research in a university is that some of it will be perceived at one time or another to be cranky, wrong and downright dangerous. It is the very essence of academic freedom that controversial and what are believed to be erroneous ideas are taught and researched and then often found to contain elements of truth. That process is vital to the development of knowledge.
As regards the sentence at the beginning of what has now become Clause 1, surely any self-respecting Secretary of State committed to the promotion of education would feel it to be his or her responsibility to eliminate the teaching of what was believed to be erroneous or wrong: the teaching of a Galileo, of a Lichtenstein, a Leavis or a Keynes. Those people should be fired because at times they taught things which were believed to be erroneous and even dangerous.
In any idea of promoting education there is no proper role for the Secretary of State to determine the content of university education. I realise that the Minister will declare that I am overstating the problem. But she must accept that, given the reservations expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon and Glaisdale, and the remorseless accumulation of powers seen in the continuous flow of Education Acts in the past 14 years, there is at least some substance for my feeling nervous.
Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that the promotion of education will not under any circumstances imply a role for the Secretary of State either in the determination of a university curriculum, in the content of research or in the make-up of the personnel of a university.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I wish to move on and to address some of the other amendments in this group. As an aside, perhaps I may say that I am sorry that the nursery schools lobby does not have as effective a voice in this House as the universities lobby. Perhaps I may first address Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 14. Despite the Bill being at an advanced stage in its progress towards enactment, the actual meaning of Clause 1(3) is still unclear. For instance, does choice and diversity within an institution mean either or both? Will the clause fetter the Secretary of State's discretion in considering proposals in favour of schools changing their character by introducing selection?
The amendment seeks to probe the meaning of subsection (3) by proposing to limit the scope of the subsection to those powers which are identified. No explanation of the effect of subsection (3) on the schools and further education colleges has yet been given by Ministers in either House. Precisely what are the powers which the Secretary of State intends to use for the purpose stated in subsection (3)?
1088
For schools it appears that his main power is to regulate the provision made in educational institutions arising from the Education Reform Act 1988, including particular powers over the national curriculum and those in respect of the local management of schools schemes. The 1988 powers referred to are in respect of two areas; school admission numbers and agreements on city technology colleges.
What are the other powers which the Secretary of State intends to apply? Specifically, will he use his powers to modify the instruments of government of grant-maintained schools for the purposes of Clause 1? For each of the main powers, can the Minister describe how its exercise is expected to be undertaken with a view to encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice?
For institutions in the FE sector, it appears that the Secretary of State's powers arise entirely from the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Does the Secretary of State intend to modify instruments of government of further education corporations for the purposes of Clause 1? For the record, or possibly by writing to me at a later date, will the Minister list what relevant powers would be excluded by the terms of this amendment? For instance, I refer to the 1980 Act as regards the assisted places scheme.
Perhaps I may now turn to Amendment No. 11, which is also tabled in my name. We believe that the reference to improving standards in subsection (3) is by itself inadequate and that the reference to choice and diversity is inappropriate in a leading statement of the Secretary of State's duties. Therefore, the amendment would delete,
"encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice"
and make clear that improving standards means improving the standards achieved by pupils and balance that statement about standards of achievement with a new statement about the quality of provision.
Ministers may believe that choice and diversity are somehow, through market mechanisms, sufficient guarantors of quality. We on our side do not believe that, and so we would much prefer to see a direct statement about the quality of education that should be provided in schools and colleges.
It may be that the drafting of subsection (3) is intended to convey that choice is only to be exercised between alternatives of a high standard. But that interpretation would require us to believe that "improving standards" refers mainly to standards of institutional provision rather than to the standards of pupils' achievements. I suggest that clearer language is desirable.
Last year the Government addressed quality and standards in clear language in the Education (Schools) Act 1992. Perhaps I may briefly quote from it.
"The Chief Inspector for England shall have the general duty of keeping the Secretary of State informed about—(a) the quality of the education provided by schools in England; (b) the educational standards achieved in those schools".

1089
We firmly believe that quality and standards are more important than opportunities for choice within a publicly-funded system. Perhaps I may briefly quote the Minister in Committee when she said:
"We believe that as much choice as is practicable should be made available to parents. There will always be—this is not an absolute—a tension between the degree of choice which is allowable and the constraints of local authority expenditure".—[Official Report,4/5/93; col. 629.]
I notice that the Minister is nodding. We concur precisely. We are arguing that precisely the same tension affects the Secretary of State in the exercise of his powers, and increasing opportunities for choice must be a subordinate consideration. As such we resist it being stated on the face of the Bill as an apparent priority above all others.
Perhaps I may finally allude to Amendment No. 13 which, I believe, is to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I believe that this amendment introduces a new aspect to the debate which we have not dealt with so far. I look forward to the debate. The amendment introduces the subject of parenting as something which might be taught and encouraged, and for which there should be sufficient support, because parenting has an overwhelming effect on the achievements of children.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, the amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, appears in this general amalgam which seems to be the most extraordinary hotchpotch. However, there it is and I suppose I have to comply with the arrangement. In the many years that I have stood here opposing government education Bills from 1979 until now, apart from two years when I was opposing local government Bills, I believe that the conduct of this Bill has been stranger and more peculiar than any other which I have opposed. That is partly because Ministers have given such immensely lengthy answers, presumably concocted by civil servants who want to get everything on the record. They have been read at such speed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that it has been difficult to take in her answers. So I shall take my time in speaking to this amendment and shall not feel hurried—I hope that the noble Baroness will feel the same when she comes to respond to it—because I think that it is quite an important amendment and I should like it to be given due consideration.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State considers equal opportunity in promoting education. At present Clause 1 of the Bill—Clause 1 as it now stands—requires the Secretary of State to promote the education of the people of England and Wales, including improving standards, encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice. No reference is made to equal opportunities. Ministers may argue that it is unnecessary to include such a reference on the face of the Bill, but I hope that what I am going to say will convince a number of noble Lords that it is perhaps important to have such a reference there.
In setting up certain of their initiatives, however, the Government have considered it to be important to
1090
refer specifically to equal opportunities. For example, in the early 1980s when the Government launched the Technical and Vocational Education Initiative (TVEI), a specific reference was made to the importance of equal opportunity in preparing proposals for the scheme. Clearly the Government then considered that a specific reference to equal opportunities in the criteria was important.
The TVEI was seen by the Government as an important means of addressing equal opportunities, especially in relation to gender. In a speech by a former education Minister, Angela Rumbold, which was made to the Women's Education Conference in 1989, the TVEI was specifically mentioned as an initiative that had raised "awareness of the gender issue" and prompted local education authorities and schools to adopt new methods of addressing it. In this speech the Minister also made reference to a number of other initiatives that were intended to address the need to encourage girls into science and engineering, such as the initiative on Women into Science and Engineering (WISE), and local projects such as Girls into Science and Technology (GIST) and Girls and Technology Education (GATE)—if we are to use the acronyms. The Minister suggested that initiatives such as these had helped to encourage girls to opt into science and technology-related subjects. She also noted a small increase in the number of women in higher education on engineering courses. I repeat that it was a Conservative Minister speaking.
The introduction of the national curriculum was also seen by the Government as a means of ensuring that girls and boys studied the same curriculum and of helping to break down the gender stereotyping that tends to occur.
Despite these initiatives there clearly remains a gender gap in the subject choices made, as well as the kinds of occupations young people continue to enter. In a document about to be published by the AMA and the ACC, School Leavers' Destinations 1992, the statistics show continuing division according to sex in the kinds of occupations young people choose at 16. Administration and clerical, caring and hairdressing attract the highest number of young women; while construction, motor vehicle engineering and mechanical/production engineering attract the highest numbers of young men. These differences will not be changed by laws that prevent sex discrimination, such as the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970, important though such legislation is. Positive initiatives are needed to change attitudes and reduce sex stereotyping, such as TVEI.
A similar positive approach is needed to the encouragement of equal opportunities for those from different ethnic backgrounds. It is not simply a question of saying that black pupils require additional help. Reports such as the AMA's analysis of how to present GCSE results have shown that the performance of different ethnic groups varies considerably—and their needs also vary.
The Children's Rights Development Unit, which was set up as a three-year independent unit to promote the fullest possible implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, states:

1091
"we live in a society in which racism and discrimination are widespread. Children are particularly vulnerable to its consequences and its presence can have a significant bearing on the opportunities children have to benefit from the education system".
The recent HMI report Education in England 1990#1991 observes that progress in schools on equal opportunities is patchy, with too wide a divide between policies and actual practice. It also observes that there was a,
"substantial underachievement by some groups of ethnic minority pupils …. Of particular concern was the lack of success of Black British (Caribbean) boys and pupils of Bangladeshi origin".
It was also concerned that many disabled children continue to be marginalised from access to mainstream education. Their opportunities for integration and participation offer them far from equal opportunities with those available to able-bodied children. The Audit Commission/HMI report, Getting in on the Act, identified obstacles to integrated placements for parents and children seeking them. The Special Educational Consortium, which consists of a wide range of organisations in the field of disability and special needs, has expressed concern that integration has not developed in line with the spirit and intent of the 1981 Act.
Clause 1 is concerned with the promotion of education and refers specifically to improving standards, encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice. Since the Government have set up initiatives that have at least in part been aimed at developing equal opportunities and since an education Minister devoted a whole speech to the importance of equal opportunities in education, it does not seem unreasonable in my view to suggest that a reference to equal opportunities might be placed in Clause 1 of the Bill.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise briefly to add my support to the amendments to which I have put my name which have already been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady David. Turning first to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, I definitely support the idea of greater integration to avoid sexism and racism. Where there is discrimination relating to race, there is often a cultural barrier and a lack of understanding about things such as different manner codes. That certainly needs looking at because it is simply a case of trying to integrate people into the way that others think and of trying to break down the barriers.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, did a very good job in explaining the arguments relating to tackling gender discrimination. That is an ongoing process which we have only just started to crack. I hope that we shall continue to make progress in that area.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, are very much in line with the Government's original thinking in this group of amendments. We are trying to define what is going on. As the noble Lord said, merely talking about diversity and choice is rather vague. Surely it would be better if we were to talk about the equality of provision for children and if we were then to talk about the various
1092
groups. Surely ensuring quality and then imposing choice is a better way of getting the best deal for children rather than tackling the problem the other way round.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I find myself quite unable to support Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. As to Amendment No. 10, it seems quite unnecessary to introduce the idea of equal opportunity. Our teachers do their very best to give equal opportunity—frequently in the face of very great difficulties, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, has tried to explain. In any event, Amendment No. 10 is unnecessary because the whole of our education system—certainly since the 1944 Act—has been carried out on the basis of providing equal opportunity.
As to Amendment No. 11, I am afraid that there is quite a serious flaw in it. If the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will look at paragraph (c), he will see that it refers to
"persons over compulsory school age who have not attained the age of nineteen years".
It so happens that a good many people under 19 go to university, and if we were to introduce this amendment with that phrase in it it would cause confusion and would conflict with the principle that the Bill does not give power to the Secretary of State to interfere with higher education. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I gather that he thinks my amendment is unnecessary. However, does he agree that the evidence shows that there is still not equal opportunity, and so it is important that it should be mentioned in the Bill?
Lord Renton: My Lords, with great respect, I do not believe so. There are some things that have become so well established that they do not need to be the subject of legislation.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, is the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, going to speak to her Amendment No. 13 which is in the present group of amendments?
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, before I speak to Amendment No. 13, I should like to say something in support of Amendment No. 11. It is sad that there is no reference to quality of education on the face of the Bill. I know that it is probably assumed that the raising of standards means a an improvement in quality, but the language of standards, diversity and choice is, I need not remind your Lordships, the language of the market.
I suspect that when the Bill becomes an Act and we look back upon it in many years' time it will be almost ludicrously a child of its time—the offspring of the market economy. In respect of education, I do not believe that the market economy has long to live, because most people realise that the quality of education cannot be dictated entirely by the market. So I should like to see a reference to quality and the omission of diversity and choice from Clause 1. However, I am sure that diversity and choice have gone so far into our heads through the White Paper that we are probably stuck with the words.

1093
Nevertheless, the intention in the amendment to mention quality rather than standards in the context of the market is a worthy intention.
I come now to Amendment No. 13. I should be happy if the Minister could assure me that something in the way of guidelines or a code of practice could be introduced to deal with the point. It is a matter of enormous importance for the kind of children about whom we have been speaking today: those who urgently need a nursery education; those who are neglected by their often single parent; those who are not necessarily deliberately abused but who are through ignorance neglected and subject to psychological or physical abuse. Such children have parents (one or two) who themselves are genuinely in need of support and education. Such parents need to be taught that school is an institution which is helpful and necessary for their children. They need themselves to learn respect for what it is that schools can do for their children. So they need to be given the opportunity, which schools are willing to give if parents are willing to take it, to act as partners in the process of educating their children.
For some of us who quite liked our children when they were small, it is difficult to imagine how much some small children are hated and disliked by their parents. They treat them with extraordinary callousness, want them out of their sight as soon as possible and never, never talk to them. Those parents are often nearly illiterate themselves. They do not have the wonderful repertoire of nursery rhymes that is part of the mythology of the family. But that repertoire of nursery rhymes and conversation makes an enormous difference to a child. It may make the difference between the child being educable and not educable and between its being able to learn to read and unable to learn to read. It is parents who must be taught how they can make up for the kind of deficiencies that most of us here have to exercise imagination to realise just how terrible they are.
It should somehow be made a duty for the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities are propped up in the good work that an enormous number of them now do in supporting parents. If the Minister could assure us that that could be the subject of guidelines, and not necessarily on the face of the Bill, I for one should be happy.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said everything that needed to be said from these Benches in support of the principal group of amendments moved by my noble friend. Since then, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, regretted that it was inferior to an alternative and doubted the effects of the first two lines of the clause, as amended. I merely ask your Lordships to recall the legal opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and those he quoted, because I believe that they would prevail in that consideration.
On Amendment No. 13, which I find in this group and which I attempted to address more appropriately I thought at an earlier stage, I want to detain your Lordships for a moment only. I was relieved to hear
1094
the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, say that she would not expect it to be the instrument by which what she wanted would be attained. I believe it would be wholly inappropriate, and I have reservations about the language itself.
If my noble friend is going to respond to the request for some sort of indication of government policy in that area, it is worth recalling that there is an increasing number of inadequate parents. When I conducted the committee of inquiry into discipline in schools, we were disturbed to find how many children were already parents themselves while they were at school. They had had no instruction or experience of proper parenting from their parents, and there was no way in which they were able to transmit to their children the basic knowledge, articulacy, fairy stories and so on which form the basis upon which the child normally comes into school. That means that their delinquency was heritable. We were looking anxiously for a means of breaking what is otherwise an inevitable spiral of deprivation unless the child parent marries a more capable parent or the child itself is adopted by one. Of those, one is improbable and the other is far from the most desirable solution.
There should be provision in the education system for such children. When it was first suggested, it seemed to me to be an absurd idea, but I was rapidly converted by what I saw in the field into believing that there is a need to teach children in the later years of schooling how to be better parents and to carry that on after they leave school, because many of them leave school very early. I do not for a moment suggest that it should be done by the Bill. I am not even certain that it can be done by regulation, but I should like to take this rare opportunity to impress upon your Lordships that there exists a real and horrible problem which needs to be addressed.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 10 spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady David. Of course it is the law of the land that there should be equal opportunities; of course in a great many schools equal opportunities are practised; but equally there is a minority in which it is not. Legislation so often has to deal with the problems of the minority which do not subscribe to good practice. It is for them that we have to have legislation. There can be no doubt from the studies that have been done that there are still cases in which girls and members of ethnic minorities do not receive equal treatment in places of education. It can do no harm to put it on the face of the Bill, and it could well do good.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, while I recognise that Amendment No. 13 is a probing amendment which seeks a response from the Government, I support one element of it and ask the Government to consider another element of it with a little more detachment. The whole subject of parents as their child's first teacher is important. The way in which we interpret that and work with it is also important.
Perhaps I may use as an example the teaching of reading. Parents come in various different forms. Some parents cannot read, others have no access to books and to quiet space and others have no energy to

1095
help their children. Some parents may be well educated and a small proportion will have a professional ability as educators. Perhaps we may also consider the children. Some may learn to read on their own. Recently I was told by a head teacher of great experience that she knew a little boy who had taught himself to read with no more than a telephone directory. He had no support and no other books.
Some children will learn to read with the minimal amount of assistance that a reasonably literate parent can provide. Other children require the facilities of a qualified teacher. A small number of children need the resources of specialist assistants as well as the services of ordinary teachers. The chances of those different categories of children fitting in with the different categories of parents to achieve a situation in which the parents can teach the children to read are infinitesimally small. We must recognise that there is a need to support parents in their role as young children's first teachers. However, I have a reservation about the use of the word "school". The Bill states:
"the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities and schools".
The duty must lie with the Secretary of State and the local education authorities.
Perhaps I may explain the experience of a school in Manchester. Its head teacher took it upon herself to believe rigorously in the concept of parents being partners in their children's education to the extent that the parents were virtually expected to provide the support necessary to teach their children to read. The result was that some children did not learn to read adequately. All kinds of problems of failure were blamed on the parents, which was intensely distressing. The problem was resolved by the LEA, which inevitably removed the head teacher; she was promoted out of her job.
However, the LEA can provide a positive aspect and in explaining I again draw on my experience of Manchester. As part of the adult education service under the LEA we have a system of parental education tutors. I must admit that there is only a small number of such tutors as a result of lack of finance caused by government restrictions. They provide invaluable support to parents by enabling them to be assisted in their role as educators of children.
I recognise that this is a probing amendment. It is the first time during our deliberations on the Bill that we have considered this subject. I hope that the Minister will respond positively and that my remarks will be taken on board.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, after so much debate about young people I am reluctant to take up the time of the House. I believe that this is a most important amendment, although I agree that it is unlikely to appear on the face of the Bill in its present form. The amendment was suggested by the Parents Network. It emphasises the point that parenting is not peripheral to education; it is absolutely central to education. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said that each person has one life and asked at what stage expenditure will be most effective.
1096
Home background is a major factor in influencing performance and ability to cope at school. Research for the Plowden Report of 1967 showed that home influences far outweigh those of the school in the child's education. The report shows, for example, that the chances of an unskilled manual worker's child being a poor reader are six times greater than those of a professional worker's child. The chances of being a non-reader are even greater. In 1976 the researchers Rutter and Madge showed that for almost all measures of scholastic attainment differences between schools accounted for far less than features in the family and home.
Most parents want to be good parents. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, sadly today many parents have not themselves had the experience of being well parented. They have no role model on which to base their performance as parents. They do not know what a young child needs, nor do they understand the child's need for support, love, encouragement and the definition of "boundaries of acceptable behaviour". So their child, if he or she and the parents are not helped, will arrive at primary school already condemned to failure.
What can the Secretary of State do? First, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, we must provide in schools effective education for parenting. Secondly, we must ensure that young parents have available to them support and guidance. Whether that should come from the local authority or the social services, from education or the schools I do not know. I believe that at present there is not overlap but "underlap". Once the health visitor has left the young, perhaps single mother in her box-like apartment at the top of a tower block she is alone. There are organisations which offer help and Home Start is notable among them. Its representatives work on that problem and visit young parents at home in order to help them to learn the art of parenting. There is a great need to support such organisations.
Under the Children Act local authorities have a duty to care for children in need. However, many local authorities are so stretched that they are unable to appoint social workers to all the children on the "at risk" register. How on earth can they cope with children who are merely a little in need of better parenting? The Secretary of State should enable and encourage voluntary organisations which are working in this area to prepare the children who will soon be in his schools. The argument for laying the duty squarely on the Secretary of State is that if, when those children go to school, they are not civilised and socialised he will be the one to suffer. He will have to pay for their special education and care.
We have already debated playgroups and nursery schools and I shall say no more about them. I suggest that within the Government there is a desperate need for a single Secretary of State, a single ministry, to be responsible for children and families. I believe that that is the direction in which we should all be working. I suggest that the responsibility should be laid on the Secretary of State for Education, because the

1097
upbringing of young children is a fundamental part of education. It is the future education of those children which is at stake.
7 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, at the risk of delaying the House for a few more minutes I should like to remind your Lordships that the biggest provision of parent education has been through the education service, largely in further education colleges and in adult institutions linked to the provision of training courses for those who contribute to the pre-school playgroups' movement. As I well know, having been involved in those courses for many years, that has been the most important form of parent education because the mothers—and they are all mothers—of the children who are in the playgroups attend the courses to learn not only about themselves and their relationships with their children, but also about how they can genuinely contribute to their children's growth and learning. We should reflect on how much the education service has done for literally thousands of mainly mothers, but sometimes fathers, through that provision.
The second point that I wish to make about Amendment No. 13 is in response to what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said. Although all of us in this House have enormous respect for her work concerning the needs of young people, I believe that we should not accept the extremely stereotyped image which she presented in which she suggested that all children who are deprived of parental love have parents who are themselves ignorant and illiterate. I am afraid that education is no guarantee of good parenting. There are many children of highly educated parents who are still greatly deprived of parental love. Conversely, there are many parents who are ill-educated and ignorant in the educational sense who are warm and loving parents, even though they do not have the fluency of language which some more educated people may have in which to express that love.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in support of the principle behind Amendment No. 13 although I feel that "ensure" is rather a harsh and commanding word. I should be happier with the word "encourage". I should also be nervous about the word "adequate" which is an expansive word which can mean anything that anyone wants it to mean.
I speak as a mother. I have always felt that it was my joy and privilege to teach my children about all the things which are important in this world. It is important that their minds should be supplied with the essential oils of kindness, goodness, joy, love and affection and all the beautiful things which exist in this world, so that in future they will be protected from the sad contagion of the world's sloth state. That is what parents can and should give their children. I should welcome words to that effect on the face of the Bill.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 13. It is extremely well put and there is a very strong case for it.
1098
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, mentioned the Plowden Report in the 1960s. As a member of that committee I was partly responsible for the research to which he referred, which showed very convincingly how important the home is as an influence on children's educational achievement. As the noble Lord pointed out, it seemed to be a much more important factor—more important even than the school.
I conducted a piece of research for the Plowden Committee which was published in the report, which showed that teachers could achieve remarkable results if they spent time teaching parents how to teach their children. In terms of achievement, both in reading and arithmetic, the results were remarkable.
It should be pointed out also that since that time—we did not have the advantage of the research which was to be done later—several studies, notably those made by Professor Rutter and his colleagues, have shown that even when parenting is not as one would like it to be and children do not have the kind of support from their parents which they deserve, schools can do a great deal to compensate for what the children lack. Those results have been remarkable. If children who come from extremely disadvantaged backgrounds go to a school which is in many ways a good school led by a good head, they can pick up a great deal later on. Children who have the misfortune of a double disadvantage, both in their homes and schools, can be gravely set back. One must bear that in mind, to be balanced about one's attitude to the influence of school and the parents. Despite that, I support warmly the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I deal first with the second amendment standing in my name. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked me whether I could give a categorical assurance that the new clause does not apply to universities. I can give that assurance to the noble and learned Lord.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that Clause 1 reflects the current duties of the Secretary of State and, as under the Education Reform Act 1988, which amended Section 1 of the 1944 Act in that regard, it gives absolutely no additional powers to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has only those powers which are contained within statute. Clause 1 of the Bill adds absolutely nothing to that. Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord indulged in some rather fanciful thinking in the course of speaking to the amendment. I can give him the assurance which he seeks. The amendment does not impact in the way in which he believes that it may do.
I promised the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that I would read fully the amendment as it would read were the amendments to be accepted by the House. Clause 1 will read as follows:

"1. The Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales.

"2.—(1) The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers in respect of those bodies in receipt of public funds which—

(a) carry responsibility for securing that the required provision for primary, secondary or further

1099
education is made in schools, or institutions within the further education sector, in, or in any area of, England or Wales or

(b) conduct schools or institutions within the further education sector in England and Wales for the purposes of promoting primary, secondary and further education in England and Wales.

(2) He shall, in the case of his powers to regulate the provision made in schools and institutions within the further education sector in England and Wales, exercise his powers with a view, among other things, to improving standards, encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice".
Therefore, I repeat that I can give the assurances that it cannot be argued that that impacts on higher education at all. I can say that there will be no further attempt in this Bill by the Government to do anything which would impact on higher education as regards the Bill.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is Report stage. We have been speaking for one hour and six minutes on this group of amendments and there is still a great deal more to debate on Clause 1. We are still on Clause 1 of a Bill which has about 270 clauses and we must get on. I believe that almost everything that can be said on this group of amendments has been said.
Perhaps I may respond now to Amendments Nos. 8 to 11 and 13 and 14. As regards Amendment No. 11, our amendments to Clause 1 made clear that there will be no extension of the Secretary of State's existing power to regulate provision in the higher education sector. I hope that noble Lords are satisfied on that point. Beyond that, the amendment would achieve nothing else except to remove from the objectives that the Secretary of State should seek to achieve in the exercise of his powers those of encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice. I very much hope that noble Lords will join with me in rejecting what I believe is a retreat to dull uniformity.
I am afraid that I cannot offer the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, any better comfort in respect of the other amendments tabled in his name. Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 14 would limit the powers that the Secretary of State may use in seeking to improve standards, encourage diversity and increase opportunities for choice. I cannot pretend to have an exhaustive knowledge of every power given in statute to the Secretary of State. I would have to bow to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, if he possesses such knowledge. I cannot believe that the only powers that the Secretary of State should use in seeking to achieve the objectives set out in the clause are those listed here. They would be very limited indeed.
There is no need to fetter the Secretary of State's discretion in such a way. For the only powers available to the current holder of that post—and any future holder—are those granted to him by statute. As I have already said, the clause in itself gives the Secretary of State no additional powers. There can be no place for a list of that nature in the clause. I must, therefore, ask noble Lords to reject the amendment.
1100
I have considerable sympathy with the intentions behind Amendment No. 13 tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warnock and Lady Seear. The Government do recognise that parents can—and most, but regrettably not all, do—make a vital contribution to their children's education, using that word in its widest possible sense. We have taken action in a number of areas which seeks to encourage more parents to take a positive and active role in their children's education.
Perhaps I may quote a few examples. In the department's 1993–94 programme of grants for education support and training to local education authorities, support was offered to inner-city LEAs for projects including, among other things, parental involvement. Those projects were specifically encouraged in recognition of the crucial role parents have in supporting inner-city schools in raising standards of achievement. Support was also offered to local authorities running projects aimed at reducing truancy, including funding aimed at improving home-school liaison, for example through the appointment of additional school-based educational welfare officers.
The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education has a role in parent education, and is part-funded by my department. The institute will this year be publishing a discussion document on guidance on parent education in its General Good Practice Guide. Experimental work is being carried out in the field by various non-governmental bodies, and my department has also part-financed a Parents as Co-educators project which involved the development of materials intended to support schools and teachers in their work with parents using an approach that values and builds on the role that parents play in their child's education.
Aspects of family-life education are covered in the national curriculum, mainly through the science curriculum. The National Curriculum Council has recommended that family life education should be a key component of schools' programmes of personal and social education. National curriculum guidance documents on health education and education for citizenship have been issued to all maintained schools in England. Both give significant consideration to the content of family-life education and ways of integrating it into the curriculum.
Local education authorities have a duty to provide education for adults that is responsive to specific local concerns. It is a duty which goes very wide. It covers general educational and recreational interests. But also, courses can be put on which help adults fulfil particular roles, such as school governorship; or which prepare people for particular events in their lives, such as, for example, parenthood. Local government funding takes account of LEAs' duty to provide education of that kind.
In addition to those means of supporting parental involvement, recent legislation has also given parents far more influence over how their children's schools are run. Parents have greater choice over which school their child will attend; there are guaranteed places for

1101
parents—elected by fellow parents—on governing bodies of schools and those governing bodies have enhanced responsibilities; parents can vote for their schools to become self-governing; and parents can receive regular information about how well their children—and their children's schools—are performing.
Those measures and reforms—which are by no means exhaustive—are significant and substantive. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I cannot support the amendment. I am not clear that it would build meaningfully on the range of measures that we have already taken, and on the framework of parents' rights and responsibilities which we have established and which this Bill develops further. I am also concerned that the amendment is so open-ended. How do we define precisely what the role of "first teacher" is for the purposes of the amendment? Where would it legitimately start and end? What activities would require to be supported? What would constitute "adequate support"? The resource implications for local authorities and schools could be limitless.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, referred to the teaching of reading. I absolutely agree with him. The national curriculum has gone a very long way to ensure that all children from the earliest possible age are taught to read and that proper and full monitoring is involved. However, I have to make a point in that respect. I hope that some of the higher educational institutions are taking an interest in the debate. I say that because I meet too many young teachers coming out of teacher training who say to me, "They didn't teach me to teach reading". That is not acceptable for teachers of very young children.
The other element that makes an enormous difference so far as concerns teachers is leading by example. I have in mind the little boy who taught himself to read from a telephone directory. For the purposes of the story, I have to assume that he was over the age of five, because a child teaching himself to read from a telephone directory below that age would be quite an extraordinary story. Nevertheless, if he was over the age of five, what were his teachers doing? Why was it that that child had to teach himself to read in such a way?
The point I take for the purpose of what has been said in the debate is one which I know to be of great concern to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I refer to vulnerable children who are not supported at home. For them school is the only anchor in their lives; indeed, for many children there is no other anchor. The only rules that operate for some of those children are those of the street corner. I bear that point in mind. In the 1988 Act—and it is still part of statute—we emphasised the moral, the spiritual, the cultural, the academic, the mental and the physical elements and aspects of education, with all of them coming together to be concerned about the wholesome nature of the education of young children.
However, if school is the only anchor in the lives of young children and the only place where they will receive any ground rules or codes of behaviour or parameters within which to grow and develop, I have to say again that we must take courage in saying what
1102
we believe is right and what we believe is wrong; what we believe is desirable and undesirable behaviour; and what we believe is moral, immoral or even amoral. Perhaps we could promote more fulsomely the nuclear family when educating young children.
I hope that I have made clear the importance that the Government attach to the role that parents can play in the education of their children and have demonstrated that that commitment is, and will continue to be, supported by firm action. Therefore, I trust that the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warnock and Lady Seear, will feel able to withdraw their amendments. However, if they do not, I must ask the House to reject them.
I turn now to Amendment No. 10. The Government's policy is to seek improvements in the quality of education provided to all people. That will remain the Government's policy. We are committed to making available the very best possible educational provision for all young people, whatever their sex, race, religion, or learning difficulty.
However, that does not mean that there will be no diversity in provision. Our aim is to secure flexibility that will allow institutions to meet the particular needs of individual pupils and students. We will continue to target measures where they seem appropriate; as just one example, action to help with the language difficulties of children from ethnic minorities. But it is our commitment to excellence for all, as exemplified most clearly by Sections 1 and 2 of the Education Reform Act, which provides the guarantee of a broad and balanced curriculum, including the national curriculum, for all pupils. That remains the key.
Nevertheless, I can give a further assurance. It should also be noted that bodies such as local educational authorities, further education funding councils and the funding authority will be required to exercise their functions without discrimination on the grounds of sex. Perhaps I may reinforce a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It is not words on paper in either this or any other statute that will make the difference; what will make the difference is what actually happens on the ground in the institutions and schools and by people implementing the policy. I hope that my amendments will receive approval from the House. I ask noble Lords to reject the other amendments.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should like to seek clarification on one point. Both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lord Eatwell asked for assurances regarding the Government's ability to interfere in higher education as a result of the Bill. The Minister has given those assurances, but will she confirm that those assurances are valid only as long as she remains in office, and that courts that would have to adjudicate on this matter cannot take the proceedings of Parliament into account but can only take into account what is written on the face of the Bill? The implication of that is that, if her assurances are to be worth anything at all, something to the effect that this Bill does not affect higher education would have to be written on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should say that I gave an absolutely unequivocal assurance that the measure does not impact on higher education. I also said in the course of speaking to the amendment that the Secretary of State cannot exceed his existing powers. His existing powers reside in different pieces of legislation but nothing in Clause 1 adds to those powers. If the Secretary of State abuses his powers, that is of course a matter for challenge.
On Question, Amendment No. 3 agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 4 to 7:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("education is made in") and insert ("primary, secondary or further education is made in schools, or institutions within the further education sector, in").
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("educational institutions") and insert ("schools or institutions within the further education sector").
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("for the purpose of promoting primary, secondary and further education in England and Wales").
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("educational") and insert ("schools and institutions within the further education sector").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 11 not moved.]
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begins again at 20 minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) (Revocation) Order 1993
7.21 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 30th April be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that the Agriculture Bill, which received its Third Reading in this House on 2nd February, seeks to terminate the wool guarantee. When the Bill was being considered by noble Lords earlier this year, it was drafted on the assumption that it would be enacted by 30th April 1993, and that the provisions on wool would take effect from this date. This date is significant because it represents the last day of the 1992 wool clip year. The intention was therefore that the guarantee should come to an end at the most appropriate and convenient point in the year for the industry and for the British Wool Marketing Board, which is responsible for administering the guarantee. Ending the guarantee on 30th April would ensure that the 1992 guarantee applied in respect of all wool collected during that clip year, while providing a clean break in respect of wool collected thereafter—from the beginning of the 1993 clip year.
The pressure of business in another place meant that enactment of the Agriculture Bill by 30th April was not achieved. To avoid what would have become
1104
a retrospective provision within the Bill, the clause which repeals the legal basis for the wool guarantee was amended in Committee in another place so that it will now have effect from the date of enactment of the Bill, not 30th April. It would, however, have been neither prudent nor responsible to have left matters at that. To have done so would have meant that —in theory—Ministers would have been required to fix a wool guarantee for the interim period between 1st May and subsequent enactment of the Bill. Although this course may, on the face of it, have seemed desirable to some, its attractions would have been superficial. The lack of clarity in the run-up to 30th April as to whether a guarantee would need to operate would itself have created uncertainty. This would have been disruptive and disadvantageous to the industry precisely at a time when it is seeking to take important steps in response to the ending of the guarantee.
In addition, the task of operating a guarantee during this interim period would have risked creating confusion, as well as introducing inequity and imposing excessive bureaucracy on the industry. It would, in short, have been damaging to the orderly marketing of wool. Let me seek to illustrate this point. What would have been the result had Ministers been required to fix a guarantee for the period between 1st May and enactment of the Agriculture Bill? The first point to note is that any guarantee required to be fixed for the 1993 clip would have remained in force only during this interim period. Thus while wool delivered to the board during this period would have been subject to the guarantee, wool delivered subsequently would not. There would inevitably have been confusion as both producers and the British Wool Marketing Board sought to operate within a deadline which was not—and could not be—clearly fixed. Producers would undoubtedly have sought to deliver their wool to the board before the guarantee was likely to expire. Given that this expiry date could not have been known, this process could have disrupted the collection of wool.
There would, moreover, have been a risk that producers would be tempted to shear their sheep earlier than usual in order to ensure that the wool was delivered to the board in time to qualify for the guarantee. The prospect of producers adjusting the timing of their shearing simply on the basis of the likely progress of the Agriculture Bill through its various parliamentary stages is one which neither the Government nor the industry should have welcomed.
Of course, not all producers would have found it possible or desirable to bring forward their shearing in this way. And not all of those who did so could have been sure that they had acted in time to qualify for the guarantee. There is therefore a real risk that operating a guarantee in the interim period would have led to some inequity between producers. This would not only have resulted from the fact that those producers who delivered their wool before the deadline would have received the guarantee, while those who delivered their wool after would not. The risk of inequity would have extended further than that. To operate a guarantee for the interim period only, the board would almost certainly have been required to establish

1105
difficult and bureaucratic procedures to distinguish wool delivered before and after the deadline. Any such procedures would undoubtedly have been costly and these costs would have fallen on all producers. Thus those who delivered their wool after the deadline could have been doubly disadvantaged. While they might not themselves have been eligible for a 1993 guarantee, they—along with the industry as a whole—would have had to bear the additional costs incurred in administering this guarantee.
In addition to all of these difficulties, retention of the guarantee for merely part of a clip year would not in any case have been consistent with the objective of the mechanism. The wool guarantee was set up to stabilise—over time—the sheep producer's income from his wool. Deficits on the guarantee in some years have been balanced by surpluses in others. This has been achieved by ensuring that when the market price has fallen below the guarantee level, the Government have made cash advances to the board; and when market prices have been above the guarantee price the board has been required to make repayments to the Government. A guarantee applying only for a few weeks or months of the 1993 clip year could not in any way be said to operate as a stabilisation mechanism.
For all these reasons, it would have been neither sensible nor appropriate for the Government to have fixed a guarantee for the period beginning on 1st May 1993. That is why in February and March of this year Ministers indicated their intention to lay an order to remove the requirement on Ministers to fix a guarantee for this interim period. This order was laid on 30th April and came into effect on 1st May. It may be helpful if I seek to explain its precise effect. Under the powers available to Ministers in the Agriculture Act 1957, it revokes the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) Order 1955 (as amended). Article 4 of the 1955 order placed a requirement on agriculture Ministers—in each year while the order remained in force—to fix a guarantee price for wool. Revocation of this provision removed this requirement, and with it the basis for operating a guarantee in respect of the interim period between 1st May and enactment of the Agriculture Bill. I can assure noble Lords that the order does not seek to override the need for primary legislation to terminate definitively the operation of the wool guarantee. This remains the function of what is now Clause 50 of the Agriculture Bill. This, as I have already indicated, removes the legal basis for the guarantee in primary legislation.
To sum up, the Government were concerned to end any uncertainty in the run-up to 30th April as to whether a guarantee would need to be fixed, and how long it would apply. Neither that uncertainty nor the operation of the guarantee for that interim period would have been in the interests of producers or the board. The order ensures that termination of the guarantee takes place with the minimum disruption to and maximum certainty for the industry as a whole. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 30th April be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Howe.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, as always, I am grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the background to the order and its purpose so lucidly. On this occasion I can say with truth that the explanation was quite unnecessary. He will recall our debates on the Agriculture Bill at Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading on this very question. I had the pleasure and privilege of going three two-minute rounds with the noble Earl on those occasions. While I would not say that he did not manage to lay a glove on me, at least I am here this evening standing upright and ready yet again to oppose the thinking behind the order and its timing.
As the Minister rightly said, the present order was announced in another place on 30th April (at col. 595 of Hansard) by the then Minister of Agriculture. It was laid before the House the following day. The order was debated in that place on 25th May. The debate generated considerable heat even by the standards of that other place. At one minute to midnight on that day the House of Commons divided by 189 votes to 150 votes in support of the order.
That allows me to say that our opposition on these Benches to the principle of terminating the wool guarantee in present world conditions still holds good, although, in accordance with the conventions of this place, it is not our intention to divide the House tonight. We certainly could not guarantee a vote of 189 to 150.
As the noble Earl said, the Wool Marketing Board's duties are to continue even after the Agriculture Bill is enacted. We still wonder, in all seriousness, how it will fare as a hoard without the guaranteed price system. Present world market conditions are against it and reserves held by the board from past success—and, as the Minister said, it has had some substantial successes—are not unlimited.
The Government justify their withdrawal of the guarantee on the basis that United Kingdom sheep farmers are interested in meat not wool. They also argue that the common agricultural policy and support from the Government ensure a fair deal for sheep farmers.
Therefore, we are entitled to ask how wise it is for those farmers to regard wool as a by-product, which is what the Minister had to say in his defence in another place. Does that mean, for instance, that the United Kingdom will import more wool for Britain's textile needs? In any case, common agricultural policy assistance is variable, especially for sheepmeat. Rules change. In our opinion the United Kingdom is a potential loser from any change of rule regarding the sheepmeat regime. Already the variable premium has gone, ewe premia are subject to headage limits, and hill and livestock compensatory allowances have been reduced by Her Majesty's Government. In those circumstances can sheep farmers be assured of continued financial support?
In the United Kingdom market New Zealand competition is much with us, including chilled lamb which equals the home product in quality, while white meat represents a real price threat to all red meat. United Kingdom lamb is expensive. The gap in price

1107
between farm gate and consumer becomes even wider as supermarket dominance increases. Exports to France and elsewhere are subject to force majeure, as we well know. Noises are already being made to the effect that the newly proposed European Community cohesion fund should be financed from reductions in the cost of the common agricultural policy. If so, where will those economies be made?
The case against the order and the tidying up arrangement which the noble Earl described at this time is that world prices for wool are artificially depressed, it is hoped temporarily. Even the Australian Government recognise that. In their High Commission news published in London for the week ending 30th April 1993 a 50 million Australian dollar package (£22.5 million) was announced to assist their farmers hit by drought and the collapse of wool prices to be financed by the federal government. There is also to be a three-month review of the wool industry structure and operational arrangements chaired by a professor of economics at their national university.
Contrast that with what is proposed in the order now before us. The date of execution has been advanced in the interests of administrative tidiness, saving even more money in the process. The final paragraph of a Written Answer at col. 596 of Hansard for another place for 30th April, to which I have already referred, saw the decision to terminate the wool guarantee as the start of a new era for sheep farmers and the textile industry. We beg to differ. Even for an order made on 29th April which came into force on 1st May, we would urge early reconsideration of the whole question in the light of the impact of withdrawing the guarantee under present market conditions.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I should like to respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, in his speech. First, he raised the anxiety that the British Wool Marketing Board might be adversely affected by the ending of the guarantee. I believe that that claim is unduly pessimistic. Indeed, the decision to end the guarantee has produced benefits for the industry which should not be underestimated.
The board has been forced by the prospect of greater exposure to market forces to improve its effectiveness and to seize financial responsibility for its own affairs. The positive steps which the board has taken and which it seeks to take are in the interests of the industry as a whole. Those steps include: the current financial agreement between Government and board which has facilitated the creation of a substantial reserve fund to underpin the board's future operations; a reduction in marketing costs achieved by increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of wool collection; the development of a more effective organisational structure, the development of new financial and managerial information systems; and improvements in the quality of the clip, for example through the development of fleece assessment programmes, research into better breeding and producer education on clip care. It is those steps and
1108
not retention of the guarantee which are in the long-term interests of the board, producers and the industry.
The noble Lord also suggested that abolition of the guarantee will mean a shortage of low-value wools for the processing industry. The basis of his anxiety is not entirely clear to me. The British Wool Marketing Board has itself estimated that ending the guarantee will have only a minimal impact on the volume of wool collected. That implies that imports of wool should not automatically rise as a result of the ending of the guarantee, although I accept that imported wool is used predominantly for clothing as opposed to carpets and other purposes. If, however, the processing industry nevertheless genuinely believes that the supply of wool will be threatened by the ending of the guarantee and that that supply is crucial to the well-being of the industry, then it is surely for the industry itself to ensure that the market responds in such a way that the product continues to be collected and marketed. I do not believe that government subsidy is the solution.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, also cast doubt upon the permanence or sustainability of sheep support under the CAP schemes. I can only say that total payments to UK sheep farmers in respect of the annual ewe premium, the less-favoured area supplement to that premium, hill livestock compensatory allowances and, prior to its termination at the end of 1991, the sheep variable premium, have increased from £156 million in respect of 1981 to £283 million in respect of 1987, and to £495 million in respect of 1992. This substantial increase, bringing total support to nearly £500 million in respect of 1992, I believe demonstrates the Government's clear and continuing commitment to the UK sheep industry.
Finally, the noble Lord referred to support arrangements provided by some of our major competitors in the southern hemisphere. Australia and New Zealand, which are the world's largest producers, accounting together for nearly 50 per cent. of world wool production, withdrew their own price support arrangements in 1991. I shall study the remarks made by the noble Lord, but I do not feel that his arguments affect the basic points that I sought to bring out in my original speech which I think validate the basis of the order. I again commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.42 to 8.20 p.m.]

Education Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 1, line 19, after ("standards,") insert ("assisting in the development of coherent and systematic curriculum and assessment policies.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments deals with the curriculum and testing. Between them the amendments make explicit the Secretary of State's duty with regard to curriculum and assessment policies; make clear the consultative remit for an ongoing review of the curriculum by the independent School Curriculum and Assessment Authority; specify the purposes of assessment; and fundamentally take away the draconian powers that the Secretary of State is taking upon himself to override the review process and undermine the professional judgment of teachers.
Recent events have shown the need for coherent and systematic curriculum and assessment policies. The Secretary of State has achieved the impossible. At every twist and turn of policy he has alienated those people who are at the very heart of education. He has brought together a solid alliance of teachers, parents, governors, and educationists. He has shown contempt for the professional judgment of teachers. He has outraged parents, calling such respected organisations as the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations "neanderthal". He has tried to bully heads and governors to impose his flawed tests on children in schools. He has lost key advisers from the National Curriculum Council who are disgusted with policy disarray. He has even managed to alienate his own party activists. The Financial Times described his reception at last week's Conservative Women's Conference as "chilly". It went on to say:
"a teacher in a London comprehensive school won a warm reception as she told Mr. Patten, 'You have driven me to support union action, and it breaks my heart'";.
Another delegate said:
"It is nothing short of a disgrace to see millions of pounds wasted on national curriculum bureaucracy and paperwork at the expense of desperately needed staff, books and equipment in our schools".
I understand that one delegate called on the Secretary of State to "end this bonfire of bureaucratic vanities now".
All six teachers' unions, with the support of the independent school sector organisations have produced a framework for the review of the curriculum. That provides for coherent curriculum and assessment policies in contrast to the policy débâcle of the Government.
The controversy over testing in schools this summer is part of a failure on the part of the Government to listen to teachers and parents about the kinds of tests that are needed for the national curriculum. The Government failed to provide coherent curriculum and assessment policies. The curriculum has been subject to constant change and overload. Testing and assessment policies seemingly have no principled base. The amendments set out the framework to correct those fundamental flaws in government policy. Late in the day the Government did set up the most welcome review under Sir Ron Dearing. In reply to John Patten's remit for the review, Sir Ron said:
"I am accountable not only to the Secretary of State, but also to the whole community of teachers, parents and school children".
Further, in his first speech to the Regional Review Conferences he said:
1110
"I came to the task with no preconceptions about solutions. The agenda is on the table; the questions raise fundamentals and we shall he studying everything that is said in reply".
Yet the Secretary of State pre-empted that review with his rushed Statement to Parliament on llth May, and has potentially compromised the findings of that review. The Government seem interested only in misleading league tables based on these unfair tests.
But indeed, as the Guardian newspaper editorial made clear on 7th June:
"Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Enemy.
The current tables are far too crude. They do not compare like with like because they only use raw data. Clever intakes inevitably produce clever results".
Teachers, parents and governors believe in assessment for diagnostic purposes. The Government have conceded such a model for Scotland, having consulted there. Inexplicably, they intransigently refused to discuss a diagnostic model for England and Wales. So dogmatic are the Government in pursuing their flawed curriculum and assessment policies that the Secretary of State is taking on board extensive powers to impose his wishes upon schools. Clause 229, as it stands, is a fundamental assault on the professional judgment of teachers, governors and local authorities in education.
I come specifically to Amendment No. 12:
"Page I, line 19, after ("standards,") insert ("assisting in the development of coherent and systematic curriculum and assessment policies,")".
I draw the attention of noble Lords to the indisputable fact that the development of the current national curriculum and its assessment arrangements are in a mess. Initially, the Government chose to construct a curriculum based on subjects, and then overloaded those subjects. They then initiated an assessment system which teachers believe does not work. It takes up too much time and detracts from teaching; and it uses assessment results as crude and unfair performance indicators. In addition, since 1988 the development of the national curriculum and assessment has been characterised by piecemeal, politically driven change. For example, at a very late stage in consultation on history, Kenneth Clarke decided that history stopped 20 years ago and after that transformed itself into social studies. Mathematics and science were revised by an anonymous group without reference to the particular problems facing teachers in regard to the rest of the curriculum and each of the key stages. English is being revised, despite the vast majority of the profession believing the existing subject orders to be a success. Technology is being revised without the Secretary of State asking what the role of information technology should be or whether schools can afford to make it available to all children.
These developments illustrate the culpability of successive governments in not having coherent and systematic assessment policies. Above all, the Government should take responsibility for those policies.
The amendments place a particular responsibility upon the present Government and future governments to develop curriculum and assessment policies which are systematic and coherent and therefore

1111
understandable. In that respect, it is interesting that the six teacher organisations, with the support of all the organisations representing independent schools, have already produced a framework. In their document, A framework for reviewing the National Curriculum they outline a sensible plan for the development of the national curriculum based on systematic and coherent implementation, monitoring and revision which does not overload and confuse schools. I have that document with me. It is jointly drafted by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers; the National Association of Head Teachers; the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers; the National Union of Teachers; the Professional Association of Teachers; and the Secondary Heads Association. Indeed, it is endorsed by the Girls' Schools Association; the Headmasters' Conference; the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools; the Independent Schools Association Incorporated; the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education; and the Society of Headmasters and Headmistresses in Independent Schools.
If we had the United States' system here, I would strongly recommend that this be read into the record. As we do not have that system, I would be tempted to quote from it at length. But obviously the House would become incredibly impatient. Therefore I shall take just one quotation from it as indicative of the strength of feeling of those bodies:
"The teacher organisations have repeatedly drawn attention to the problems of both excessive prescription and content overload over the last three years. They have made the point that the original NC proposals and subsequent parliamentary debate confirmed that it was never the intention that more than between 75 per cent. and 85 per cent. of time should be devoted to the foundation subjects. The teacher organisations have also reflected the view that stability is so desirable that unpredictable change should be kept to a minimum".
It goes on to say that:
"the paper sets out proposals for reviewing the NC which would:

(a) enable the problems of both excessive prescription and content overload to be overcome;

(b) ensure that the process of change would be phased and manageable;

(c) provide effective mechanisms for professional input;

(d) guarantee that the provisions should be based on a wide range of publicly available evidence;

(e) avoid the danger of an ad hoc subject by subject revision which would inevitably lead to a lack of coherence and possibly further overload".

In moving this amendment, I hope that in her characteristic way the Minister will feel able to comment in some substance on what those responsible bodies, which carry on their shoulders so much of the education of our children, have to say. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, having watched "Newsnight", I am tempted to think that we have now reached Götterdämmerung. I hasten to assure the House that I have thrown away my notes. At this stage of the day I shall not make the speech that I would
1112
otherwise have made. But I should like to draw attention to one or two points that arise from these amendments.
The specific and most useful point about Amendment No. 12 is that in addition to the power that was given to the Secretary of State in 1988, the amendment also imposes a duty upon him. That could be extremely valuable towards parliamentary accountability. It is one of the difficulties that we have had many times with the pattern of educational legislation since 1988 that a whole succession of quangos and councils are created. They are accountable to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. So if something is done by one of those councils to which perhaps some of us may wish to take objection—or even occasionally passionate objection —it is very difficult to do so. Ministers tell us that it is a matter for the funding council or the curriculum council or whatever council it may be. I hope that this imposition of a duty on the Secretary of State will make it rather more easy as a matter of parliamentary procedure to hold the Secretary of State directly accountable to Parliament for the discharge of the duty.
Among other things, those duties cover review. I do not know whether the noble Baroness remembers the statutory instrument which brought in the national curriculum in history. Both the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and I strongly made the point that it is necessary, if this is not to ossify, that it should be subject to regular review as a matter of routine. In fact, we have given notice to the House of our intention to divide it in April 1998 if no review has taken place by then. If the Government could lay down a regular procedure for rolling review before the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and I have to act, it might save us some trouble.
Amendment No. 16 draws attention again to the question of raw and weighed data. That is particularly important to the question of failing schools, with which a large part of this Bill deals. Some noble Lords may have read recently in the papers about a failing school in Hartlepool. In Hartlepool there is deep trouble throughout the community as a whole. There is unemployment, poverty and crime—three things that we may learn to think of as "Mandelson's Trio".
I cannot believe that those factors completely fail to affect the character of the school. So we cannot adequately assess the failing school unless we know something of the social background in which that school operates. When I say that, I do not mean to say that it has a determining effect; only that it is one of the factors which may have an influence.
With regard to testing, I do not want to make a partisan speech. However, we might all, from whichever quarter of the House we come, agree that if in a year's time we are in the kind of mess that we are in now, it cannot be in anybody's interest. In order to bring that about, we must recognise that any successful tests will have to be compiled, as my noble friend Lady Seear said when the whole issue was introduced in 1988, in conjunction with the teachers. After all, they are the people who will have to do the

1113
work. That remains true whether one believes that the teachers' educational values are right or wrong. They are the people who are involved.
One cannot expect teachers to teach against their own conscience. It is not useful to create a situation in which they find it as much against their political conscience to teach in Mr. Major's schools as they would to serve in his Cabinet. Today we have heard complaints about politicisation. Sometimes compromise is necessary to avoid it.
I shall make one final point about the publication of league tables. When the Education Reform Bill was before us on 5th May 1988, that point arose. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said:
"It is not true to say that the results would be given wide publication. It is certainly not intended to have a league table".
I should like to know what happened to that assurance.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a brief question about testing and in particular the relationship of this amendment to the tests which were supposed to be conducted recently.
The Minister will recall that when she repeated in this House the Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State, I asked her what would happen in view of the fact that the three biggest teachers' unions had refused to have anything to do with the testing. I asked her what would happen in those circumstances. She may recall that her reply was that it was the responsibility of the head teacher and the governors to see that the tests were carried out.
We know now that very few schools indeed undertook the tests, for what many thought were obvious reasons. It seemed as though only the Government were burying their collective head in the sand and insisting that they would take place when in fact everybody knew that they would not take place. In view of those circumstances, are the Government contemplating a change in the legislation to face reality and make changes in an issue which could easily recur?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that this is not an appropriate use of this part of the Bill. To single out one activity, albeit a very important, essential and substantial one, in the field of education, to build into Clause 1 just arrangements for curriculum and assessment and testing leaves out other important factors. Are we to be inclusive of all educational activity in Clause 1, in order to give equal status to all of them; or are we simply to single this one out and thereby give it a special status over and above all other educational activity in the field of school and further education?
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that the Statement that I repeated in this House which was made in another place by my right honourable friend pre-empted almost unilaterally the review of Sir Ron Dearing. The noble Lord needs to go back to that Statement and read it again. It was on advice from Sir Ron Dearing that that Statement was made and the conclusions from it were drawn. The review will be thorough. Sir Ron needs to take his time over it before he reports to the Secretary of State. There needs to be
1114
follow-up action. Clearly my amendments to lift the constraints on Sections 20 and 21 of the Education Reform Act 1988 will help. Nevertheless, it will take time.
In order to allow the schools time to think about 1994 it was necessary to have plans on the table. It was not acceptable and would not have been acceptable—I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would have been one of the people saying, "What are you going to do in 1994?"—for a Statement not to have been made. Therefore it was appropriate that a Statement should be made in regard to 1994.
When I made that Statement I was asked a question by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, and I stand by the response I gave. It is the responsibility of the head teachers and governors to administer the tests and then record and report the results. The tests are not yet complete. I do not intend to speculate at the Dispatch Box on whether or not they have been taken. We shall find out in good time. I am also not prepared to speculate or pre-empt at the Dispatch Box whether or not there is to be legislation. It would be wholly inappropriate for me to do so.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who said that we do not have a coherent policy for assessment and testing. But nor did his party prior to 1988. They never had a coherent policy for a national curriculum framework or assessment or testing. I was sitting on the Back-Benches at that time and in 1988 his colleagues on those Benches opposed the national curriculum when my noble friend Lady Hooper was putting it to the House.
Baroness David: My Lords, we did not oppose all aspects of the national curriculum. We opposed the amount that was put into it. We never objected to the three main subjects which were to be part of the national curriculum.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there was at times opposition to the national curriculum; there was opposition to specific subjects; there was opposition in regard to too much prescription. There was then a great deal of argument and an interesting debate ensued in the House regarding subjects that ought to be but were not in the national curriculum. I know that my noble friend had great difficulty taking that Bill through the House. It was contested at almost every stage of its progress.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have been re-reading that material this afternoon. There was great difficulty because many aspects of the Government's policy were not clear. Can the noble Baroness tell us of one moment when we opposed the whole principle of the national curriculum?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I did not mention the noble Earl and his colleagues on those Benches. I mentioned the Labour Party. The Labour Party certainly did oppose the national curriculum, assessment and testing.
Perhaps I can move on to the issue of regular reviews. I am confident that the noble Earl will not have to come together with my noble friend Lord Beloff to press for regular reviews. Education is a

1115
dynamic. It is important that there is a continuing, rolling review of the subject orders, and that is precisely what has happened. A review is taking place at the present time and I do not want to labour these amendments by taking them in detail. I do not believe that the House should pre-empt the outcome of the Sir Ron Dearing review. He should be allowed to continue the good work he is carrying out with and for teachers and for the future of education.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to Hartlepool. I have some intimate knowledge of that area because I am the inner cities Minister for Hartlepool, Stockton, Middlesborough and that part of the Teesside and Cleveland area. I have a great feeling and affection for that part of the country and have come to know the area and its people well.
The noble Earl is right to say that there are issues of unemployment, low income families and high crime rates in the area. But information in regard to crime is public information. Every police authority produces detailed and complete breakdowns of information regarding crime rates, so they are known in the local area. Unemployment figures also are known in relation to men and women, young people and older people; so too is the sex of the intake of the schools; so too is the ethnic background of the young people in the schools, though that is not so much an issue in that part of the world.
The inspectorate, as it will operate under the 1992 inspection rules, will describe the nature of the intake of young people when they go into schools and also of the local community from which they draw their children. That is important. And that information is known in the local area. It is in the local area where that kind of information matters.
When it comes to making league tables or producing any kind of public information containing value factors, I find it patronising to put a disadvantage factor on some of those issues when we know already from the information that we have that even with some of those disadvantages schools can perform well. We also know that schools that serve leafy glades with advantaged families, with no problems and relatively supportive homes, do not always perform well. It is therefore difficult to be wholly objective in putting measurements on it. However, that there should be valued-added factors at some stage contained in published results is something to which we do aspire. I know that Sir Ron Dearing takes that seriously.
We do not produce league tables. Newspapers and other people produce league tables; even parents are interested in league tables. In fact, the interest in league tables last year was incredibly high. It proved that the sort of information that parents wanted was the kind of information that was produced.
The department produced a booklet which applies to each local area with schools in alphabetical order, containing the size of the intake, the names of the schools and whether or not they had children with special needs statements in them. Those are the kinds of things that we produced; league tables are produced by others.
1116
I shall not continue taking the amendments in detail. I do not believe that they belong in this part of the Bill. As a House we should wish Sir Ron Dearing well. He is responding, as commissioned by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, to the anxieties of teachers—some of them spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I wish him well. I hope that the House will also, but that they will reject the amendments.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister has been so unyielding on this matter. In this area it is not impossible to close the gap between the two sides of the House and to find a constructive solution, not so much in the interests of some abstract system—bureaucratic or administrative—but in the interests of our children throughout the country.
We are arguing—I believe that there is a great consensus in different parts of this side of the House on the matter—that if the legislation is to be a success, it must be based on ownership. People must feel confident in it. They must feel that it is relevant to them as players within the educational world. It must meet the priorities which they, from their professional or parental positions, see to be essential.
The point we are making is that the Bill's strength will rest in consensus and consultation. On a previous occasion, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, emphasised that education in this country should, wherever possible, rest on consensus if it is to be successful. I applaud his wisdom in saying that. We are talking of how we build consensus behind the system.
The other point is that it is important that whatever information is available is meaningful. It is a bit disingenuous of the Minister to protest that the Government do not produce league tables. That takes some swallowing, if she will forgive me saying so. She was not born yesterday and knows how the media operate. Obviously this was all the raw material and meat for the media to produce league tables. We are saying that those league tables misled parents because they did not give the meaningful information that was necessary.
It is a late hour and there is a lot for us to tackle tonight. Perhaps I can therefore concentrate briefly on Amendments Nos. 16 and 232. I am sorry that the Minister did not say more about them in her reply. I find it interesting that at the Lords Report stage of the Further and Higher Education Bill in 1992 the Government moved an amendment on the information that the Secretary of State might require the governing body of any institution within the further education sector to publish in order to show, as the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said in moving the amendment,
"the value added—in terms of student qualifications—by the institution".—[Official Report, 16/1/92; col. 434.]
Unfortunately, the Government were not prepared to make a similar amendment to the Education (Schools) Bill, even though they had not rejected the benefit of a value added approach to the presentation of exam results.

1117
There is a general consensus that raw results alone are an inadequate indicator of the effectiveness of a school. Indeed, there is a danger that they could lead to complacency. Schools with an intake of high achievers can cover up poor performance because they have good results. Schools with poor examination results may justify poor performance because they have an intake of low achievers. Only through comparing the achievements of pupils with their achievements on entry to the school can the performance of the school be effectively measured. I believe that to be fundamental logic, and I do not understand why the Government do not move on it. Various studies have been published in support of that approach. The AMA has been carrying out a study of GCSE results. Its first report was published in 1992. The Audit Commission has published a report on post-16 examinations, entitled Two Bs or Not two Bs. Sir Claus Moser's National Commission on Education has published a paper dealing with the measurement of added value in schools. The Government appear to have accepted that showing added value, rather than simply raw results, is important. My argument is that, surely, Ministers should be willing to accept the principles behind the amendments, even though they may not accept the precise way in which they are written. If they do that, we will be delighted.
However, I fear that Ministers are unlikely to accept the principle of including information about the background of pupils, including socio-economic factors such as gender. Yet studies such as those I have referred to reveal that those factors are significant. Girls tend to out-perform boys. If that is not taken into account a girls' school will appear to out-perform a similar boys' school. If parents are to benefit from the information being provided, the information must contain useful data. Raw results alone cannot do it. I believe that these amendments will help to improve significantly the quality of information provided.
I am very disappointed that the Minister has not taken the opportunity tonight to begin building some kind of consensus on what is an important issue. As she has not done so, I fear that as the debate goes on, perhaps in increasingly tough terms, the casualties of the process will be the children. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities and schools secure adequate support for parents in their role as a young child's first teacher.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I formally move the amendment to enable my noble friend to speak.
I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am told that I am in order in speaking to this amendment, although it was grouped earlier. I apologise if there has been any misunderstanding. I could not speak to it with the whole group because I had already spoken to Amendment No. 10.
1118
I have received a letter from a representative of Parent Network, to which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred. That representative says:
"I work with the charity, Parent Network, which is one of the groups lobbying for the parents' amendment. Parent Network runs a unique parent-led programme helping parents to relate better with their children and to be more effective at supporting their learning. I feel that the addition of the clause making it a duty of the schools and authorities 'to ensure adequate support for parents as their child's first teacher' will recognise our importance as parents and make it easier for all kinds of schemes to increase parental involvement in their children's education to flourish".
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford will remember that when we were considering the Further and Higher Education Bill we were both very anxious to make it easier for adults to be with their children in primary schools, to learn with them and to help them. That helps parents to encourage their children at home. I support the amendment. I do not suppose that there will be another response to it, but I hope that the Government may feel more inclined to be sympathetic to it next time around.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 15 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 17:
Divide Clause 1 into two clauses, the first (General duty of Secretary of State) to consist of subsection (1) and the second (Duty in the case of primary, secondary and further education) to consist of subsections (2) and (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Public enquiry into schools in Wale.s.
—(1) Within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent the Secretary of State shall establish an enquiry into the future development and direction of education in schools in Wales.
(2) No order may be made under section 3(1) below to make provision for the establishment of the Schools Funding Council for Wales, or otherwise in connection thereto, before the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament the report of the enquiry established under this section.
(3) In particular such an enquiry shall consider—

(a) the standards of education provided by schools in Wales;

(b) the position of Welsh language education in schools in Wales; and

(c) the position of the Welsh Language Board and other institutions concerned with education in Wales.

(4) The Secretary of State shall appoint to chair the enquiry an independent person who has experience of, or who has shown capacity in, schools in Wales.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been tabled in response to a number of letters received from people in Wales whose judgment in education matters I respect. Moreover, I believe that its main thrust will be acceptable to the Welsh Joint Education Committee which has served Welsh education well for over 40 years. There is strong awareness in educational circles in Wales that, as a result of major changes introduced by Education Acts since 1988 and other legislation, including this hugely

1119
important Bill, if implemented, and the Welsh Language Bill, if implemented, and the likely outcome of the proposal to reorganise Welsh local government 1994–95, the education system is entering a critical phase of its history. There have been gains and losses since 1988 on which one could particularise if time were available. But of all the measures of the past eight years it is this important Bill, with its provisions for a schools funding council, that potentially poses the greatest single threat to the Welsh education system as we have known it and to the democratic accountability of its institutions.
It is only too glaringly obvious from the speeches of Welsh Office Ministers and their actions that they are determined to create a climate in Wales that will encourage enough schools to opt out of LEA control to justify the setting up of an unelected Welsh schools funding council at an early stage. As a result, the role of local education authorities, who, after all, are the representative voice of a community, will be diminished and eventually possibly silenced.
Welsh Office Ministers speak of opting out with a sense almost of inevitability. In their speeches they admit to no doubts and see no problems. But educationalists in Wales fear that Ministers may be blind to the wider picture and the possibly damaging implications for the Welsh educational system and for democratic accountability. The decision as to when the Welsh schools funding council is to be established has not yet been taken, but we are strongly persuaded that before the decision is taken many questions will need to be objectively examined and answered.
We have not had this debate in Wales. The questions that come to mind—some of them are referred to in the amendment—are these. What are the needs of Welsh education during the next decade and the early part of the next century? What are the alleged defects of the Welsh LEAs, Welsh schools and the standards of Welsh education? What would be the relationship between the school and the community which it serves?
The proposed schools funding council is an unelected quango answerable to Ministers and civil servants, whereas the elected LEAs are answerable to their own electorates as well as, eventually, to Ministers. But how, where and upon what terms are these very different bodies to co-operate constructively in Wales? Then there is the role of the Welsh Language Board. Ministers have addressed us with some eloquence about what they describe as the key role of the board in education. But there is not a single reference to the Welsh Language Board in the Bill. We should like to know what in practice will be the relationship between the Welsh Language Board, the LEAs and the funding councils. In addition, what will be the role of the pragmatic WJEC following Welsh local government reorganisation in 1994–95? We also question whether the Welsh Office is right to dismantle the Welsh Education Development Committee, which has its origins in the WJEC.
The answers to those questions are far from clear and no doubt there are many other unanswered questions which call for an objective examination
1120
before the Schools Funding Council for Wales is ever set up. I ask the noble Viscount whether it would not be prudent for the Welsh Office to set up an independent inquiry to reach a view on how matters stand and to assess the implications of these proposals, the proposals in the Welsh Language Bill and the local government reorganisation proposals. Would that not be a sensible approach? Such an inquiry would reduce the scope for conflict later and there could be no justification for criticising the legislators for having rushed into this legislation. I hope very much that the broad concept embodied in the amendment is acceptable.
The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 31. I have referred to the role of the Welsh Language Board in the field of education although, as of now, it is imprecise. We are told by Ministers that the Welsh Language Board will have a shared responsibility with the educational bodies for the position of the Welsh language in the education system. If this Bill is implemented as it stands, one of the most important institutional differences henceforth between the systems in England and in Wales will be the board's overview of the position of the Welsh language in the schools of Wales and in the education system generally and the board's right to require all schools and educational bodies to produce a language plan for its approval.
We have been told by Ministers that there will be a close working relationship between the board, the funding councils and the curriculum authority. I am almost certain that this was confirmed by the noble Viscount in Committee. But, surely, this relationship should merit a mention in this hugely important Education Bill. I suggest that the least we can expect is a statutory duty on the educational bodies to provide information if it is needed and requested by the Welsh Language Board. After all, an educational body might be out of sympathy with the board and might be tempted to ignore its request for information. It is to be hoped that that would be rare, but it could happen. As it is foreseeable, we suggest that it would be helpful if the duty was spelt out in the Bill as the board would not be able to rely on a non-existent duty.
I am conscious that here I am returning to a point which we made in the course of debate in Committee on the Welsh Language Bill. I hope, however, that the noble Viscount will see that Amendment No. 31 addresses an important omission from this Bill and from the Welsh Language Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I very much support both these amendments. I wish that there had been a separate Education Bill for Wales. If there is one subject in Wales that enjoys more interest than any other it is education. It is much more important in the Welsh people's view than devolution or anything else.
So often we have heard in Wales that it is our education system that has been the passport from poverty to opportunity. It is right to say that in 1889 we had the Welsh Intermediate Education Act that went through both Houses. It was moved by a predecessor of mine as Liberal MP for Montgomery, a man called Stuart Rendel, thereafter a Member of

1121
this House, and, incidentally, a great-uncle of the man who recently won the Newbury by-election. That introduced into Wales a system of education at the intermediate level before the English had such a system. As the noble Viscount knows, Welsh society is extremely egalitarian. There has been a much greater consensus about education in Wales than there has been in England. I remember being able to say, when I was a Member of another place in 1963, that my county had, proportionately, a higher entry of university undergraduates than any other county in England and Wales. I exclude Scotland, of course.
In my experience all parties have co-operated extremely well. Education was the top priority. I believe it is true that whatever it achieved in housing and in other directions, the greatest achievement of Welsh local government was in the sphere of education. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has emphasised the importance of consensus in education. As the noble Viscount knows, there is a great deal of consensus in Wales among Members of all parties; his own, as well as mine, the Labour Party and Plaid Cymru as to what is necessary in education. One should not throw over lightly the contribution of the Welsh education authorities.
With two particular Acts affecting education in Wales which do not affect England, it is this particular Bill that affects both countries. The Welsh Language Bill has already gone through this House and the reform of local government in Wales is proposed for next year. They are going to have a profound influence on our education system. Therefore, there is a very considerable case for an inquiry at this stage to look at the achievements of Welsh education in the past and at the enthusiasm or lack of it for opt-outs.
As the noble Viscount knows, there are very few private schools in Wales. There is no enthusiasm for opting out. Wales is very much a classless society. People of all backgrounds send their children to state schools. They have a common interest in ensuring that those state schools are of the highest possible quality. At this stage for Wales I believe that it is very important to have an inquiry which need not take very long. It can determine which is the best way forward and observe the distinctions between Welsh and English society.
Apart from England, Wales is the oldest part of the United Kingdom. It has a different cultural background; it is a bilingual society and there are many differences from England. By and large in Wales we have the right balance between education for livelihood and education for life. We should not throw that over very easily.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, since I have been mentioned, perhaps I may say that I very much admired the education system in Wales in my time. I thought that on the whole the local authorities were better at it than those in England. However, I ask the two noble Lords who have just spoken: can they put their hands on their hearts and say that the time taken teaching Welsh children the Welsh language really is in their interests in the kind of world in which they have to earn their living?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the noble Viscount has asked a question, and presumably before I sat down. I answer absolutely in the affirmative. To have a bilingual and bi-cultural background is an immense advantage in the modern world. It does not in any way prevent people from being good Europeans or good internationalists. It gets people used to the idea that there is more than one culture in the world. The rivulet of Welsh culture as a part of the European river is very important. It enriches the background of life.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, does not one have to go to Patagonia to find anyone else who speaks Welsh?
Baroness White: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is a little out of date as regards his knowledge of Welsh. Unfortunately he was unable to be with us when we were discussing the Welsh Language Bill. I suggest that he studies some of the discussions which took place in connection with that legislation which has now passed to the other place.
I do not wish to make a real speech this evening out of consideration for the business of the House and the slow pace at which we are proceeding through this monstrous Bill. I am talking of its physical characteristics. I wish sincerely to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. We shall he put out very much indeed if adequate consideration were not given to the needs of Wales if we are going to have the Welsh Funding Council as proposed in the Bill, but without adequate previous investigation, consideration and consultation.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, let me begin by saying that this Government fully recognise the distinctive educational culture in Wales and have a good record in demonstrating their willingness, and indeed eagerness, to preserve that culture and identity. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has argued for a public inquiry into the future development and direction of education in schools in Wales.
Perhaps I may turn to the first area to which this proposed inquiry is to give particular consideration; the standards of education provided by schools in Wales. No one can challenge this Government's commitment to raise standards in our schools and to ensure that we have measures in place to monitor those standards.
It might be helpful to the noble Lord if I remind him of the provisions of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 which transformed arrangements for the inspection of schools. In future, all maintained schools will have a full inspection every five years by a team of registered independent inspectors, leading to a published report not only on the educational standards at the school, but also the quality of education, the spiritual, moral, cultural and social developments of pupils at the school, and also the financial management of the school.
The new inspection system will be overseen and organised by the new and independent office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales (HMCI for short). The chief inspector has a general duty to keep the Secretary of State informed about the quality

1123
of education provided by schools in Wales and the educational standards achieved in those schools, and is also required to make an annual report on these matters to the Secretary of State, who in turn is obliged to lay a copy of that report before each House of Parliament. The office of the Chief Inspector of Schools for Wales is an independent department and the chief inspector exercises his functions in an impartial manner.
So, the Government have already gone much further than the one-off inquiry into educational standards proposed by this new clause: we have made provision for an on-going cycle of independent inspection of every school in Wales, and for an annual report to Parliament by the independent Chief Inspector of Schools for Wales on the quality of education and standards achieved by schools in Wales.
I come now to the question of Welsh language education. There is no doubt about the position of Welsh language education in schools in Wales. It is now a central part of our education system. Welsh has a place in the statutory curriculum for all pupils in Wales between the ages of five and 16 (with only a very few exceptions). But the curriculum in Wales does not only rely on the Welsh language to reflect our distinctive culture and heritage. Half of the subjects studied as part of the national curriculum now come within separate orders which are specific to Wales. All of the national curriculum (with the exception of English) can, of course, be studied and assessed through the medium of Welsh.
Recent years have seen a significant expansion of Welsh medium education in Wales. Welsh is used as the main medium of instruction in some 19 per cent. of secondary schools and over 25 per cent. of primary schools in Wales. The Government have been greatly encouraged by this growth in Welsh medium education and are keen to see it continue.
This Bill also provides for the establishment of the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales—to be known by its Welsh acronym, ACAC—and which will have the central role in advising the Secretary of State on all aspects of the curriculum in Wales.
The Welsh language will have a very important place at the heart of the new organisation. ACAC will not only be responsible for advising on Welsh in the national curriculum and the assessment of Welsh at all key stages and at A-level, but it will also have a specialist Welsh department. This new department will build on the excellent work undertaken by the Welsh Joint Education Committee and others in ensuring an adequate range of classroom materials for Welsh medium schools. it will strengthen the position of the language in the classroom and ensure resources are employed efficiently and effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned the role of the LEAs. Their role has been changing over a number of years, principally through the introduction of local management of schools. This Education Bill does not weaken or abolish LEAs, although clearly the role of the LEAs in Wales will evolve as more and more schools decide to leave their control and become
1124
grant-maintained. We should remember that it is the votes of parents that will determine how the grant-maintained sector develops in Wales. So it is parental ballots that will be the driving force behind any further change to the role of the LEAs, and not the provisions in the Bill to establish the Schools Funding Council for Wales. If the SFCW is established, we expect it to work alongside the LEA-maintained sector in co-operation and collaboration with the LEAs to secure the best education in the interests of pupils. Welsh language education can only benefit from these developments and that is very good news for pupils, parents and teachers.
Let us look now at the position of the Welsh Language Board. It was not so long ago that your Lordships considered the Welsh Language Bill and in particular the statutory functions of the Welsh Language Board in respect of education. I recall that there was fairly extensive debate on that issue and I believed that the position of the board had been made clear in that context.
The Welsh Language Board will have a particularly key role with regard to the provision of Welsh medium education in future.
Welsh medium education will be one of the matters to be included in Welsh language schemes which public bodies will be required to prepare and submit to the board for approval. The duty to prepare Welsh language schemes covering Welsh medium schools will fall to individual LEAs. A similar duty will be placed upon the Schools Funding Council for Wales, if it is established. All such schemes will have to have regard to the board's guidelines and the board will have, as one of its strategic priorities, the development of expertise and guidance on educational matters.
The Welsh Language Board will also have an advisory role in respect of education. The board will take on responsibility currently exercised by the Welsh Language Education Development Committee to take a broad overview of the Welsh language in all phases of education.
That will not be achieved overnight. The Welsh Language Board has a significant task before it. I am sure that, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, it is a task that the board will tackle with relish and enthusiasm. The board will require considerable assistance and co-operation. But I am sure that it will not require a public inquiry to establish its position. That will be done in the context of the Welsh Language Bill and the success of its actions.
The new clause moved by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, calls for a public inquiry which would not further the cause of education in Wales and would generate words rather than action. Such a public inquiry is unnecessary. We have clearly set the agenda for schools in Wales. It is an agenda which will improve standards and enhance still further the reputation of the education system in Wales. We now want to get on and deliver that agenda. I hope that your Lordships will agree and reject the new clause.
I shall deal now with the noble Lord's other amendment in relation to Wales, Amendment No. 31. Education is at the heart of the Government's Welsh

1125
language policy. The Secretary of State for Wales has therefore made it clear that education will feature prominently among the board's responsibilities. It will be essential for the board to have close working relationships with the other bodies involved in the education service in Wales. This will certainly involve any schools funding council for Wales, but the board will need also to work closely with LEAs and the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales.
The responsibilities of the Welsh Language Board are not, however, restricted to education. The provision of information to the board is therefore a matter to be considered in relation to the board's dealings with all public sector bodies. That wider question is of course a matter to be considered in the context of the Welsh Language Bill which is now being considered in another place. That was also a matter that we discussed when that Bill came before this House.
In our discussions in Committee on 4th February (Hansard col. 363) I explained that the Secretary of State would be able to stand behind the board in support of any request it makes for information. That will be the position in relation to education just as it will in all the other areas in which the board will be active.
The provisions of Clause 6 and the duty to provide information concentrate in any case upon those organisations which will have statutory responsibility for the provision of education. The Welsh Language Board will have an important contribution to make but will not carry that direct responsibility. That does not mean that the board will not be able to obtain the information it will require to carry out its remit effectively, but the Bill does not need to be amended in order that it may do so.
It is not necessary to place bodies under a duty to provide information to the board. The Secretary of State will, in particular, be able to make clear in his policy guidance to each of those bodies that he expects them to co-operate closely and to exchange information as appropriate. The need to ensure the close working relationship between the bodies involved in the delivery of education can, therefore, be achieved without amending the Bill in that way.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister the question that I asked in Committee. How many schools in Wales have opted out and how many are eligible to opt out? That, with great respect, is not an idle question. The whole of the Minister's speech is based on the Government's assumption that opting out is the best way of progressing. The Government are entitled to that view. We are entitled to know how successful that has been in Wales. If it has not been successful—and the Minister may remember the figures that he gave on the previous occasion—it will be wise for the Government to have second thoughts about what they are doing in Wales.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, there are seven GM schools in operation out of an eligible 2,000. As I said tonight and in Committee, all that the Bill does is to give the right to parents to establish grant-maintained
1126
schools if they so wish. I also said that the Government respect and acknowledge the distinct difference in the educational culture in Wales and in England. It may well be that the number does not rise significantly. We believe that it will, but we are going to give parents that choice. We do not believe that parents in Wales should have any less choice in this matter than parents in England. The relationship between the LEAs, schools and parents in Wales is different compared to the relationship in England. I have reiterated that point several times. We believe in that difference, but we also believe that parents in Wales must have the same right as parents in England.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his response. His reply to my noble friend speaks for itself. Obviously the Minister's response must be studied with some care—and it will be studied in the Principality.
I am sure that we were right to raise the need for an inquiry into the state of Welsh education. I deeply regret that the Government have not taken heed of the amendment; but then it is not fashionable for the Welsh Office to accept amendments from Wales. However, I am sure that in due course the Welsh education authorities will bring pressure to bear on the Government to establish an independent inquiry.
The Minister dealt in detail with subsection (3) of the amendment. We are not convinced that to privatise the schools inspectorate in Wales is in the interests of Wales. The Minister will know that there was in Wales a strong feeling that, as the inspectorate had an unmatched record of service to Wales, we should not have followed the lead of the Department for Education but should have retained the inspectorate. It had a record of maintaining Welsh educational standards, which were second to none.
As regards subsection (3) (c) the Minister missed the point. His emphasis throughout has been that the board has a special role to play in the field of Welsh education. I could quote from speeches but I shall not do so. I say merely that it is all very well for Ministers to use high-sounding language to describe the relationship between the board and the educational bodies, but to rely on a language scheme alone to resolve the difficulties which are identifiable is in our view mistaken.
I also regret that the Minister was unable even to offer that the department will further consider Amendment No. 31.
We believe that there is a gap in the Welsh Language Bill which should be addressed. We urge the noble Viscount to convey that message to Ministers at the Welsh Office. I do not believe that I can take the matter further except to say in reply to the noble Viscount that parents in Wales are demanding that their children should have access to the Welsh language and the culture which is associated with it. That is partly in order to give children a sense of identity and also because parents are concerned that the children should have access to the inheritance which they as parents were often denied.
I cannot take the matter further. I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported me on both amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Funding Agency for Schools]:
9.30 p.m.
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. 19:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert:
('( ) persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of education in voluntary schools, or in grant-maintained schools having foundation governors").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 26. When I reply to the debate, I shall respond to other noble Lords on the amendments which will be taken in this group. As noble Lords will recognise, the amendments deal primarily with representation on the Funding Agency for Schools.
In Committee I made clear—and I can only repeat —that members will be appointed by the Secretary of State for their individual skills, talents and expertise. We want to retain maximum flexibility and rule nobody out. But there is one exception and that is in respect of the voluntary sector—the Churches. The Churches retain a direct interest in schools that become grant-maintained because of their role in appointing governors to those schools. I hope the House will welcome two amendments in this group which represent the Government's response to the debate during Committee stage as prompted by the right reverend Prelate on the issue of representation on the Funding Agency for Schools. It might be helpful if I set out briefly the background for each.
As regards Amendment No. 19, the right reverend Prelate tabled an amendment at Committee stage which would have required the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of including on the Funding Agency for Schools a person or persons with experience of the voluntary sector. I accepted in principle that amendment and agreed to bring an amendment before this House which gave effect to the spirit of the right reverend Prelate's concerns. I trust that he, and the rest of the House, will agree that Amendment No. 19 does just that. It might be wise for me just to stress that this does not amount to a right on the part of the voluntary sector to nominate to a place on the funding authority.
During Committee, the right reverend Prelate also made clear that he saw it as essential that the voluntary sector should be consulted on the membership of the Funding Agency for Schools. I said that we would be bringing forward an amendment which would make clear that the Secretary of State would have to consult bodies representative of those who appoint foundation governors—both of LEA-maintained voluntary schools and of ex-voluntary GM schools.
We have considered very seriously representation from those who wanted us to name the two principal bodies—the Church of England General Synod Board of Education and the Catholic Education Service—on the face of the Bill. But we felt it wiser to go further
1128
than that and make provision for any successor body, or even just a change of name, of either of those 1 have just named. Hence Amendment No. 21 is in the form in which it appears on the Marshalled List. I should make absolutely clear to the House and give an assurance that in our view the body which fits the definition in subsection (a) is the Church of England General Synod Board of Education; and the body which fits the definition in subsection (b) is the Catholic Education Service.
The other two government amendments, Nos. 21 and 26, in this group concern SEN. I can assure the House that these amendments do not change the sense of the amendment put down by the noble Baroness, Lady David, on which the House divided during Committee, which I am sure the noble Baroness will remember. These government amendments remove the phrase "special educational needs" for the simple reason that it is not a defined expression within the context of the Bill, except to the extent that it relates to the needs of a particular child. That is an all-embracing definition which I hope the House will be content to accept. I also hope that the noble Baroness will accept my assurance that we are in no way trying to change the sense or the meaning of the original amendment that she moved in Committee. As I said, I shall deal with the other amendments tabled in the names of other noble Lords at the end of the debate. But, in the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before dealing with the amendments tabled in my name, perhaps I may briefly address some of the Minister's comments. I turn first to Amendment No. 19. I should like to be absolutely clear on the matter. Presumably it means that every time the Secretary of State needs to appoint a member to the Funding Agency for Schools he will consult the Churches. However, can we have the position made absolutely clear in the Minister's summing-up? Secondly, on behalf of my noble friend Lady David, I should like to say that Amendments Nos. 21 and 26 are welcome. On my reading, they do indeed accept the consequences of the Government's defeat in Committee.
I should like now to address my remarks to Amendments Nos. 20 and 25 which are tabled in may name. Their purpose is to ensure representation on the funding authorities for those with experience of local education authorities. There are good reasons for ensuring that, in addition to the qualifications laid down in the Bill, the funding authorities have local authority representatives on them. Such people will have understanding not just of the strategic issues of funding schools and providing sufficient school places, but also of the local issues to which elected members must necessarily address themselves when schools are open, closed or have significant changes to their character.
Under the Bill, local education authorities will continue making provision for grant-maintained schools for many years to come. At the very least, they will be providing transport and welfare benefits as well as statementing pupils with special educational needs. In those circumstances, it seems only reasonable that there is a link between the funding authorities and the

1129
local education authorities. That can best be provided by a member of the funding authority who has experience of local authority provision as a serving member of an LEA. The funding authorities are currently seen as arms of the Secretary of State. The appointment to them of people who have served in an elected capacity in a similar role can only improve the funding authorities' limited, democratic legitimacy.
Perhaps I may turn now to Amendments Nos. 23 and 27 which are tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Lockwood. Their purpose is to put a duty on funding authorities to promote equal opportunities in the exercise of. their functions. In exercising their duty to provide sufficient school places, funding authorities must have regard to the promotion of equal opportunities good practice. With schools attaining grant-maintained status in order to enlarge their intakes and to avoid re-organisation plans, they have to take into account equal opportunity provision for boys and girls in the different types of schools.
In a recent judgment in the case of Regina v. Birmingham City Council ex parte, the Equal Opportunities Commission illustrates the problem that can arise in such circumstances. In that case, Lord Justice Neill ruled that the Birmingham local education authority had to take into account grant-maintained grammar school places when ensuring that there was equal access for boys and girls to grammar school places. Presumably the funding authority will have to take account of similar considerations. Such considerations should be borne in mind regarding the racial make-up of catchment areas and equal opportunity considerations for children of all racial backgrounds.
A particular example of that is a small urban local education authority where one secondary school, a Church of England mixed school, has opted out. There is a rising Bangladeshi population in that authority which wishes to have single-sex education for its children, but not in a Church of England or Roman Catholic school. But, because it is a small LEA, the Secretary of State has already made an order under Clause 10(1) (a) that enables the funding authority to share with the local education authority the responsibility for securing sufficient school places.
The power of the funding authority is limited to that of opening a new school—that might not be justified given that the neighbouring local education authority maintained county schools could increase their rolls—or of persuading the Church of England school to increase its size. The latter solution would not have the support of the Bangladeshi Moslem parent. Resolving such issues will require the wisdom of Solomon from the funding authority and it would help if the authority had members with particular expertise and experience of such equal opportunities issues. I beg to move.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I wish briefly to underscore what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has said about Amendments Nos. 20 and 25 which are also in my name. These are amendments that make practical sense. They are not a proposal for an overwhelming LEA presence in the funding agency: merely for a strengthening of the expertise in areas
1130
every bit as relevant as those at present on the face of the Bill. Without it one of the key players in school planning may be deficient in knowledge of how much of that planning actually works on the ground. There is a tendency to undervalue skills in all these areas of education and local government. They are not all straightforward and it does help to know how the other partner in the enterprise works. In any case the Secretary of State has only to have "regard to the desirability" of including one or more such people. I hope the Government will accept the merit of these amendments.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to speak first on Amendments Nos. 20 and 25 which are drafted in a very broad and rather vague way and do not really convey the intention that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, has expressed. As I understood him, he wants to include people who have had service on local education authorities. The noble Earl said he wanted to include people with expertise in relation to those authorities. These amendments of course go much wider and would refer to, for example, all Members of Parliament who have had experience of local authorities. They cannot avoid that. Most clergy have had such experience. Most parents have had such experience. With great respect to the noble Lord and the noble Earl, I must tell them that their amendment does not convey what they want and is much too wide, I suggest, to be put in the Bill as it is.
With regard to Amendments Nos. 23 and 27 dealing with equal opportunities, we have already discussed the principle of that on Amendment No. 10. We have been debating for four and a half hours and we are still only about one-eighth of the way through the amendments. We have 100 more amendments on the groupings list for tonight and I make a plea to noble Lords opposite to confine themselves to the issues that they really feel should be decided. Above all, let us try to keep our speeches short.
Lord Addington: My Lords, at the risk of incurring the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for reopening subjects, I wish primarily to direct my remarks to the two amendments to which my name is added. Before I discuss those amendments I must say I welcome the fact that the Government have tidied up provisions that were accepted in Committee on the subject of special educational needs. That is an important area. I am glad that the Government have accepted there is a need in that area that should be met. I congratulate the Government on their acceptance of that need. That is a positive move.
The amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is reasonable. I believe the drafting of it may be suspect, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, but there must be a strong case for appointing someone with the kind of experience that has been mentioned. Time and time again the Government have stated that that part of the educational system will exist for the foreseeable future and probably for all time. Therefore it makes sense to appoint people with the kind of expertise that has been referred to.

1131
We may have discussed previously the amendments to which I have added my name, but this issue should be covered by the Bill somewhere. Equal opportunities cover such a wide range of areas and requires a wide range of expertise. Surely it should be a duty to include such expertise for the effective functioning of those bodies. I shall not reiterate the arguments that have been made previously. However, there may be cases where the needs of ethnic minorities are not understood. Expertise must be brought in. If we include provision on the face of the Bill, we guarantee that.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he said about Amendment No. 21. I understand that it is purely a tidying up exercise and that the principle that was discussed at Committee stage has been accepted.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I rise to make three points. First, following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I want to celebrate the fact that we have now reached Clause 2. In the five hours that we have been discussing Clause 1—I am a little slow at arithmetic—I have calculated if we continue at this rate and reach Clause 78 before we rise, we shall be sitting for 16 days, night and day. As it is 10th June today, I ought to give notice that I have an engagement on 26th June and may therefore have to leave before the end.
Secondly, I should like to express my warm gratitude to the Government for their Amendments Nos. 19 and 22, which fulfil the undertaking which the noble Lord gave at Committee stage. They entirely meet the point that we pressed. There has been a historic partnership between Church and state in the provision of education. We do not wish for a privileged position, but we wish that partnership to continue. The amendments give expression in structural terms to that continuing working together.
Thirdly, the fact that the Government have accepted the amendments to which I spoke at Committee stage does not mean that I do not support other amendments dealing with the same clause. I hope that the Government will accept if not the words at least the spirit of Amendment No. 20. Because the Church and state have been in partnership, I hope that such partnership will continue, with local government and national authorities as well as with the Church.
For those reasons, I wish to support at least the spirit behind Amendment No. 20. It is not that I am against Amendment No. 23 and other amendments in the group, but they raise other principles which would take us into different territory.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Renton for his intervention and particularly for his advice to the whole House that we try to speed up our proceedings this evening. I take his particular point about the wording of Amendment No. 20. Perhaps I may give a personal example. I
1132
certainly have experience of local education authorities, having served on one; but whether I have expertise in local education authorities is entirely another matter.
I shall deal first with the various questions raised in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. In answer to his first question as to whether we would consult the Churches every time, the answer is yes. I hope that he is satisfied with that assurance.
Turning then to the noble Lord's queries relating to his own amendments, Amendments Nos. 23 and 27, on promoting equal opportunities, the funding authorities will not be able to act in a way which constitutes sex discrimination. First, as employers the funding authorities would in any event be subject to the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 which prohibits sex discrimination against applicants for employment or employees. Secondly, Schedule 18 provides for it to be unlawful for the funding authorities in carrying out their functions under the Education Act to do anything which constitutes sex discrimination. We feel that that should be quite sufficient and that the noble Lord's amendments are therefore not necessary and not appropriate at this point in the Bill.
Turning to representation, particularly appointing those with expertise, experience, or whatever, of local authorities, as I think we all agree, these arguments have been well trodden paths at Committee stage. I have no doubt that any noble Lords in the House could suggest any number of individuals who would fit the criteria suggested by two of the amendments, either who have experience of LEAs or who would make a valued and valid contribution to the work of either of the funding authorities.
I have to say that we, or rather the Department of Education and my right honourable friend, would be more than happy to take delivery of those suggestions at any time. But let us remember what the funding authority's main function will be: that is, the calculation and payment of grants to grantmaintained schools. Obviously—and I wish to add this—it will always be open to the funding authorities to establish committees to look at certain discrete functions that seem appropriate. In doing so, they will be able to have on those committees any individuals with expertise as necessary, including experience of LEAs, if the matter under consideration warrants it. I certainly suspect that if each of us here made up a potential list of members, each list would be different, and each one would have a variety of different priorities.
I should just like to confirm that we believe that the provisions, as we have them, give my right honourable friend the necessary scope to appoint members with all the relevant experience in all pertinent areas and to appoint a group of individuals who will be able to take on this important task with vigour, enthusiasm and with the relevant experience and knowledge. I therefore do not consider these amendments necessary and I hope that when we come to them in due course the noble Lord will not therefore feel it necessary to press them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 21 and 22:
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("provision to meet") and insert ("providing for children with").
Page 2, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) Before appointing any member of the agency the Secretary of State shall consult—

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

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

in matters relating to the provision of education in voluntary schools, or in grant-maintained schools having foundation governors.")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) Within a year of an order being made under section 10(1) (b) below the agency shall ensure that the local education authority area named in the order is covered by a regional committee established under paragraph 8A of Schedule I to this Act after consultation with such persons and organisations as it considers appropriate.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment again deals with the question of the need to have in positions of control people with some degree of local knowledge. The amendment refers to the situation which could develop where there are 75 per cent. opted out or 75 per cent. grant-maintained schools. It seems rational to say that no central body will have the detailed local knowledge necessary to deal with those schools in large numbers in opted out areas. What is needed is some kind of regional committee. It is for that reason that we put the amendment forward. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, we agree with the thrust of the amendment. We too think that it is entirely reasonable that there should be some local and regional knowledge available and therefore we support these amendments.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am amazed by the brevity of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in moving the amendment. Perhaps I may briefly respond. I think we made it clear in the White Paper that we did not want to tie ourselves and the funding authorities down to any particular model for a regional network—that is certainly reflected in the Bill. We must have flexibility over when, where—and indeed if—a regional presence is needed.
I should just like to spell out exactly what we mean by a regional presence. Much will depend on where and at what rate the grant-maintained sector expands. There is certainly no question of there being a permanent FAS office in every LEA, or even in every stage 2 LEA or even in every stage 3 LEA. We do not believe that we need to replicate LEAs, grant-maintained schools do not need the same bureaucratic structure—they are autonomous self-governing schools and that is what they voted for.
But I think the House would agree that it might sometimes be appropriate—and I am sure the noble Baroness would agree—for an element of the FAS to be on hand locally. For instance, annual statistical
1134
returns might reveal either a shortage or a surplus of school places in a specific LEA area or more generally in an area including several LEAs. Statistical returns are not always enough to make a decision about a proposed course of action to deal with an apparent problem; options have to be weighed up and compared, disadvantages considered, cost implications balanced, and so on. In that sort of situation it would be practical for the FAS to have a local presence for say six months or even longer—even working from an office in County Hall. That is certainly the sort of arrangement I would envisage happening for stage 2 LEAs.
The approach to stage 3 LEAs would probably be slightly different. At stage 3 the LEA has no duty to secure the supply of sufficient school places; that rests solely with the FAS. The FAS also takes on a number of pupil specific functions which might—again I have to stress the word "might"—require a slightly more permanent office in any given area. But again I should say that there is no intention to have to have a local FAS officer in every particular LEA, even in every stage 3 LEA. We should like to continue to stress the need for flexibility, and would therefore prefer to say that we consider the amendments of the noble Baroness to be not only unnecessary but undesirable. I hope that the assurance that I have been able to give to the noble Baroness will be sufficient to allow her to withdraw them.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the reply, which I do not find entirely satisfactory. (I am sure that he did not expect that I would.) I certainly have no intention of dividing the House. I simply emphasise again that it is highly desirable that, whoever has ultimate control—I recognise that the schools are independent but there is further control from the Secretary of State—such control should be exercised by people who genuinely understand the local issues and the local area in which they work. Having said that, however, I wish to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Schools Funding Council for Wales]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 32, leave out ("provision to meet") and insert ("providing for children with").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [The funding authorities]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 176, line 16, after (" 46") insert (" 47").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the moment local authorities have compulsory purchase powers which can help them acquire land to establish or extend voluntary aided schools as well as county schools. The FAS's compulsory purchase powers, as set out in the Bill as presently drafted, are confined to schools that the FAS established itself or to the alteration of existing grant-maintained schools and do not extend to sites for new schools established by promoters. We have listened to representations from the Churches on this issue and have brought forward

1135
this government amendment which will extend the compulsory purchase powers of the FAS to acquire or enlarge sites of new grant-maintained schools established by promoters to parallel the LEA power. I should stress that any CPA served under this extended power would be subject to approval in the usual way by the Secretary of State in exactly the same way as compulsory purchase powers in this Bill already are. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could clarify this point. He said that this came about after consultation with the Churches. How far was that consultation with the Churches and how far was it with promoters of independent Christian schools? The second point is, how many schools are likely to come forward in this context, and where will the money come from?
Lord Henley: My Lords, on the second question, obviously I cannot speculate. On the first question from the noble Lord, my understanding is that it has been representatives from the Churches themselves. If I am not right on that point I shall certainly write to the noble Lord to let him know whether other bodies have made representations. My understanding was that it was what we refer to as the two Churches, namely, the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England, that have made representations on this matter.
Lord Judd: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he said that he cannot speculate. But earlier today the noble Baroness the Minister was specific that we must be very clear where money is to come from for any new initiative. I would hope that the House would be informed as to where this money will come from.
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously I cannot speculate on how many will come forward. As I said, in each case we need the approval of the Secretary of State. If no money is available, obviously it will not be possible. By this amendment I am not creating an open-ended commitment on the Treasury's coffers. I would be the last person to suggest doing such a thing, and the noble Lord is possibly being a little malicious. I am glad to see that possibly, at last, fiscal responsibility has finally sunk into the head of the noble Lord. I hope that such an attitude of fiscal responsibility will continue.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Funding al nursery education
The Secretary of State shall allocate resources for the funding of nursery education and the school playgroups in any area between the local authority of that area and the funding authority in proportion to the numbers of children in the area who qualify for free school meals funded by those authorities respectively.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not entirely clear whether the noble Baroness gave me the answer
1136
for which I was hoping in response to this amendment. It gave rise to some confusion because it was grouped with other amendments. Therefore I should like to ask for the opportunity to discuss this matter with the noble Baroness and officials and reserve the right to bring the amendment back at Third Reading. On that basis I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Clause 6 [Provision of information]:
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 32 to 34 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Responsibility for providing sufficient school places]:
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 4, line 42, leave out ("10") and insert ("25").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, what we are basically concerned with here, as we argued in Committee, is that 10 per cent. is a very low threshold. In fact it would not take very much for one school in a certain area to opt out and to cross the 10 per cent. threshold. It might also be that in a particular local education authority area there was one part of that area that was opt-out orientated whereas the rest of the area was not. The whole situation could be swung on that basis. Therefore we believe that 25 per cent. would be a much more appropriate and sensible ratio if this policy is to be pursued. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is speaking to the whole grouping: Amendments Nos. 37, 38, 57, 58, 165, 166, 167, 172, 173 and 278. His was a very cursory introduction. As your Lordships will have realised, Amendment No. 37 seeks to defer the point at which the funding authority will assume some responsibility for securing the provision of school places by changing from 10 per cent. to 25 per cent. the percentage of pupils required to he in grant-maintained schools before an order could be made under Clause 10.
I accept that it would be possible to choose a different percentage, but we consider that 10 per cent. is about the right point for the funding authority to assume a role in securing the provision of school places. The reason for that is that once there is a reasonable number of pupils in grant-maintained schools, it is important that mechanisms are in place to enable the system to be managed effectively. An order under Clause 10 giving joint responsibility for that task to the funding authority is not so much about taking power away from LEAs, since they retain the fundamental duty under Section 8 of the Education Act 1944 to secure the provision of sufficient school places for their area, but about giving powers to the funding authority and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in relation to the management of the grant-maintained sector.
Since the LEA does not lose the Section 8 duty at the 10 per cent. trigger point, setting the trigger point at that level does not cause any problems for it. But it does put the management of the grant-maintained sector on a surer footing, which I am sure noble Lords

1137
would agree should be efficient and effective. The existing powers of the Secretary of State are limited with regard to any overall planning and are not sufficient to cope with a rapidly expanding GM sector.
There are no guarantees that the governors of individual GM schools will co-operate to bring forward proposals to provide additional places or to remove the surplus provision where that is necessary. Indeed, in many instances it may be difficult for such co-operation to take place in the absence of an over-arching body. We cannot allow LEAs to exercise that function in respect of GM schools when parents have taken a democratic decision to remove the schools from the jurisdiction of the local education authority. Therefore nothing is gained by raising the trigger point from 10 per cent. to 25 per cent. In fact, it would only continue to disadvantage the LEA-maintained sector since it would defer the introduction of the funding authority's powers for the overall planning of the GM sector and the activation of the Secretary of State's powers to direct the funding authority to remove surplus provision in the grant-maintained sector. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Judd, not to press the amendment or, if he should, that it should be rejected.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I believe that history will be on our side and will demonstrate the wisdom of the amendment, but I do not see that there is much point in pursuing it tonight. I believe the Minister is wrong; I believe that we are right. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Responsibility for providing sufficient school places]:
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Primacy of child's welfare
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and of the funding authorities, local education authorities, and the governing bodies of grant maintained and voluntary schools in the exercise of functions conferred upon them by or under this or any other enactment to ensure in any decision concerning a child that the welfare of the child shall be a primary consideration.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an amendment which we would like to have included on the face of the Bill simply to stress what must seem obvious to most Members of this House; that is, a determination to assert that the welfare of the child shall always be the primary consideration and that it will not be unnecessarily restricted by financial considerations. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it may surprise your Lordships to hear me say that this is an amendment which deserves some consideration from the Government. I have been looking at the Education Act 1944 and I cannot see anything equivalent to Amendment No. 40 in that Act. I do not have all the education Acts with which we have dealt during the
1138
past 14 years since I became a Member of your Lordships' House, but I do not remember that matter being specifically stated.
The measure needs to be stated and no harm can be done by doing so. It may be slightly over-zealous. However, it would not be a bad thing for the Secretary of State and others mentioned in the amendment to be reminded that the welfare of the child shall be "a primary consideration"; it is "a" factor, not necessarily the dominant one in every case. The collective welfare of all the children in a school may be important, but something on the lines of the amendment may not be a bad thing. I await with interest what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to say that I support the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I rise to say that in the child support Act we spent a long time discussing a similar amendment. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor finally generously agreed to include it. It has made that Act more acceptable than it would otherwise have been.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly address Amendment No. 116A, which is grouped with Amendment No. 40. It is a probing amendment for local education and child protection resources.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Henley, gave an assurance at an earlier stage of the Bill that grant-maintained schools would have to comply with the relevant sections of the Children Act he dealt with only one side of our concern. There are cases in which local education authorities contend that they have no responsibility in respect of grant-maintained schools. One example is Birmingham, which has withdrawn from this sector the services of its educational welfare officer—a most retrograde step in the field of child protection that I fear may become part of a broader national trend. Though it is a probing amendment, we seek reassurance, and preferably guidance, on measures that may be taken to deal with this issue.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the education system aims to provide for the educational needs of all children. It is not appropriate for the Bill to extend the role of the education system to embrace all aspects of children's welfare. Children's welfare is already fully covered by the provisions of the Children Act which deals with parental responsibility, care orders, fostering etc. The education service, and the current Bill, is predominantly concerned with meeting children's educational needs. The Education Bill includes provisions to ensure that parents play an active part in choices about children's education. This autumn the department will be issuing a revised and updated Parent's Charter setting out the many ways in which parents can work as active partners with schools to get the best education for their children. In that sense we are very concerned about meeting children's needs.
The Government are committed to ensuring that parents have all the information they want and need about their children's education. This includes the

1139
right to choose the appropriate school and, beyond 16, to choose the best course of education or training at school or college. Where a child has special educational needs the child has a right to education to meet those needs, and the current Bill contains important changes which will benefit such children and their parents. Improvements are being made in the way appeals are made. Appeal committees on admission and expulsion cases will include independent members as well as those chosen by the local council or governors. This will ensure that parents get a fair and independent hearing of their child's case. Parents also have the right to complain if they believe that their child is not being taught the national curriculum as required. They can ask for the school's support in querying examination results which seem not to do justice to their child's ability. These rights all centre on the best interests of the child.
Given what is already in place, I believe that these amendments are inappropriate. I hope therefore that in due course the noble Baronesses will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
I should like to turn briefly to Amendment No. 116A. In moving it, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said that it was a probing amendment. We also believe this amendment to be unnecessary. Heads of grant-maintained schools have already been notified that the Secretary of State intends by order to make grant-maintained schools subject to the provisions of Sections 27 and 47 of the Children Act. These sections require other agencies, including local education authorities, to co-operate with local authorities in the exercise of their child protection functions. When the order is made we shall write again to heads of GM schools. Detailed guidance on the implementation of child protection procedures is given in Working Together under the Children Act 1989 and DFE Circular 4/88 Working together for the protection of children from abuse: procedures within the education service of July 1988. We shall remind heads that this guidance is available when we write to them.
I hope that that assurance and explanation will persuade the noble Lord that his amendment is unnecessary.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I should like to press for the inclusion in the Bill of a reference to the welfare of the child.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should like to remind the noble Baroness that we are at Report stage. The general convention at this stage is that no one other than the mover of the amendment should speak after the Minister has responded unless someone wishes to ask a question for elucidation.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I apologise. I was about to ask a question but I came to it in a rather convoluted way. I shall sit down.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply, but I believe he has slightly misunderstood what the amendment is about. It is not a matter of looking at the welfare of the child in all its aspects; it is the welfare of the child in relation
1140
to educational decisions. As I read it, it means that no administrative or other consideration shall stand in the way of a decision being made in the best interests of the child. Certainly, it would be out of place to have here anything dealing with the social security side of it. The educational decisions should be made in a way which reflects first and foremost what is good for the child. Other considerations should not come into it.
In view of the fact that there has been, rather to my surprise, support all round the House for the amendment, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would enable us between now and Third Reading to have a word about this and then the abortive question of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, could be raised. If that were possible, I would be glad to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend always leaves her door open and is always prepared to meet whomsoever chooses to come to see her on these matters. I am sure that my noble friend would be quite prepared to talk to the noble Baroness. But obviously I can give no guarantees about the result of any such talks.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithful!Baroness Faithful! moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Exclusion from school
The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) specify conditions to ensure that no pupil is permanently excluded from school except as a last resort.

(b) establish a tribunal, independent of the school governing body and local education authority, to which any pupil or his parent can appeal against a permanent exclusion.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. I seek information in the particularly difficult and sensitive area of exclusions from school. This new clause seeks to empower the Secretary of State to regulate exclusions from school with a view to limiting the number excluded. It allows him to set criteria for an exclusion. At present, and under the new arrangements in the Bill, no grounds are specified in law which have to be satisfied before a pupil can be excluded. That is clearly unsatisfactory.
An exclusion is a very serious blot on an educational career and pupils should be entitled to the protection of statutory criteria. Moreover, there is now evidence from the Department for Education and others to show that the numbers of exclusions have recently increased. Some have suggested that the dual pressures of school managed budgets and league tables have made schools reluctant to keep a child who is identified as a troublemaker since he is likely to be expensive and under-achieving.
I find the whole question of exclusion from school very difficult. Perhaps I may give a brief example. A student teacher walking down the corridor of a school heard the most terrible noise coming from a classroom. He walked in to find bottles of ink and books flying across the room. He strode to the front and yelled. There was then perfect silence. He asked where the teacher was. The teacher was so frightened

1141
that she was hidden in a cupboard. Who is at fault—the teacher or the child? In this case one would think that it was the teacher. In fact she was a very good teacher but something went wrong.
What exactly are the conditions of an exclusion. They vary from child to child and from teacher to teacher. Who will decide what are to be the conditions of exclusions. Some guidance should be given. I also believe that there should be an appeal to a tribunal, particularly involving the parents if a child is excluded. If we are to place so much emphasis on non-exclusion from school, we must define exactly the grounds for excluding a child from school. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, while I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, I think it is a dangerous suggestion because one would have to have a comprehensive list. The little horrors who threw the ink-pots would quickly think of something else to do.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is very difficult to catch the tide. One needs to be very careful of introducing mitigation into the classroom. This proposal is a recipe for that.
I recognise that my noble friend has a serious concern. Had your Lordships not changed tempo so remarkably after dinner from previously I would have been able to propose, as regards Amendment No. 34, an amendment which would have done something to avoid this difficulty by ensuring that the views of pupils and parents on these occasions were properly heard. I shall inquire later whether I am allowed to bring that to your Lordships at Third Reading. In the meantime I merely leave the echo and the thought in your Lordships' minds.
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously I cannot hide behind the Dispatch Box if my noble friend wishes to throw ink at me at this stage; but I hope that I can respond to her in a manner which she finds satisfactory.
The Government's position on exclusions is well known. Exclusion of a pupil, either temporarily or permanently, is a very serious step for any school to take. It is a disciplinary measure which should be used sparingly and always as a last resort. We said so in our discussion paper on exclusions issued last November. To that extent I certainly concur with the motives which lie behind the first part of the noble Baroness's amendment. I appreciate that her amendment is very much a drafting amendment.
I presume that we are speaking to Amendment No. 41. I appreciate that in the group there are both Amendments Nos. 41 and 41A. I can see only one distinction between the two and that is the word "and" joining the two subsections (a) and (b) in Amendment No. 41A. It is not there in Amendment No. 41. I presume that that does not make any difference.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, no, it is just Amendment No. 41.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I understand, therefore, that we are speaking just to Amendment No. 41. As I said, the exclusion of a pupil is one of the most difficult
1142
decisions facing a head. He must on the one hand consider the needs—and sometimes even the physical safety of other pupils—and on the other, have some regard for the consequences of his action on the excluded pupil, not least in terms of that pupil's continuity of learning.
I believe we should tread carefully here. Head teachers will not find it helpful to have their hands tied when confronting challenges to their authority. It is one thing to point out—as we have already done and will do again in future guidance—that exclusion should be used sparingly and always as a last resort. It is quite another to lay down rigid rules as to the precise circumstances in which a head can exclude a child. We cannot possibly hope to cover every eventuality, nor reflect the particular dimensions which each individual case will have.
We must at the end of the day leave the responsibility with head teachers in the knowledge that their decisions are subject to review by their governing bodies. That will be the LEAs in county-controlled and maintained special schools and for all schools with separately constituted appeals committees.
We shall also be considering whether there are ways in which existing appeals procedures can be made more accessible to parents. We would obviously want to speed up those procedures so that the arrangements to secure a suitable education of a pupil, whether by reinstatement, admission to another school or the provision of education otherwise, can be made as soon as possible. To that end we have already announced our intention to set limits to the exclusion process generally and to offer further guidance on the conduct and procedures for appeal against exclusions. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will consider withdrawing her amendment on the understanding that as regards her concerns on future guidance, we shall be responding to them for the LEAs and for the individual schools.
Perhaps I may also take the opportunity at this stage of setting the record straight on behalf of my noble friend. In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, in debate on 4th May, my noble friend made reference to this year's comparative tables of school performance. The tables for the first time did include details of the rates of unauthorised absence at individual schools. However, they will not include exclusion data. We did raise the possibility of publishing exclusion rates in future tables in our discussion paper on exclusions issued last November.
The position is, however, far from clear-cut. As the discussion paper indicated, there are valid arguments for and against publication. On the one hand, a low number of exclusions could be seen as evidence that behaviour and discipline are good. On the other hand, publication could lead to an increase in instances where parents are encouraged voluntarily to withdraw their children from school rather than going through the formal exclusion processes. Publication of exclusion data may also serve to inhibit teachers from recommending exclusion where it is, in fact, an appropriate response to a particular individual disciplinary problem.

1143
We are still considering responses on these points and I apologise for any confusion that may have been caused by my noble friend's remarks in Committee. Although the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, is not in the Chamber at present, I hope that it will have been of some use to have stated that and to have set the record straight. I hope that those points will be drawn to the attention of the noble Lord in due course.
I hope that my earlier explanation to my noble friend will be sufficient and that she will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, the question of exclusions from schools presents a difficulty, particularly in the light of Amendment No. 40 which states that,
"the welfare of the child shall be a primary consideration".
A particular child's needs having been assessed, it may well be that he or she could be excluded from school so long as there was an alternative programme. In the case of another child, however, it might be better for the welfare of that child if he or she were to remain in school. This is a sensitive and difficult area. I should like to discuss the matter with my noble friend the Minister before the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41A not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Clause 11 [Direction to admit child to specified school]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 5, line 22, 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 Amendment No. 42, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 43, 44, 51 and 52. The amendments affect Clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill which deal with the procedure to be followed by an appropriate authority when a child has been either expelled from, or refused admission to, every school providing suitable education within a reasonable distance of his home, and the authority nevertheless wishes the child to receive education in that area at a school rather than receiving education otherwise than in school, which could perhaps more speedily be called EOTIS.
Clause 11 enables the appropriate authority to direct a school that does provide such an education and that has not excluded the child permanently to grant him admission, contrary to its wishes. Clause 12 provides the process of consultation which must precede the making of a direction and an appeal against it to the Secretary of State. Parents are included in the consultation, but excluded from the appeal process.
The purpose of the amendments is twofold. First, it is to assist schools faced with a direction to admit pupils they do not feel able to cope with—or did not feel able to cope with before they received the direction—and, secondly, to fill the gap left by the
1144
welcome end of indefinite exclusions by providing something tougher than an ordinary temporary exclusion but stopping short of permanent exclusion.
The second amendment in the group, Amendment No. 43, creates an opportunity—not a duty, but an opportunity—for the authority to include in a direction the terms of an agreement or undertakings formulated under a new clause after Clause 12 set out in Amendment No. 52. The new clause would permit by subsection (1) a governing body, during the consultative process provided in Clause 12, to propose that admission under a direction should be made conditional on an agreement or conditions undertaken by the child and/or his parents.
The clause provides in subsection (2) that such a proposal must be framed after consultation with the head teacher, the pupil and the pupil's parents. Subsection (3) (a) provides that the school, and not just the parents or pupil, is bound by its part in an agreement or undertaking.
Subsection (3) (b) and (c) provide that failure by the parent to honour the agreement or fulfil the conditions is made sufficient reason to refuse admission or, if the child has already been admitted, to exclude permanently. The latter step could be taken only after an interval for discussions between the school and the parent.
Subsection (3) (d) provides that on the first two occasions upon which a pupil is in breach of an agreement or undertaking the school may exclude him for not more than a week. If the pupil fails to remedy the situation within that time, or commits a third offence of a like nature, that will result automatically in permanent exclusion.
Those provisions may be highly desirable where the school's reason for an earlier refusal to admit arose not from pressure of numbers, which was the example given in Committee by my noble friend, but from the known reasons for his expulsion from another or other schools, which may be horrendous. The hope must be that they might suffice to reconcile a school to the admission. Without such a reconciliation, the direction is almost bound to fail, at great cost to the school and the pupil and probably the parents as well. The Bill as drafted appears to contain nothing to try to achieve that reconciliation.
The process that I have so far described would be triggered only by the authority's consultation on a proposal to make a direction. That would, in turn, arise only when a child would otherwise be barred from every suitable school within reach. That, one hopes, will be rare.
This group of amendments addresses also a much more familiar problem. I bring your Lordships back now to the first amendment in the group (Amendment No. 42). It would provide, in addition, an opportunity for a school to request that an order be made in regard to a child already registered as one of its pupils, not under a direction under the Bill but in the ordinary way. That opportunity would be available to a school which had exhausted its disciplinary resources without success and which would otherwise have to resort to permanent exclusion, which is what we want to avoid.
Your Lordships may think that these proposals are too formal for the sort of harum-scarum ne'er-do-well likely to have exhausted the patience of his teachers. But I ask your Lordships to think again. The very formality itself has an advantage. First, the involvement of the authority, sitting as it does above the whole panoply of the school's own disciplinary system, underlines to the pupil and—I emphasise—to the parent the gravity of the situation.
Secondly, the issuing of the direction—a formal instrument—containing details of the conditions upon which alone the pupil will be able to stay at his school not only further emphasises the gravity of the situation; it also provides a clear statement of what has to be done to rescue a desperate situation and states the consequences that would follow automatically a failure to honour the undertaking.
The third advantage would be the automatic nature of the permanent exclusion, which we used to call expulsion, as the result of a third offence disposing, as it would, of the all too common expectation of all pupils and some parents, that, "It'll never happen to me".
The two remaining amendments in the group (Amendments Nos. 44 and 51) affect Clause 12. They are necessary, first, to ensure that directions made at the request of schools and relating to pupils already registered there are not subject to the same elaborate rounds of warning and consultation appropriate to directions initiated by the authority; and, secondly, to ensure that where a direction is made at the request of a school, the parents receive a copy, without which it is largely pointless.
The first of the amendments (Amendment No. 44) therefore has the effect of restricting the application of the main provisions of Clause 12. There is a workable scheme that fills two holes in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I support the principle of the amendments, because I believe that one of the only successful methods of dealing with very difficult children often proves to be the principle of contract: that they enter into a clear, simple and well understood contract with benefits and burdens. I think that I need say no more.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I wish to deal first with the amendments with which my noble friend dealt last —Nos. 42, 44 and 51—but I am not entirely clear about what my noble friend wishes to achieve through them. As I understand the amendments, he would like a school to be able to request the LEA or the FAS as appropriate to direct another school to admit a child. There would be no need for a school to request a direction to be served on itself.
But in my view this would be a recipe for division at a local level. The terms of the amendments would appear to enable, at stage 2 for example, an LEA-maintained school to request its LEA to direct a neighbouring GM school to admit a pupil without consulting it beforehand. There would be no need for the pupil in question to have been excluded from or refused admission to all schools in the area.
We cannot accept these amendments. We want to hold to the principle that the appropriate authority is
1146
best placed to decide when a direction may be necessary; and that before deciding which school to direct it should be required to consult the parents of the child in question and the governors of the school it initially has in mind to direct.
In turning to Amendments Nos. 43 and 52 I should like to make the Government's position clear at the outset. The Government support the notion of non-binding agreements between schools and parents. But we do not want these to become an integral part of admission or exclusion procedures. That is why I wish to resist these amendments, which would allow schools to set conditions before they agreed to admit a child under a Clause 11 direction.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that we expect such directions to be very rare. The directing authority will he required to consult the school and the parents before issuing one. Moreover, a school which had been directed to admit a child would subsequently be able to exclude that child if his or her behaviour warranted such a drastic step. Permanent exclusion of a pupil is a serious matter. Detailed procedures have been laid down in law to ensure that permanent exclusions are used only as a last resort when absolutely necessary.
Perhaps I may explain the Government's policy on home-school agreements to help the House to understand why I intend to resist these amendments. The Government are keen to see schools actively involving parents and seeking their understanding and support for school policies. This helps to create the conditions under which schools can run efficiently, teachers can teach and pupils can receive a good education. There are many ways schools can involve parents in supporting their policies; ideas can be set out in a prospectus, presented in meetings of groups of parents or discussed with individuals. When schools choose to share information with parents, all benefit from better mutual understanding.
Informal home-school agreements are one method which some schools have tried for gaining parental support for their policies and some have sought to link this with their admissions policies. We do not feel that the contractual approach is the right one. It carries too many risks of confrontation and allows schools too much scope to exclude pupils. This could be self-defeating, making relations between parents and staff stiff and adversarial rather than promoting constructive partnership. Voluntary partnerships entered into with commitment on all sides are preferable to compulsory contracts entered into because they are required.
An approach which discusses parents' responsibilities to their children as much as to their children's school is preferred to compulsory contracts. The concept of partnership will be emphasised in the revised Parent's Charter, which we intend to re launch in the autumn.
Partnership between parents and schools need not be as formalised as a contract implies. What is important is that schools establish an effective two-way communication relating both to individual pupils and their families and to the school as a whole; that the school is made to appear accessible to

1147
parents; that teachers identify and encourage ways in which pupils can support their children's learning; and that the staff of the school create a sense of identity, shared purpose and belonging through a range of opportunities to become involved in the life and work of the school. There is no one possible format for achieving this kind of partnership. It will vary with local circumstances, the character of the school and the ages of the children. Schools and parents will wish to find the best ways of achieving this in their own communities. This is, as it should be, a matter for individual schools to decide; certainly it is not a matter for legislation. I hope that for those reasons my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for his support and for reminding me that the centre of this matter is aptly described as a contract. I am increasingly inclined to address the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, as my noble friend, despite where he sits, because of his identity of view on these issues.
I do not understand my noble friend's response to the first amendments to which he replied. He said that he did not understand what it was that I was after. Given that I sent him not only a copy of the amendments but also every word that I uttered to your Lordships a few moments ago, I should have thought that the meaning was fairly clear because your Lordships were not looking puzzled.
It may well be—and it usually is the case—that my drafting has not achieved the intended effect. However, I was hoping that my noble friend would address the intention rather than the effect. I gather from what he said thereafter that he is opposed to the whole caboodle. While I dissent from nothing that my noble friend said about voluntary contracts, partnerships and parents, children and staff co-operating to produce an effective school, all of which could have come straight from the report that I signed four years ago, I must repeat that I believe there is a lacuna. When the voluntary process has been exhausted and one is faced with the possibility of expulsion, there should be an alternative. That alternative should be short of litigation but it should be sufficiently formal to attract the attention and respect of the people subject to it.
The Bill does not offer that. In fact, it offers a breakdown of trust at a stage where a school says, "We cannot cope with this pupil. He must not come again." The appropriate authority then tries to persuade the school to accept him. The school still refuses, because if it did not there would be no need for a direction. Having refused, the school then receives a piece of paper which says that the school must accept that pupil. However, my noble friend tells us that the school can sack the pupil as soon as he misbehaves. I think that that is strange and not as good a process as that which I proposed. However, I shall not drag on the discussion further. I should like to take time to think again about the matter before the last stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Procedure for giving direction]:
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 6, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 19.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments No. 47, 48 and 50. These are straightforward technical amendments which I hope will not detain us long.
Amendments Nos. 45, 47 and 50 will require an LEA which proposes to direct a GM school to admit a child to consult and inform the FAS at every stage of the process, even if the GM school is located in an area which is at Stage 1. We believe that this would be sensible given that the FAS will be responsible for funding every GM school.
Amendment No. 48 clarifies an important point. Clause 12 gives the governors of a school, and its maintaining authority, the right to refer a proposed direction to the Secretary of State. We want to make it absolutely clear in the legislation that where the matter is referred to the Secretary of State the directing authority may not proceed with the direction until the Secretary of State has made a decision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 6, line 26, after ("body") insert ("and head teacher of the school")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 49, 233, 238 and 241 to 244. These amendments give effect to our promise in Committee to consider further the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Brigstocke to ensure that head teachers receive separate, independent notification of various decisions or reports. We have great sympathy with her proposals and, in the light of commitments made then, we now propose to amend the Bill accordingly. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 47 to 50:
Page 6, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 28.
Page 6, line 29, at end insert:
("and shall not give the direction until the period for referring the matter to the Secretary of State has expired and, if it is so referred, the Secretary of State has made his determination").
Page 6, line 39, after ("the") insert ("governing body and head teacher of the").
Page 6, line 40, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 41.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Procedure for preparing agreed syllabus of religious education]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 7, line 3, leave out ("has been made in respect or) and insert ("applies to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 53 I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 54, 195, 195A and 196. The above five amendments are purely technical. Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 to Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill clarify that separate representation of grant-maintained schools on local religious education bodies will not apply until the date when an order transferring responsibility to the Funding Agency for Schools comes into effect.
Amendments Nos. 195 and 196 remove references to changes in the religious character of schools being adopted under Clause 96. That recognises that clauses 94 to 96 together make clear that changes of religious character, with which Clause 136 is concerned, can only be made by the approval of the Secretary of State, and not by adoption by the funding agency.
Amendment No. 195A corrects an omission in Clause 136. It ensures that any grant-maintained school which changes its character to become a denominational school, but which is providing religious education according to the local agreed syllabus for some pupils at the request of parents, should inform the local Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education of that fact. This brings such schools into line with other denominational grant-maintained schools. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Standing advisory councils on religious education]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 8, line 2, leave out ("has been made in respect of') and insert ("applies to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles moved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Guidelines for school meals
The Secretary of State shall issue guidelines to education authorities and governors of grant-maintained schools on nationally agreed nutritional standards for school meals.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, there are three purposes for tabling the amendment. First, I do so in support of the arguments that I put forward, which were supported by other noble Lords, in an amendment during Committee stage. I pointed out then the need for guidelines for school meals throughout the country. A recent report produced by the Henley Centre (details of which were published in The Times on 3rd June) set out what were termed "children's favourite food" which ended up being entitled, "A Nation of Snack-eaters". I think that that points to the fact that some kind of guideline is necessary for school meals as schools are the one place where state responsibility can in fact be implemented.
In that list, interestingly enough, the first three favourites of children were chocolate, chicken and pizzas, which apparently amounted in sales value to somewhere near £1 billion a year. However, fruit which is considered one of the better nutritional elements for children was way down the list in seventh place. That, too, supports the need for some kind of guideline.
Secondly, at the end of Committee when debating the subject of the amendment, my noble friend Lord Henley said that there was the possibility of looking
1150
into whether or not there should be guidelines. I should just like to express my gratitude to my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lady Cumberlege who took considerable trouble in answering correspondence on the matter.
I understand from correspondence with my noble friend Lady Cumberlege that the Government have a responsibility under the White Paper The Health of the Nation to set out under the work of the nutritional task force guidelines for all catering outlets, which includes schools. Although I quite understand that there is an obligation on the Government, I have never known that a White Paper in fact imposes a strict legal obligation on any department to produce what it says it will do in such a document. I have a certain anxiety there.
A further aspect of this point is that the task force will set out ways to disseminate the information and also ways to monitor the guidelines which the nutritional task force may produce. But the fact of the matter is that from the point of view of someone pressing this amendment it is not entirely satisfactory when one does not know how the information is to be disseminated or whether it will definitely be made available to all LEAs and to governing bodies of grant-maintained schools and how the guidelines will be implemented and monitored. The point of tabling this amendment is to ask my noble friend the Minister whether there can be some assurance that the Department for Education will at least keep in constant touch with the Department of Health in this regard and will make every effort to encourage head teachers of all types of schools coming within the aegis of the department to make these guidelines available; to monitor them and to implement them.
I return to my point about the Henley Centre report. The report clearly states that what children are eating outside schools does not provide a sound basis for good health in later life. While children attend school it is surely incumbent upon government and local authorities to ensure that children not only receive suitable moral and intellectual education but also to look after their physical interests. I consider that school meals come within that aegis. I beg to move
Earl Russell: My Lords, a year ago 21 per cent. of children in England and 23 per cent. of children in Scotland were dependent on income support. I believe this year's figures have just been published. I am not yet up to date with them but I doubt whether they have decreased. In these circumstances school meals are quite an important part of the diet of a large number of children.
I was not intending—since my noble kinsman is not at present in the Chamber I cannot do so anyway—to enter into a debate about income support which I am sure both of us now can conduct in our sleep. However, I think my noble kinsman would agree that maintaining an adequate diet on income support is not easy. In these circumstances school meals need attention and there has to be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said, some monitoring of local authorities' performance.

1151
Local authorities of course are not flush with money at the moment and without entering into another argument, which again I am sure we could all conduct in our sleep, I do not think the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will maintain that money is easy for them. I think therefore that some monitoring is necessary or else there will be malnutrition and that in the end is rather more expensive. I do not think the Treasury would like it any more than I would.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, my interest in this topic encompasses most of the points already made about the importance of sound nutrition to children's general health, but it also extends to the very significant areas in school terms of behaviour and intelligence. I believe there is increasingly persuasive evidence linking diet to both these areas. I recognise this is not yet part of mainstream medical thinking. The reasons for this are several and I have elaborated on them in previous debates on crime and on food policy. They have much to do with the diffuse disciplines and journals in which research has been published and not a little to do with current fashions and funding in medical science.
To mention one only of the many studies that have recently been done in this field, certain improvements in diet were carried out over a four year period in all the schools in New York City involving about 800,000 children, and the precise timing of these changes coincided with a highly significant rise in academic attainment scores vis-àvis the other school areas in the United States. Anecdotal reports suggested that behaviour had improved as well. If so, this is not surprising as behaviour and intelligence are both to some degree a product of the micro-nutrients that affect brain chemistry. If, as I believe, proper nutrition can make this kind of difference, then I think we would be foolish not to do all we can to promote it in schools. I think this amendment is a good way to start.
Lord Judd: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to congratulate those who brought the amendment forward. It seems to me that if we take the future of our children seriously this is a crucially important subject. However, I am sure that those who put the amendment forward would be the first to say that it is not merely a matter of guidelines but also of ensuring that the resources are available in order to be certain that the guidelines can be applied effectively.
All of us, on all sides of the House, must be concerned by any information—and there is such information—that malnutrition is evident among some youngsters in our own society today. That is unthinkable as we move towards the next century. I hope that the Government will take the amendment very seriously and see it through.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I support the amendment, but perhaps the Minister could comment on this point. I ought to know the answer but it has slipped my mind for the moment.
There used to be people called school meals organisers, school meals advisers or school meals inspectors. Their job was not only the physical
1152
organising of meals; they also had special expertise in and made recommendations as to the dietary aspect of school meals. Every local education authority used to have at least one and often several of these people. I wonder why they have disappeared, if they have disappeared. Perhaps the Minister can say something about that. They were some of the most important people in the advisory service of local education authorities.
There may have been an optional financial system which the Government recommended to LEAs, and LEAs then decided as a cost-cutting exercise to abolish them, but such people were a key factor in the issue which this amendment addresses. I hope that if they have all disappeared some action can be taken to have them restored.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, The Health of the Nation White Paper includes a commitment to improve catering, including school catering, through the promotion of voluntary guidelines on healthy practice for various groups in the population, including school children.
As my noble friend has already said, a nutrition task force has been established to draw up a programme of action to implement the nutritional aspects of the health strategy. Government departments—including the Department for Education—catering groups and the School Meals Campaign are represented on the task force or its working groups, which include a catering working group.
The catering working group is testing the guidelines on healthy eating in schools published last year by the Caroline Walker Trust in a pilot scheme in Kensington and Chelsea. As my noble friend knows, other local authorities, such as Essex and Berkshire which are also using the guidelines, will also be studied. The experience of other local authorities working with different healthy eating policies will also be examined.
I have no doubt that the task force will succeed in developing some voluntary guidelines on healthy eating, and these will promote further helpful debate about the content of school meals. However, I must emphasise that responsibility for school matters rest with local education authorities and increasingly the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools. It is for them to decide what service to provide taking into account local needs and priorities.
As to concern that guidelines on healthy eating will not get through to local education authorities and schools unless promulgated by the Secretary of State, I do not think that there need be any serious worries on that score. The department informed schools of the Caroline Walker Trust guidelines in our Schools Update magazine, a publication which goes to every school. The trust itself also gave considerable publicity to its own work. I have every confidence that further information about healthy eating options and initiatives arising from the work of the task force and its catering group will receive widespread publicity without the statutory underpinning which this amendment would impose.
I can assure my noble friend that if guidelines are produced for schools they will be sent to all

1153
maintained schools. They will not be imposed on schools because it is not a legal requirement that they adopt them. The guidelines will go to all schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, asked me about the school meals organisers. So far as I know they exist. They certainly exist in my own local authority where school meals are provided. However, only 42 per cent. of the school population now takes school meals.
I also have to make the point that only one in four meals that a child eats is a school meal. It has only 190 days in school, with 175 days out of school. So I think my noble friend would probably agree with me that in addition to raising awareness of the importance of healthy eating in schools, information needs to be more widely disseminated because families need to be aware of its importance.
I have sympathy with the problem, I hope that my noble friend will be patient, I am sure that she will press myself, my department and the Department of Health to make sure that the fruit of the work of the task force will find its way as good advice into our schools.
On a final note, I am impressed with how much is going on in the schools. I know from a couple of schools where I have been a governor until recently that the healthy eating aspects of the national curriculum are translated into the dining room so that what children learn about healthy eating in the classroom is being managed as a programme when they come to choose food in the dining room. When that is well managed, it goes a long way towards promoting healthy eating among young children.
11 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder whether she would care to say a little more in answer to me. I appreciate that she took the point; but what she is saying, as I understand it, is that there has been such a reduction in the number of school meals taken that school meals advisers are not necessary. She shakes her head. The point I was going to make was that it does not matter how few children take the meals. I think she said 42 per cent., but even if it went lower than that, there would still be a need, in my view, for an adviser. We are talking about the nutritional aspect of school meals.
The fact that there has been a reduction in itself is not sufficient reason for saying that there ought to be no school meals organisers, advisers or inspectors. Am I making myself clear? I should like the Minister to comment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I did not say that the numbers were reduced because only 42 per cent. of children were taking school meals. What I said was that with the school meals service there are school meals organisers. That is what they were called in my local authority; they have different names in different authorities. School meals are organised in a different way in different local authorities. The advisers are heavily involved in promoting school meals, trying to persuade parents of the benefits of children taking
1154
school meals, rather than coming into school, often with unsatisfactory packed lunch boxes. I know that through their school meals organisers local authorities are doing a great deal to try to persuade parents that it might be even more expensive to send children either via the corner shop or with a packed lunch box, when there is a more cost effective and more nutritional option to take school meals. But so far as I know, school meals organisers are alive and working well in local authorities.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I should like to emphasise the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. For a good many children who have free school meals it is very often the only proper meal they have during the day. So any percentage calculation is, to my mind, irrelevant to the nutritional value that a child receives from a school meal in those circumstances.
The fact that children are given food of nutritional value at school I believe creates a precedent and a taste for certain types of food with which they will carry on when they go home. So the relationship between what they have at school and what they have outside is relevant. Schools have a great opportunity to set a standard of eating which will be of benefit to the children's health at school and later in life.
Of course, I understand the argument put forward by my noble friend concerning the responsibility of the Department of Education. As I understand it, from the correspondence and what she said, the Department of Health is responsible for setting out the guidelines. However, I still believe that there is a lack of connection between the guidelines and what ends up on the table for the child to eat at school. As my noble friend indicated, many Members of your Lordships' House will follow the matter closely and if schools are not monitored, I hope that those noble Lords who have been kind enough to support the amendment during this short debate will monitor what is happening in the schools as a result of the work of the nutritional task force. I hope they will monitor how the information is to be disseminated and how the schools are improving the provision of school meals for children. This seems a small matter in some ways, but it is of vital importance for the health of the nation. However, on the basis of what has been said, I wish to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Miscellaneous functions relating to grant-maintained schools]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 8, line 43, at end insert:
(section 68 (making and varying joint schemes)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 56 is coupled with Amendments Nos. 144 to 147, 178 to 191, 215, 229, 239, 240 and 275. This large group includes amendments all of which are relevant to schools which enter into a joint scheme under Clauses 67 and 68 or which form or join a group under Chapter IX.
Government Amendments Nos. 56 and 275 are consequential on those passed in Committee to provide for associations of grant-maintained schools

1155
under joint schemes approved by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 56 adds the approval of schemes and variations to schemes and the power to direct variations to the list of functions that the Secretary of State can, by order, transfer to the funding authority. Amendment No. 275 is a technical amendment which makes provision in respect of orders made by the funding authority under Section 68. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 144, 146, 145 and 147.
Clauses 67 and 68 were introduced as new clauses during Committee stage without prior consultation. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and I questioned various aspects of the employment consequences of these new clauses. The Minister replied (her words are significant):
"it is inconceivable that the interests of an employee would be sacrificed; they would be looked after".
These amendments now seek to test four specific aspects of that general commitment.
First, the School Teachers' Review Body was established under the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991, and the recommendations of that review body are 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 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. The House is entitled to know whether the drafting of Clause 67(5), if unamended, means 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. We need clarification on that point. If Section 3 does apply, then it would appear to require the joint committee to consult only those teachers employed by it, rather than all the teachers in the constituent schools.
It should be recognised that the members of the joint committee are representative of the constituent schools. But there would also be considerations of cost involved, and those members might be tempted to see teachers employed by the joint committee as second-class. It would be helpful if the House could know the Government's intention.
Secondly, for each grant-maintained school, paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 6 requires the articles of government to:
"include provision as to the delegation of such functions by those on whom they are imposed or conferred".
On this side of the House 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 of each member of staff? It would clearly be unreasonable for an employee to be left in any
1156
doubt as to whom she or he is responsible. Again, it would be helpful if the House could know the Government's intention.
Thirdly, for each grant-maintained school, paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 requires the articles of government to include provision as to disciplinary rules and procedures, procedures for the redress of grievances and procedures in the case of a contemplated dismissal. The Minister has already said that mechanisms in respect of grievances:
"will clearly form part of the regulations controlling the way the federation would work".
Since Clause 67 appears to contain no reference to regulations, it would be helpful to have clarification as to whether such grievance machinery would 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 grievance procedures, it would also be helpful if the Minister could give similar assurances on the other points covered by paragraph 3 of Schedule 6.
Finally and most importantly, the provisions of Clause 67 appear to permit the governing body of a grant-maintained school to contractualise part of its necessary functions, even including the employment of teachers, 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. Does the Minister 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 through which to escape it? I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, this is a bewildering group of amendments. Some of these amendments, especially those moved by the Government, help on the question of governing bodies where schools are being clustered or grouped. I want to express gratitude in general terms for what the Government have provided. It certainly meets our concern that where there is a group consisting totally of voluntary schools grouped together there will clearly be a majority of foundation governors. It does not provide for that where there is a mix of voluntary and other schools, and that may mean that we shall not be able to advise voluntary schools to enter these kinds of groups.
I have a particular difficulty on advice with Amendment No. 215 where there is a curious reference in paragraph 2(3) (b), where the appointment of governors will be determined by what the instrument of government was when the school was a voluntary school, even though it had since become a grant-maintained school. I foresee a cumbersome difficulty 10 years into a school having become grant maintained if, in order to operate this provision, one has to turn up an instrument of government which is 10 years out of date. That seems to be unsatisfactory. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me an assurance that the point will be looked at further.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 144, 145, 146 and 147 deal with arrangements for staff

1157
employed by schools to which a joint scheme made under Clause 67 of the Bill applies. The new arrangements set out in Clauses 67 and 68 for schemes are intended to provide an additional route whereby small schools can come together to co-operate. They may choose to do so in different activities—some in the purchase of services, in in-service training of teachers or in ensuring breadth of curriculum for all the schools covered by the joint scheme. These may or may not involve the employment of staff jointly by the schools or the delegation of functions in respect of the employment.
What schools will be looking for in joining together with others in that way will be security. They will want to know that arrangements entered into are governed by a formal framework. They will also be looking for flexibility in drawing up a framework best suited to their own circumstances. We do not want to predetermine the exact detail of what a scheme should or should not include. It will differ from case to case.
Subsection (5) provides that flexibility. It allows for the issue of whether or not teachers jointly employed by the governing bodies under a joint scheme are within the pay and conditions order or exempted from its application to be determined by the governing bodies in question as expressed through the joint committee. Subsection (7) provides for the scheme to have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the instruments and articles of government for any of the schools covered by the joint schemes.
Amendments No. 146 and 147 would have the effect of laying down requirements to be included in the joint scheme in respect of staff employed under a joint scheme. Again we are seeking flexibility. It would be for those entering into a joint scheme to make proposals as to what the scheme will cover. There will be clear guidance; for example, where a scheme includes the joint employment of staff or the delegation of staffing matters, it will clearly be necessary for the scheme to set out the arrangements for the staff concerned. It should set out how the staff will be managed and what procedures there will be for disciplinary matters and grievances. All schemes will be subject to approval, either by the Secretary of State or, as I have made clear in speaking to Amendment No. 56, by the funding agency. Before approval we would expect schemes to cover the arrangements set out in Schedule 6 on staffing or leave the provisions in the school's articles in accordance with paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 substantially undisturbed.
But that will not be a matter for every single scheme drawn up under Clause 67. The matters specified on the face of the Bill are those which must be in every joint scheme which may come to the Secretary of State for approval. Individual schemes will be drawn up to take account of the circumstances of the schools concerned and will be considered by the Secretary of State on their merits.
With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will have his fears allayed and will not press the amendments. Employees in question will be employed jointly by the governing bodies of the schools covered by a joint scheme. The scheme may provide for decisions in relation to the employment of
1158
those staff to be taken by the joint committee, but in doing so the joint committee will be acting on behalf of the governing bodies. The joint committee does not have a separate legal personality. As I made clear in debate on this issue in Committee, the rights of any employee would be fully protected where a decision was taken which affected the employee's interests.
In response to the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford about it not being the clearest drafting, it will be the instrument of the group that will determine who appoints the governors, not the instrument of the voluntary-aided school 10 years before. I will of course write to the right reverend Prelate, and if he wishes to seek a meeting or have further discussions about the point of concern I shall be more than pleased to see him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Resolution of disputes]:
[Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
11. 5 p.m.
Clause 20 [Grant-maintained schools]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 10, line 27, leave out ("new").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 59 I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 86 to 90, 100, 105, 106, 194, 245, 269, 282, 284, 285 and 294.
I know that a number of noble Lords are keen to find ways to encourage new grant-maintained schools. One of the purposes behind this group of amendments is to ensure that the necessary mechanisms are in place to enable an independent school to make the change and become a grant-maintained school. That inevitably means that the independent school will cease to exist and a new grant-maintained school established in its premises.
I have also listened carefully to the case made for dropping the 10 per cent. threshold for the establishment of new GM schools and have found it persuasive. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords who press for this change, in particular my noble friend Lord Skidelsky, will welcome the amendments in this group to remove the threshold and enable the establishment of new grant-maintained schools to be proposed anywhere in the country. I am sure that this will result in the extension of choice and diversity which noble Lords as well as the Government seek.
The criteria by which any such proposals will be judged will continue to be those that apply to new voluntary aided schools. In particular, account must be taken of the demand for new school places in the area. At present, this effectively rules out the establishment of new schools where there is a surplus of school places. The powers which my right honourable friend proposes to take under Clause 221 and Clauses 223 to 225 of the Bill will enable him to cause the supply and demand equation in an area to be brought into balance in a way that has not been possible hitherto. The result will be that any future demand requiring the establishment of new schools can be met by the establishment of new grant-maintained schools from any category of promoters

1159
who publish proposals which satisfy the Secretary of State's other criteria, especially commitment to delivery of the national curriculum.
Pupil numbers are set to rise over the years to the end of the decade, and there will continue to be population shifts in and out of areas. The Funding Agency for Schools and LEAs will be required to make returns annually of supply and demand for places, which can include predictions about the rate at which pupils may flow back from the independent sector into the maintained sector as a result of growing confidence in education provided by maintained schools. These developments will allow for much greater opportunities for the establishment of new schools than hitherto, though I point out that in 1991 and 1992 the establishment of some 46 new schools have been approved to cope with population growth as it is. The vast majority of these have been new county schools. There is no reason why in future such schools should not be provided by the GM sector and new promoters. It is often thought that there has to be an overall demand for new places in a whole local education authority before we will agree that there is a need for new places locally. This is not the case. The area we look at when considering a proposal to establish a new school is a two-mile radius from a proposed primary school and a three-mile radius from a proposed secondary school. Even in a situation where there is a general decline in pupil roles there will be pockets of growth as a result of other demographic changes.
A further concern on the part of some noble Lords is whether there are alternative ways in which plant can be provided, and the scope for the private sector to be more closely involved in investment in school buildings. We welcome this in principle. The CTCs are a shining example. We must not forget the considerable investment made by the Churches in the provision of voluntary schools. The private finance initiative announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor's predecessor in the last Autumn Statement may open up further opportunities for private sector capital investment in schools. We will give careful consideration to the ideas put forward by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky and others on this score. There is no legal impediment to what they propose, so we do not see a need to make any amendments to the Bill at this stage. I should add that my right honourable friend expects imminently to make an announcement about the review of the school premises regulations which I know is an issue of concern to those noble Lords keen to see maximum flexibility in requirements for new schools.
I shall reserve my comments on other amendments until they have all been spoken to. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly to the amendment in my name, Amendment No. 105. The purpose of the amendment is to require all proposals for grant-maintained schools to have the approval of the Secretary of State. The amendment was tabled at Committee stage but not debated. The effect of the amendment is to require all proposals by the funding authority for new schools
1160
to have the approval of the Secretary of State. Clause 49, as presently drafted, allows the funding authority to approve a proposal for the new grant-maintained school that has itself proposed if there have been no objections. The point needs to be made that all new grant-maintained schools should receive the approval of the Secretary of State. It is wrong for primary legislation to rely on objections solely to a new grant-maintained school for this to happen.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank my noble friend for her willingness to address the concerns which led to the moving of the original amendments and particularly for the removal of the 10 per cent. requirement of grant-maintained status for the entry of new schools into the public sector. I very much look forward to hearing the Government's proposals or suggestions on how private capital might be attracted into the public sector, which I am sure will strike a sympathetic chord in the Treasury.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I wish to echo the gratitude. My name was on the original amendments behind some of the concerns addressed by my noble friend the Minister. I particularly welcome the amendment which will do away with the 10 per cent. trip-wire. That really does open up the principles of diversity and choice to which the Government are committed.
I know that a number of the new schools already set up by parents making great sacrifices—not the kind of parents who could normally pay independent school fees but those wanting a good education in areas where that was not necessarily available—would have fallen foul of the 10 per cent. trip-wire. They will now be able to apply for grant-maintained status. For example, I was speaking today to the head of Oakhill school in Bristol, which is a new independent Christian school. It is an excellent school. He said that the freeing of the 10 per cent. trip-wire will enable that school to go ahead with an application. It would never otherwise have been able to do so. It will potentially save the life of that school if it is able to make a successful application. There are many other schools in a similar category. This is a very significant step forward in the Government's commitment to freeing up the education system to the principles of diversity and choice. I welcome the amendment and the others related to it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to raise one small point of clarification which concerns the other 10 per cent. trip-wire for bringing the funding authority into operation within a local authority area. Will this apply now to 10 per cent. of the original schools, or 10 per cent. of the expanded number of schools, including those coming in under this procedure?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may take the noble Earl's point first. The number of children in an authority in schools would be inclusive of children in grant-maintained schools established via the route we are talking about tonight under the 10 per cent. rule or children who are already in grant-maintained schools

1161
that came in when the funding agency was in place after 10 per cent. In other words, for a grant-maintained school coming in through this route, those children would count and trigger off the establishment of the funding agency activity in an authority. That was the concern underlying the noble Earl's point.
Perhaps I may say, with regard to Amendment No. 105, that if there are any statutory objections, or the proposals name a sponsor, the proposals will automatically come to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Since any proposals where there is the slightest doubt will come to the Secretary of State for decision we do not see the need for this further amendment. This type of arrangement has worked well for LEA proposals and avoids creating unnecessary bureaucratic delays where everyone is agreed that what is proposed is sensible. I trust therefore that the noble Lord will not press the amendment or, if it is pressed, that it will be rejected. It does seem unnecessary, if there is such agreement all round, that there should be further delay and bureaucracy.
There are a number of technical amendments in this grouping to which I have not spoken separately. I shall of course do so if it is the wish of the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Duty of governing body to consider ballot on grant-maintained status]:
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
11.30 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 11. line 22, at end insert:
("(1A) The areas that may be specified under subsection (1) above are—

(a)England,

(b)Wales, or

(c)England and Wales.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, will it be in order, in moving this amendment, also to speak to Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 to facilitate the business of the House?
As regards Amendment No. 61, we are dealing with Clause 22 of the Bill. This clause was introduced at Committee stage in the other place. The Minister, Mr. Forth, was asked by Members of the other place to explain the meaning of the phrase,
"in relation to such area as may be specified in the order".
In response, the Minister said that it was appropriate to,
"acknowledge the different circumstances that existed in Wales".
He went on to say,
"the Secretary of State may wish to make provisions for England under the new clause, but he is more than content for the Secretary of State for Wales to decide whether or when similar provision should be made in the Principality".
He then went on to say,
"it is possible that he may wish to differentiate between areas in England. However, I envisage the provision applying to the whole of England because I cannot imagine why there is a need to distinguish between areas".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee, 2/3/93; col. 1506.]
This amendment would place on the face of the Bill a requirement that separate orders be made for England and Wales or a single order for both. I suggest that it is essential to clarify the intention of the
1162
Government. Is the intention still that England and Wales should be dealt with separately, but that England should be dealt with as a whole rather than divided into separate elements?
If that is not the case, I am fearful that there is a real danger that the Secretary of State could specify a particular local education authority, or part of it, that had no grant-maintained schools in any specific order, thereby forcing governing bodies in those particular areas of the country to consider the question of grant-maintained status and whether they wish the school to ballot. Such an approach would allow the Secretary of State to focus on areas which he regarded as needing a push in the grant-maintained direction.
If the Government are genuinely in favour of choice, surely the Minister will be prepared to concede that that is not their intention, and that they have no intention to be heavy-handed. Should that be the case there is really no reason that I can see why specific reference to separate orders should not be on the face of the Bill.
I now move to Amendments Nos. 62 and 63. Those amendments concern the consideration of the governing body whether to ballot once every five years. At present, Clause 22 of the Bill would allow the Secretary of State's order to require the governing bodies of the schools which are eligible for grant-maintained status to consider annually whether they wish to hold a ballot. The aim of this amendment is to change that annual consideration to a five-yearly consideration.
Since a governing body may at any time choose to include consideration of a ballot for grant-maintained status on its agenda, this clause of the Bill is simply a further way of pushing schools to opt for grant-maintained status because the present policy is not proving effective and too few schools are choosing to opt out despite the financial incentives offered by the Government.
In recent years the work of the governing body has increased enormously and the burden of responsibility in holding the office of governor is considerably greater. Adding items to the agenda only increases that burden, and in this case does so unnecessarily.
The aim of the amendment is therefore to ensure that the governing body does from time to time consider this matter, and five years seems an appropriate time since this coincides with the period of compulsory education in the secondary school for most pupils and almost covers the period spent in the primary sector, so the population of the school will have changed very significantly over that period.
Should the governing body wish to consider the matter annually or more frequently, it will still be at liberty to do so. If I may put it with all candour and good faith; a Government which are in favour of choice, as this one repeatedly claims to be, should surely accept that compulsion to consider the issue is unnecessary. Amendment No. 63 is simply devised to keep all concerned abreast of the situation. I beg to move.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am speaking merely to Amendment No. 62. We return to another contentious issue in the matter of grant-maintained

1163
status. When we debated it in Committee under the guise of clause stand part, it was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford who I thought summed up the position most effectively. He said that while the annual ballot was not the most crucial of issues, he was still surprised to see it in the Bill. It looked (to him) like a loss of nerve on the Government's part, as if the benefits of opting out could not speak for themselves. It was also an irritant - an example of what he called "administrative fidgeting". Nothing that was said in the debate before or afterwards seemed to me to gainsay the accuracy of those comments. I thought that the noble Baroness the Minister, usually the most persuasive of arguers, was at her least convincing in replying to our amendment on that occasion, especially in her attempt to depict us as the ones who were "running scared", in her words.
I have nothing against parents and governors choosing in these matters, provided that the scales are not weighted in a particular direction. There are too many places where the scales are weighted, and Clause 22, although not perhaps the most serious, is to me still one of the most offensive examples. Why should a responsible body of governors need to be told to put this particular item on their agenda at least once a year? They might just as well have been asked to consider whether to change from, say, mixed-ability teaching to streaming, or from mixed-age to single-age classes. They have the good of their school at heart and are quite capable of deciding what needs to be discussed and when.
This clause is an example of officiousness combined with a rather sly, back-door attempt to induce schools to vote the way the Government want them to. If it cannot be removed from the Bill then the next best solution is to restrict its operation. In this way irritation and disruption will be kept to a minimum.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment No. 61, to which I have put my name. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, covered the amendment very adequately, dealing primarily with the practicality. I support it.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 62 and 63, I think that both have a good deal to recommend them. The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has made out a very good case for Amendment No. 62. On Amendment No. 63, I do not think that we should be overly concerned merely to provide more information to all involved.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, finds it difficult to disguise his hostility to grant-maintained schools. Placing the item just once a year on the governing body's agenda is not to impose an onerous task. It does not load the dice in favour of grant-maintained schools. It simply asks the governing body to consider on behalf of the parents whether they wish to seek grant-maintained status. If the answer is no, that is an end to it, but at the least the governors can say to the parents at the annual meetings that they have done that—that they have considered the matter and have decided not to go down that road—although they may well decide to do so.
1164
If the governing body itself is hostile to grant-maintained schools—and we know that some are, up and down the country—that leaves the parents having to have sufficient confidence—sufficient "pushiness", if one wants to use a more colloquial word—to have to organise a petition. That is their only route if the governing body does not initiate the process. So, at least the parent body just once each year knows that the governing body has given full thought to the matter and reasons why it has either rejected it or why it wishes to initiate the process.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, on a point of correction, the noble Baroness earlier said, "There is an end of the matter". The whole point of our argument is that there is not an end of it—it comes up year after year. One cannot say that there is an end of it. That is the whole point of our objection.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have given a good reason—it is not a weak reason - why I believe in these provisions. It is in the interests of not subjecting the parents who would wish to go down the road of grant-maintained status (and where the governing body was resistant to the idea) to having to resort in the intervening years to going to the considerable effort - and through the sometimes rather intimidating process - of having to get up a parental petition. What I mean by "an end to it" is that once the governing body has considered and come to the view that it does not want to seek grant-maintained status, or wishes to do so, that then is an end to it for that year. It can return to the matter each year. As I say, the requirement is not onerous.
Perhaps I may deal with the other amendments. During earlier debates, I made it clear that the reason the Government had taken the power to make an order bringing these provisions into effect for certain areas was to enable separate arrangements to be made for Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is anxious to ensure that that commitment is translated onto the face of the Bill. While I feel that it seems unnecessarily prescriptive to include such information in primary legislation, I am happy to accept the principle of the amendment, which is why I did not move Amendment No. 60. I shall table an alternatively worded amendment on Third Reading which will give effect to the intention that the order made will apply to specified areas and that those specified areas will be England or Wales.
The final two amendments in this group are designed to relax the requirement in Clause 22 that governing bodies consider each year whether to hold a ballot on grant-maintained status. That requirement would be replaced by a duty to consider this issue every five years.
The consideration of whether a school should hold a ballot on grant-maintained status is a very important one. That fact has been clearly demonstrated by the level of debate that this House has had on the issue, not just tonight but on previous occasions. Clause 22 therefore brings that consideration to the forefront of governing bodies' minds by requiring them to consider each year whether to hold a ballot. It also ensures that parents at the school are fully

1165
informed of the governing body's thinking on this matter. After all, it is the governing body that serves the parents' interests.
I should like to stress that we are not forcing schools to hold a ballot each year, but merely requiring governing bodies to address the issue.
I am therefore convinced that that consideration should be undertaken far more often than once every five years. A great deal can happen during the course of one year, let alone five, which could affect a governing body's thinking on whether to embark on the grant-maintained process: new governors may join the governing body, other schools in the area may choose to go grant-maintained, there may be changes in the LEA itself, the funding agency may take over responsibility for the provision of school places. It is therefore wholly reasonable for the governing body to give some thought to the issue each year and report their views to the parents in the annual report. We should have expected governing bodies to do this anyway, but we know that some would not. I therefore trust that noble Lords will reject these two amendments. But if the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will allow me, I shall bring forward an amendment on Wales on Third Reading.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, and before she finally closes her mind against Amendment No. 62, will she read the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in Committee against the opting back amendment in which the noble Baroness argued against an atmosphere of perpetual campaigning, and consider whether her arguments apply to this amendment as much as they did to that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I spent too many years as a member of a governing body. The items that come forward on the agenda do not give way to massive campaigning. All that the governing body is doing is taking a view about whether to initiate the process. If it does not wish to vote for grant-maintained status, the parents have an opportunity to make that decision. That is when the campaigning starts. If they wish to campaign for or against, that campaigning begins at the balloting stage. Considering whether to initiate the process does not give way to massive campaigning. We have seen that already with the over 800 resolutions that have been made by governing bodies.
Lord Judd: My Lords, it is encouraging to have the Minister's response to Amendment No. 61. We shall study carefully what she is able to do. I hope that we shall be able to thank her fully and without qualification. In view of that, I feel inhibited about using the sort of language that I was going to use about her response to Amendment No. 62. Phrases such as "codswallop" had entered my mind. But it would be unchivalrous to use such a phrase when she is being so positive on Amendment No. 61, so I would not dream of suggesting that.
After all these happy and prolonged nights that we have spent together, there is still, however, a fundamental issue of credibility. It may be that we are a set of very nasty, suspicious people but I must say to
1166
the Minister that there is a profound anxiety abroad that the Government are absolutely determined that by one way or another the schools system of England and Wales will moved to grant-maintained schools; that if it cannot be done directly it will be done indirectly; that by attrition people will be worn down; and that by the wear and tear of constantly repeated debate people will give in.
The credibility issue is that it is almost impossible for any of us to believe that the Government are doing their utmost to ensure that there is a free, fair and open choice for parents to examine both options and to decide which would be the best. Would it not be wonderful for parents then to know that the Minister of all people would back them 200 per cent. in their decision if they decided to stay with the local education authority; would be committed and excited by that prospect; and would ensure that parents had all the necessary backing to make a success? But that is not the view.
In view of her forthcoming position in respect of Amendment No. 61—which is immensely encouraging and we shall watch carefully what happens—it makes it all the more sad that the Minister does not move on Amendments Nos. 62 and 63. We remain very unconvinced. Now at least I can produce a rationale and say that in view of what the Minister said about Amendment No. 61, I shall not tonight pursue Amendments Nos. 62 and 63.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 not moved.]
11.45 p.m.
Clause 23 [Initiation of procedure by governing body]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 12, line 7, leave out ("three months") and insert ("ten weeks").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, government Amendments Nos. 64, 66, 74, and 76 are coupled with Amendments Nos. 65 and 67 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. The Government have considered carefully the concern about the disenfranchisement of new parents in cases where a school ballots during the summer period. While these issues have come to the forefront during particular summer holidays, in practice they have only affected a small minority of schools. Only 1.4 per cent. of all definitive ballots (that is, those resulting in a decision as to whether or not a school seeks grant-maintained status) have closed in the month of August or first week of September. Detailed data about ballots have been placed in the Library if any noble Lords wish to inspect them.
The existing provisions have proved satisfactory in most cases. The timing of the electoral roll is clear cut and, in particular, provides appropriate opportunities for parents to check their details and for any necessary amendments to be made before the ballot is held. I therefore cannot accept the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, although he has yet to speak to them.
This group of amendments also contains four amendments tabled under my name. I trust that noble Lords will recall that I mentioned during earlier

1167
debates that the Government were considering bringing forward amendments to reduce the statutory length of time in which schools must complete various stages of the process of becoming grant-maintained.
The first two of my amendments concern the period in which the governing body have to secure that a ballot is held. At present, the Bill states that the ballot must be held within three months of the passing of a resolution or from the receipt of a petition from the parents. The amendments will shorten this period to 10 weeks. The second two amendments will shorten the period following a yes vote in which the governing body has to publish proposals for grant-maintained status from six to four months.
These amendments will ensure that the grant-maintained process is conducted with due expediency but without making the time periods unreasonably short. It is clearly beneficial to all concerned if the processes do not drag on for a long period of time. It will also mitigate the necessity to extend into holiday periods often as a result of the length of time which the process takes. Our experience to date is that the majority of schools are publishing their proposals well within the new time limit that we are proposing. All we are doing is ensuring that all schools conform to this.
This streamlining of the process might also help with the issues concerning the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. A shorter period in which schools must arrange ballots will help ensure that governors do not allow the arrangements to drift such that part or all of the ballot period overlaps with school holidays. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I still do not really understand why the Government are shortening the period which is involved in Amendments Nos. 64 and 66. I do not see the need for haste in this regard. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said about driving pressure. I wonder whether there is any other reason for shortening the period. It takes a while to form an opinion, particularly in a scattered community, and more particularly in a community where a large number of the parents work outside the area. I simply do not see the need for the haste.
Before the amendment is agreed to I should like to hear a rather more convincing reason for this. If the noble Baroness is determined to persist with it and is not giving a more convincing reason as to why haste is necessary, is it possible to defer moving the amendment until Third Reading so that we can have a more leisurely consideration than is possible at this time of night?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 65 and 67, although I have a premonition that they may not be accepted by the Government.
We have received a letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, dated 7th June which indicates that the assertions made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in our debate on this issue in Committee were not entirely justified as regards the turn-out in ballots in school holidays. Not all the second ballots in August had a higher turn-out than the first ballots although I
1168
admit that of the five, only one had a lower turn-out. That first ballot must have had a turn-out below 50 per cent. since second ballots are held only when the turn-out in the first ballot is below 50 per cent. The average ballot turn-out during August has been slightly lower than at other times, although by only 1 per cent. Therefore, I do not believe that those figures are particularly conclusive.
The strength of the argument in favour of the amendments is that a general election would not be held in August because it is thought that there would be a low turn-out. It is not a good time for elections. I do not see why an election which is extremely important for the people concerned should be treated any differently. For that reason, I was disappointed about the premonition that I had at the beginning of our discussions on this group of amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, does not find the arithmetic impressive. I thought that it was extremely impressive. Of the almost 900 ballots, we were talking about only 16, and of those 16, only five were held in August. Only one of those five ballots had a turn-out which was lower than in the first ballot. That is a fairly impressive record and does not give rise to widespread anxiety on this issue.
The noble Earl asked me to continue to make the case. I do not intend to go into greater detail because I know that the noble Earl sits, quite overtly, in a very different position on the issue of grant-maintained schools. We believe that it is a very good form of education and noble Lords opposite believe that it is not.
The timescale which we advocate in these amendments is for the most part being followed in any event. Most of the correspondence that I, as the Minister responsible, receive on this issue, presses for a decision. We have to tell those schools that we cannot begin to make a decision until the legal timescale has been followed. Therefore, we believe that we are responding to requests from parents who have chosen, by ballot, for the school to become grant-maintained.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Initiation of procedure by parents]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 12, line 36, leave out ("three months") and insert ("ten weeks").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Information as to parents of registered pupils]:
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Ballot of parents]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 13, line 41, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
("(a) given such information about the procedure for and consequences of acquisition of grant-maintained status for a school as may reasonably be expected to enable him to form a proper judgment as to whether or not such status, should be sought for the school, including, in particular, the information required by subsection (3A) below;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 70 and 92. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby will also be introducing one or two amendments in the group.
Clause 26 replaces Section 61 of the Education Reform Act 1988 which placed governing bodies under a duty to secure that quite detailed information is made available to those eligible to vote in a ballot on grant maintained status. For example: a general explanation of procedures; constitution of the school; its conduct and funding; the number of teacher and first or foundation governors; the names of initial governors; and the proposed date of implementation of proposals.
However, Clause 26(3) in effect instructs governing bodies to secure only that "prescribed information" is made available to those eligible to vote in a ballot on grant-maintained status. That prescribed information will be made under regulations made by statutory instruments and subject to the negative resolution procedure. That change could mean that parents will he less well informed—depending, of course, on the nature of the prescribed information. In the view of many, it certainly represents the removal of parental rights from the face of the Bill, entrusting them instead to delegated legislation. The amendments are designed to restore parental rights to the face of the Bill, and I am glad to be able to move them.
As regards Amendment No. 92, perhaps I may just say that the Government have obviously shared the anxiety on the point we made. I say that because Amendments Nos. 272 and 274 have the same effect as ours. I should like to put on record that we welcome that fact. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 93. Its purpose is to ensure that information on the percentage of parents voting should be included in the proposals. As the Bill is drafted, no reference needs to be made in the proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status by the governing body to the percentage of the electorate who voted in the opting-out ballot. Clearly that is an important matter. If fewer than 50 per cent. of those eligible voted, then a second ballot needs to be held. But however few parents vote in the second ballot, that ballot is, nevertheless, valid. Therefore, a school could proceed with an application for grant-maintained status even if less than 50 per cent. of parents voted in each of the two ballots. Surely that should be of concern to Ministers.
In a school where parents show so little interest in making such an important decision, how effectively will they be involved in running the school if it were to he given grant-maintained status? Surely it is vital for the Secretary of State to know the percentage voting in the ballot in order to make a judgment. Ministers may argue that they do in fact know the level of voting in ballots, but that is not a good reason for such information not being included as a requirement in the proposal for opting out. The governing body should be required to make a clear reference to that fact as it has important implications.
1170
In the case of a school which has to have a second ballot because the turnout at the first was less than 50 per cent., it would then be obvious to Ministers that the level of at least one of the ballots was below 50 per cent. However, if the school needs only one ballot, it will not be clear whether the level was slightly over 50 per cent. or nearly 100 per cent. Once again, that is important information which could have a significant effect on the judgment of the Secretary of State as to whether the school would be viable as a grant-maintained school.
Midnight
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I wish to say a few words about Amendments Nos. 92, 272 and 274. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, Amendments Nos. 272 and 274 have the same effect as Amendment No 92. I wish to speak on this matter because it relates to a point that I raised in Committee. This matter is of considerable intrinsic importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, indicated, but it is of far greater constitutional importance than one would expect when it relates to a sub-paragraph in a schedule. It is of constitutional importance partly because it concerns parliamentary control over legislation, but even more so because it involves the standing and utility of the Scrutiny Committee on Delegated Legislation and the use that your Lordships' House makes of that committee, and therefore it concerns the standing and legislative competence of your Lordships' House itself.
As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, explained, Schedule 3 relates to the publicity that should attend the attainment of grant-maintained status. Paragraph 1 contains four sub-paragraphs of which the first three relate to the particular type of publicity. Subparagraph (4), however, allows the Secretary of State to alter the type of publicity that is stipulated by sub-paragraphs (1) to (3). As the Scrutiny Committee pointed out, that is a Henry VIII clause. The Scrutiny Committee examined all the Henry VIII clauses in this Bill, which was the first Bill on which it reported. The Scrutiny Committee arose out of the recommendation of the Jellicoe Committee and it was the only recommendation on which the Government expressed reserve. That is perfectly understandable because obviously Whitehall prefers to proceed by delegated legislation, which is much less troublesome, as tonight's proceedings may have demonstrated, than the full legislative process.
Moreover, it is much easier if the delegated legislation is subject only to the negative resolution procedure because it then largely escapes scrutiny in the other place. Most of all, of course, it is highly convenient for officials to rewrite by what are termed Henry VIII clauses the stipulations in a legislative measure. That is what has been done here. The Scrutiny Committee made its original report, which was accepted by the House. It was set up, however, on a probationary basis and for a limited time only —only for this Session—and it has proceeded in a way that has received general acclaim. Its report on this Bill in particular has been widely acclaimed on all sides of the House.

1171
It has rightly been a very cautious approach, like the courts' approach on judicial review. For example, the Scrutiny Committee drew attention to the fact that Clauses 38 to 40 were Henry VIII clauses but said that it considered them acceptable in the circumstances. The committee used very different language in relation to paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 3.
The noble Baroness let it out that the official view was that the provision ought to remain subject to the negative resolution procedure. I shall not embarrass her by recalling the circumstances in which that information was divulged to the House. I believe that your Lordships will be very grateful, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, indicated, to the noble Baroness for having secured a change of mind and that by Amendments Nos. 272 and 274 the provision is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said by way of gratitude and express my appeciation of the fact that the Scrutiny Committee has in this first Bill proved its usefulness in this vital respect. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who is a member of that committee, is present to preside over the occasion.
As I said, Amendments Nos. 92, 272 and 274 do precisely the same. Generally, it is very much for the draftsman to determine how that should be done, and your Lordships do not normally interfere with a decision on that point. I venture to prefer Amendment No. 92 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, although I believe that it will require a consequential amendment to Clause 277. I say that on a purely stylistic ground, because the draftsman has added the reference to the schedule to a number of other references to different clauses which are excepted from the general negative resolution procedure provisions. He has then taken out this particular one relating to the schedule and made it subject to affirmative resolution. It seems that the others are subject to no parliamentary control at all. It seems to me to be a little awkward stylistically under those circumstances. Perhaps the noble Baroness will consider that point with the draftsman between now and Third Reading.
There is nothing further I can do except to repeat my appreciation.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I think I, too, should join in the thanks to the noble Baroness and to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. Although I take style seriously, I shall not insist on style between friends.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as the only member of the committee here this evening, I wish to add my satisfaction on their behalf that our advice has been taken and our thanks for the glowing tributes from the noble and learned Lord. It is nice to feel useful.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall come back to those three amendments later on. In speaking to this group, I shall obviously also be speaking to the various government amendments, Amendments Nos. 91, 95, 96, 98, 99, 163, 164, 201, 247, 252, 272 and 274.
1172
The first two amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would remove the Secretary of State's power to prescribe in regulations the information that is to be sent to voters in a ballot on grant-maintained status and put detailed requirements on the face of the Bill.
The details that the noble Lord wishes to specify are similar to those currently set out in Section 61(4) of the Education Reform Act 1988. This information is designed to enable parents to make an informed decision as to whether to vote in favour of the school going grant-maintained.
I understand the noble Lord's concerns about this information. It is for that very reason that the Bill enables my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make regulations. This will allow more flexibility than if the requirements are baldly set out on the face of the Bill. We will consult widely about the content of the regulations, and, without wishing to prejudice that consultation, would expect them to contain information along the lines of that set out in the amendments before us. If during the course of time it transpires that some changes are needed to the information, the fact that we have regulations will make it relatively easy to put matters right. Changing primary legislation, as most people agree, is not so easy. The Government intend this Bill to stand the test of time, and we shall need to be able to adapt to changing circumstances.
I hope that those arguments are sufficient to convince the noble Lord that we will consult on and consider very carefully the contents of the regulations. I hope, therefore, that he would not wish to press further Amendments Nos. 69 and 70.
Turning to government Amendment No. 91, this is purely designed to ensure that the press notice which summarises the proposals for grant-maintained status must be published in a newspaper within 10 days of the date of publication of the proposals themselves. This is not a new provision. The requirement to publish the press notice within 10 days is currently contained in the Education (Grant-Maintained Schools) (Publication of Proposals) Regulations 1989. This amendment merely seeks to make this a requirement on the face of the Bill. I trust that the House will have no difficulty in accepting the amendment.
Amendment No. 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, was, I believe, one which we were prepared to accept at the Committee stage, but which the noble Lord, for various reasons, did not move on that occasion. As he explained, it would require a school, in addition to giving the result of any ballot and the numbers of parents who voted for and against, to specify the percentage of those eligible to vote who did in fact do so. This would clearly give anyone considering the proposals more information about the overall level of parental interest and support for the school. On that basis, I am happy to accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 99, a government amendment, is a technical amendment to ensure that the appropriate arrangements for the way objections can be submitted

1173
to a proposal by promoters for the establishment of a new grant-maintained school are described in the proposals.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 92, 272 and 274. I am grateful for the general acceptance from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, of our amendments in place of his own. I note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for the reasons he gave, would on purely stylistic grounds prefer the drafting of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, Amendment No. 92, as he said, amended in some other way. I shall certainly examine very carefully what he said.
I think that the noble and learned Lord also said that he accepted that there were different drafting styles by different Parliamentary Counsel. I hope that on this occasion he will accept my desire not to accept Amendment No. 92, other than in principle, but for the House to accept our two government Amendments Nos. 272 and 274. However, I can certainly give the noble and learned Lord an assurance that I will consider writing to him after we have considered this matter again with Parliamentary Counsel. But as the noble and learned Lord put it, in the end this matter of drafting style should be for Parliamentary Counsel.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the Minister.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I put it to the noble and learned Lord, I will consider writing to him after this matter has been considered further by parliamentary counsel. On that basis, I hope that this evening the House will be prepared to accept our amendments.
Lastly, I turn to Amendments Nos. 95 to 98, 163 and 164, 197, 201, 247 and 252. These amendments cover a number of issues relating to the publication of proposals. They come in three groups. The first group, Amendments Nos. 95 and 247, are minor technical amendments. They are necessary to secure a more accurate description of the requirements of the clauses to which they apply.
The second group of amendments will ensure that, where proposals are published by grant-maintained schools or by the funding authority, details of the nursery provision to be made by the school will be provided. These amendments meet the concerns of various noble Lords who felt that grant-maintained schools might otherwise admit pupils to nursery provision without providing details.
The third group of amendments ensures that whenever proposals are published the number of pupils admitted to the school does not exclude those pupils who were admitted to school before they reached the statutory school age. I hope therefore that, going back to the beginning, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment No. 69, and I hope that in due course the House will feel able to approve the various government amendments that I have spoken to.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Judd: I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive reply. First, perhaps I may say—and I am sure that I speak for everyone in the House at this
1174
hour—that almost any excuse to hear the erudition, wit and wisdom of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is always welcome. It is a treat. It instils a sense of humility in everybody present. Following what he said, I think it was generous of the Minister to say that he would look again at what the noble and learned Lord had said to see whether some move could be made towards what we proposed in Amendment No. 92. But I do not in any way detract from what I said earlier; namely, that we are glad to have seen the Government move on this matter, and we are very grateful to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee for having drawn the matter to the attention of noble Lords.
On Amendments Nos. 69 and 70, I am sorry that the Minister did not feel able to move. It seems to me that it would have been a small thing to do but one which would have underwritten in a generous way the spirit of what the Government say they are concerned about, namely the position and rights of parents. It is not just that under some sort of detailed regulations the rights are being looked to and preserved. It is a matter of putting them there on the face of the Bill for all to see. This is the real, substantial commitment. I am, frankly, sad that the Government did not feel able to move on that. But on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, perhaps I may say that we are grateful to the Government for accepting his amendment. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Power to declare ballot void for irregularity]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 15, line 3, after ("section") insert ("25,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 72, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 73.
Very simply, these two amendments state that if the governing body fails to give out the names and addresses of all those parents who are eligible to vote in a ballot for grant-maintained status, the result shall be considered null and void. This is primarily to ensure freedom of information for all those concerned in the process.
Whether one actually subscribes to the cock-up or conspiracy theory of the way things happen, if there is not sufficient information given out at least to enable those people who are contesting the point to be given a chance to put their views across, then the whole process of the ballot is surely very, very questionable, if not almost totally unmanageable, as a fair representation of what the parents think.
These are two small amendments but I feel that they are very important. Effectively, they act as some kind of guarantee of giving out the correct information to enable parents to make the correct decision. They are especially important when it is considered that the noble Baroness has just moved amendments which cut down the period of time over which the ballot can take place. Surely it is now even more important that those who put forward a

1175
viewpoint against opting for grant-maintained status should have the opportunity to put their side of the case. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, these amendments will add further categories to the list of reasons for which the Secretary of State may declare void a ballot on grant-maintained status by including references to Clause 25. Let me briefly explain the provisions of that clause.
The governing body is required to draw up a list of parents. That list must be made available to parents who wish to inspect it or obtain a copy in connection with a ballot for grant-maintained status. Any parent who does not wish his or her name and address to be disclosed may write to the governing body requesting that he or she be removed from the list. The governing body may charge parents who wish to have a copy of the list an amount not exceeding the cost of supply.
I believe that it is clear from that description that the provisions of Clause 25 do not have a significant bearing on the arrangements for, or conduct of, the ballot itself, which is what the voiding provisions are intended to address. I should explain that the parental list is not the same as the electoral roll. It is the electoral roll which determines who is eligible to vote in a ballot. Clause 25 is not about the compilation of the electoral roll. It is not about the conduct of the ballot at all. It seems to me to be difficult, if not impossible, to justify a ballot being declared void (with all the additional time and effort that that involves) for reasons that had no bearing on and may not have influenced the ballot.
I am certainly not implying that a contravention of the provisions of Clause 25 is not extremely serious. Indeed it is. The provision in Clause 25(3) which gives parents the option of removing their names and addresses from the parental list is designed to protect their confidentiality. Parents are naturally concerned that their names and addresses should not fall into the wrong hands. Therefore we would always expect governing bodies to act reasonably in administering the list. It would also be disturbing if there were widespread reports of governing bodies charging excessive fees for the list. We should take seriously any complaint that that had happened.
I am aware of the sensitivities involved with this subject. We had a lengthy discussion about these issues in Committee. The point before us, however, is whether a ballot should be declared void if the provisions of Clause 25 are contravened or the governing body acts unreasonably in discharging its duties under that clause. I do not feel that the Secretary of State's powers to void the ballot merit being increased further than already provided by the Bill. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I listened to the noble Baroness's usual clear response. She said that it was a serious matter. I am still a little uneasy about this point, but I think that she covered most of the points.
1176
I shall read what she said and take some advice to see whether she has in fact done so. I hope that it is the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Publication of proposals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 15, line 42, leave out ("six") and insert ("four").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 64. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Withdrawal, approval or rejection of proposals]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 16, line 15, at beginning insert:
("( ) Before considering any proposal under section 30 of this Act the Secretary of State shall consider any proposal from the local education authority to cease to maintain or make a significant change in the character of a school under section 12 of the Education Act 1980; and if such a proposal from the local education authority is approved the Secretary of State shall reject the proposal under section 30 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was considered at Committee stage. In moving the amendment my noble friend Lady Blackstone noted that 114 of the English schools to hold ballots so far had been subject to simultaneous Sections 12 and 13 notices of closure as a result of reorganisation proposals by their LEA. Of those, 85 voted in favour of opting out and 42 were approved by the Secretary of State. In other words, the Secretary of State approved for opting out almost 50 per cent. of the cases in which the local authority was trying to reorganise its schools to reduce the number of surplus places by allowing those schools to opt out as soon as they were under threat of closure.
The Minister may argue that the Education Secretary is not approving all such schools for opting out. That is true, since 50 per cent. of the cases are not approved. However, there is a major disincentive to any LEA in considering a major reorganisation if it knows that there is a 50 per cent. chance that any school that it threatens with closure will be able to opt out and thwart its plans. If the LEA could be certain that the Secretary of State would consider the proposal for reorganisation by the LEA before considering the proposal to opt out, then LEAs would at least feel that their proposals were to be considered on their merits and that there was a reasonable chance of success in achieving reorganisation.
At present, the law demands that the Education Secretary considers any proposal to opt out before considering a reorganisation proposal. As the Minister said, both sets of proposals have to be considered together, but the grant-maintained proposals have to be determined first. Amendment No. 75 would ensure that decisions about reorganisations would have to be made before decisions about obtaining grant-maintained status. At present priority is given to grant-maintained status whereas the amendment argues that the more important decision is that which affects the whole community; that is, the reorganisation proposal by the LEA.
If the proposal is accepted, then the application for grant-maintained status would not be considered in cases where the reorganisation was approved. In that way the Government would encourage LEAs to put forward proposals for reorganisation and reduction of surplus places, because they would be less fearful of the possibility of a school preventing that reorganisation by its proposal to opt out. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is clear to me that in the circumstances envisaged by the clause, those most concerned—the parents and the governing body of the school—have a right that any proposals that they have for the future of the school should be considered. The proposed amendments would abolish the procedures established in the Education Reform Act and re-enacted in Clause 252 of the present Bill. Those required both sets of proposals to be considered together, not one in advance of the other as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, suggested. But the grant-maintained proposal was to be determined first. Clearly, one has to take into account both the proposal for closure and the proposal for grant-maintained status. But one cannot establish a grant-maintained school if one has decided to close it. Therefore, all the information is taken into account at the same time.
If the amendments were put into effect, grant-maintained proposals would receive no consideration whatever before a decision on Section 12 proposals was reached. The existing arrangements are not biased in favour of grant-maintained schools. Both the grant-maintained and Section 12 proposals are, and will continue to be, decided on their merits. Attempts to prevent grant-maintained schools being considered are misconceived.
If the noble Lord, Lord Judd, had received some of the delegations that I have received of parents whose schools are up for closure and who wish to explore the possibility that other things can be considered—whether it is grant-maintained status or other proposals in the local area —he would understand the strength of feeling of parents.
Taking the most recent months—the information relates to 1992—of 11 proposals, eight decisions found in favour of grant-maintained status. In the next period, of 14 proposals, 11 decisions found in favour of closure. The arithmetic is reasonable. They are not easy decisions. In fact, a great deal of agonising goes on in making the decisions. So far we have rejected more grant-maintained proposals than we have accepted. We have rejected 35 grant-maintained school proposals and approved 33. We take into account all the information that comes before us and it is given full consideration.
Lord Judd: My Lords, we are agreed that we want to encourage local education authorities to undertake reorganisation where that is sensible. I am sure that if the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment, she and her department will keep it under active consideration. It would be stupid if we had procedures in places which discouraged the rational arrangement of education in particular areas. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No.76:
Page 16, line 38, leave out ("six") and insert ("four").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Acquisition of grant-maintained status: exercise of powers before date of implementation]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.77:
Page 191, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) Such requirements may, in particular, if any conditions specified in the requirements are satisfied, require the payment to the funding authority of the whole or any part of the following amount.
( ) That amount is—

(a)the amount of the payments made in respect of the grant, or

(b)so much of the value of any premises or equipment in respect of which the grant was paid as is determined in accordance with the requirements to be properly attributable to the payment of such grant, whichever is the greater.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 77, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 85, 101, 102 and 104; Amendments Nos. 107 to 111; Amendments Nos. 168 to 171; and Amendments Nos. 287 and 292. The amendments cover a number of issues relating to the premises of grant-maintained schools. I shall take them in three groups.
The first group, Amendments Nos. 77 to 111, comprises technical amendments. They are necessary to secure that, where grant is paid to a governing body before the implementation of proposals, the grant can be repaid in certain circumstances. They cover both the establishment of new grant-maintained schools either by promoters or the funding authority and the approval of proposals by existing schools to acquire grant-maintained status. For example, if a new grant-maintained school is established by the funding authority and capital grant is paid to build the school, it will allow the funding authority to reclaim the amount or the value of the asset if some time later the governing body decide to dispose of an asset acquired with grant before the establishment of the school. These requirements already exist in that part of the Bill—Clause 88—which deals with grant paid to governing bodies after implementation. The amendments therefore provide the same cover for grant paid before implementation.
The second separate amendment is Amendment No. 85. The amendment will ensure that an LEA's duty to transfer existing property to the trustees of a voluntary school will not cease purely because the school has become grant-maintained. Here we are talking about land that has already been provided for a school. Usually, property provided by the LEA and not owned by the trustees transfers to the governing body of a voluntary school when it becomes grant-maintained. However, in certain cases—for example when a school has moved sites—the LEA will have provided the school with a site or buildings for which it is then under a duty formally to convey to the trustees. It would not be right that that duty should fall merely because the school became grant-maintained. This might occur if, for example, due to an oversight or administrative delay the property still remained in the hands of the LEA rather than the

1179
trustees on the day a school became grant-maintained. The amendment meets the anxieties of, among others, the Churches. It does not reduce any of the school's right to the continued use of the property, but it rectifies a minor omission in the existing legislation. It will safeguard the position of trustees in circumstances where they may otherwise lose their rights largely because of an accident of timing.
The third and final group covers Amendments Nos. 101, 102 and 104, Amendments Nos. 107 to 110, Amendments Nos. 168 to 171 and Amendments Nos. 287 and 292. I have introduced these amendments for very practical reasons. Where proposals are published for the establishment of new grant-maintained schools either by the funding authority or by promoters, the proposals will need to include details of the site, buildings and cost of the new school. The Secretary of State will need to take these factors into consideration in determining the proposals.
However, after the proposals have been approved, the funding authority are charged with making capital grant available and processing the capital projects through their estimate and tender stages. The funding authority will need to ensure that the projects take account of statutory requirements about health and safety and constructional standards. For example, they will need to satisfy themselves that appropriate building materials are used and fume cupboards are sited in the right places. Professional architects and quantity surveyors will look carefully at these projects in detail and when they are happy that standards have been maintained they will approve the particulars of the premises. As the funding authority pays capital grant to the governing body of the grant-maintained school, such approval is an integral part of that process.
Similar provisions have been tabled for the implementation of proposals published for the significant change of character, enlargement and change of site. Where such proposals involve capital projects it is a straightforward operational matter that the approval of particulars is carried out by the funding authority as part of its overall responsibility for processing projects and paying capital grant. I recommend the amendments to the House.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 85 and, in particular, to Amendment No. 111. We are grateful for Amendment No. 85 which deals with our concern that LEAs may not always convey a site when a voluntary school becomes grant-maintained. I should like reassurance from the Minister because we have a technical concern about proposed subsection (1B) (b). In disapplying Clause 39 I wonder whether this inadvertently leaves the LEA free to convey the site to someone else who is not the trustee. I do not want to be suspicious of any LEA but if we are trying to clarify that they have a continuing responsibility to convey the site even though a voluntary school becomes grant-maintained, we might possibly be dealing with an LEA which is either slow or incompetent or even worse. It is possible that a difficult LEA, by having Clause 39 disapplied, could try to convey the site to someone else. That may
1180
not be possible under this clause. It is a technical matter, and I should be grateful for reassurance. I apologise for revealing my suspicion of recalcitrant LEAs.
I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 111. The Minister referred to it as a technical amendment. She may see it in that light, but I am not sure that I do. She said that it is in a sense an extension of the provision. She referred to Clause 88, which confused me as that refers to Wales. I think that she may have meant Clause 82. This provides that a grant given to a new school, if it is received before the new grant-maintained school is created, can be reclaimed. This therefore impacts on Church and other comparable bodies which may wish in the future to create new grant-maintained schools and will look to the Government for 85 per cent. grant.
I accept that the Minister thinks that the amendment is technical. It was tabled only recently. I did not have sight of it until this morning and I have not had much time therefore to consider it. As I read it, it could mean that were such a school to close, the 15 per cent. provided by the Church, perhaps from trust funds, could be at risk if the grants that had been received over a period of time were all called in. This causes me some concern in so far as the Church and other voluntary bodies may wish to create new grant-maintained schools.
I expressed in Committee concern about what was then Clause 257 and is now Clause 260. I refer to the whole matter of the Secretary of State having total discretion over grants for aided schools. This is a parallel move. The Minister may view it as a technical amendment. I have not had time to consider it in detail but it may impact on our continuing negotiations over Clause 260 which are not yet complete. I hope that they will be completed shortly. I am anxious that at least the Minister will give me the assurance that we can consider this amendment in our continuing negotiations over trying to reach agreement. I hope that I am not making too much of a meal of this, but I shall be grateful for those reassurances from the Minister.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly address some comments to Amendments Nos. 101, 102 and 104. These three amendments appear to me to be fairly significant. They remove the role of the Secretary of State from the approval of premises in the grant-maintained schools, whether they be established by a funding authority or by promoters. It is not clear to me from the changes whether the premises have to be improved by anybody at all.
The funding authority has to prepare particulars about the proposed premises where the funding authority is establishing a new grant-maintained school. In the case of a new grant-maintained school that is to be established by promoters, the details of the school premises have to be submitted to the funding authority. Can the Minister explain what is the accountability for the standards of premises of these new grant-maintained schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the final question first. Once a school is grant maintained, it becomes subject to all the premises regulations and the health and safety regulations. The funding agency would be responsible for the school. So there is no question that it stands somehow outside the system once established as a grant-maintained school.
The right reverend Prelate has some fears about Clause 111. My understanding is that his fears are unfounded in terms of moneys which were legitimately the investments of-the Churches or the trustees and being at risk in the transfer of funds. I do not know whether he feels sufficiently strongly for me to withhold this amendment and to bring it forward at Third Reading or whether he will accept that the amendment is accepted for the moment and that we continue to talk about any deficiencies that there may be. Then the matter can be thought about again at Third Reading.
As regards the reference to Clause 88, the right reverend Prelate was right. It is Clause 82, and I stand corrected.
As regards Amendment No. 85, we do not consider the situation to be as described since such action on the part of the local authority would conflict with its duty under Schedule 1 paragraph 6 to the 1946 Act. But I shall check on this particular amendment as well and, if necessary, write to the right reverend Prelate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Expenses in connection with proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 17, line 33, at end insert ("provided that no expenditure incurred under subsection (6) of section 26 of this Act exceeds the limit set out in subsection (3) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 is to limit the amount that a governing body can spend on promoting opting out to the same prescribed amount as applied to the LEA; and to tie the prescribed limit applied to LEA expenditure to individual ballots in schools rather than being authority-wide for a particular financial year.
The weakness of the Government's position is that as it stands the clause with which we are dealing provides for a prescribed amount which would cover the aggregate expenditure by an LEA on all the ballots which may occur during a financial year. However hard we try, it is impossible to imagine a practicable method for calculating such prescribed amounts that could satisfactorily cope with the enormous variation between LEAs in the number of ballots held in any year.
Opting out is highly concentrated in just a small number of areas, while some LEAs have yet to experience a single ballot. Essex, Kent and Lincolnshire - just three of the 117 LEAs in England and Wales - account among them for over one-quarter of all the schools voting to opt out. How can a prescribed amount be calculated which would suit both of these extremes?
The failure of the Government to bring forward their own amendment, as promised by the Minister in
1182
Committee, clearly illustrates the extent of the difficulty. The amendments proposed offer a practicable and fair way of handling this issue. One seeks to tie the prescribed amount to a particular ballot - that is, each ballot would have a prescribed amount calculated by reference to pupil numbers and other such factors. It is modelled closely on the Government's own Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989, which already includes limits on the expenditure of education authorities and school boards - that is, governing bodies. The other would make the same prescribed amount applicable to both the LEA and the governing body in any particular school, thus establishing fairness.
In the Commons Committee stage, on 12th January at col. 765 of Hansard, Eric Forth said of the prescribed amount:
"I envisage that, in due course, a consultation document will be produced outlining some possible different approaches to the problem which will draw on the Scottish experience".
In our own Committee stage, the Minister said:
"We intend to bring forward an amendment at Report stage which will clarify the scope of the provision… The precise terms of any formula to link LEA expenditure to modest sums payable to governing bodies by the Secretary of State are still under consideration".
That, surely, is not good enough. There is simply no evidence that the Government have devised a method capable of functioning other than their Scottish model which we therefore suggest should be adopted also in England and Wales.
As to linking the expenditure of governing bodies with the prescribed limit applied to LEAs, this merely ensures a basic degree of fairness. In addition to material of their own production, governing bodies will doubtless continue to be able to acquire, free of charge, material produced by the Department for Education. The cards are, in reality, stacked against LEAs even under the arrangements proposed in these amendments.
More importantly, they are stacked against parents who wish to have access to a balanced range of information on this vital issue. I beg to move.
12.45 a.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, your Lordships might remember that on previous occasions I have expressed considerable concern about some of the propaganda which local authorities and others have circulated to parents when schools have been considering whether to vote for grant-maintained status. Some of it has been demonstrably very misleading. I was encouraged by what my noble friend the Minister said earlier both about the code of conduct being negotiated with LEAs with regard to the new power and about the new power in Clause 29 for the Secretary of State to void ballots if the outcome might have been affected by false or misleading information.
I have also been deeply concerned about the volume of information which some local authorities have circulated. In some cases there have been three or four mailshots to parents' homes. In other cases, there have been full or half-page advertisements in local papers. In almost all those cases the intention has been to try to persuade parents to vote no. That one-sided use of public money must be limited.

1183
It seems to me that what the noble Lord is proposing in the amendment would weaken the effectiveness of such limits, and I would therefore oppose it. Indeed, on the contrary, I would be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister could assure me that Clause 34(3) as currently drafted provides an adequate basis for a watertight and effective regime to limit LEA expenditure in this area.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Clause 34 is an important clause about expenses in connection with proposals for the acquisition of grant-maintained status. If governing bodies are to have responsibilities for the arrangements for grant-maintained status and hold a balanced debate of the issues, it is only fair that the Bill should make provision to reimburse them for modest expenses. At present they have no funds other than what they can raise themselves. Your Lordships will be aware that it is the case that, as my noble friend Lady Cox said, LEAs already have substantial resources which they can deploy in influencing the ballot process, if they so wish.
I have to say that I am very tempted to accept Amendment No. 78. But the noble Lord seems to be suggesting in Amendment No. 78, if that is taken in isolation, that the expenditure incurred by any single school's governors in acquiring grant-maintained status should be limited to the amount which its LEA could spend for the whole financial year on all of the ballots for all the schools that might be held in that local authority. I wonder whether that is what he means.
If indeed the noble Lord confirms that understanding then, as I told him in Committee, I would be tempted to consider this amendment seriously. However, it is possible that I might, reluctantly, be persuaded to believe that in the interests of fairness and levelling the playing field the amendment might not be in the best interests of all concerned.
Amendment No. 79, which seeks to limit calculation of the prescribed amount of LEA expenditure to that period after the governing body has given notice that a ballot of parents is to be held, imposes unnecessary constraints. Local debates about the desirability of grant-maintained status usually start well before governing bodies pass a formal resolution to hold a ballot. LEAs are frequently involved in those early debates and it seems to me right that any expenditure they incur in that period to influence a school's move towards grant-maintained status should not be exempt from the limits proposed under Clause 34. Nor should expenditure on the expression of general views about grant-maintained status not related to a specific ballot be exempt. The noble Lord's amendment would have both those effects. I strongly oppose such weakening of the intended spending limits.
My noble friend Lady Cox made an important point. I am happy to give her an undertaking that I shall look again at whether the wording of Clause 34(3) will provide an adequate basis for the necessary regulations. If there is any doubt about that, I shall use
1184
the opportunity of Third Reading to bring forward a suitable amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will not press the amendment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, which seemed a little less forthcoming than some of her other pronouncements. I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, says. I would not suggest that she is misleading the House. I am sure that the information to which she refers exists and that she has seen the evidence of it. But what I find difficult is that there is never any reference to all the propaganda that circulates on the other side of the fence. Many of us could assemble quite a dossier to that effect. If the argument is to carry weight, we must be even-handed and more judicious in our assessment of what is going on.
The point that I wanted to make, which I leave with the Minister, is that we are concerned that what the Minister has said in various debates during our consideration of the Bill in this House about the Government merely wanting parents to have a choice, and for that choice to be clear and honest, should not just be a stated intention but should be something which at all levels of the process of choice is demonstrably the case. I wish that the Minister had felt able tonight to say that, if there are anxieties, she is prepared to look at them to see whether rules and regulations could be devised which would have the confidence of everyone. At the moment, they do not.
I hope that this will not be the end of the matter for the Minister and that, although I shall not pursue the amendment tonight, she will go away with her very able officials, recognising that there is a genuine issue here, and that the spirit of free choice and even-handedness to which I know she is committed is not being reflected, as people see it, in what happens at the coalface. I hope that she will go away and consider this issue and see what can be done. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Transfer of property etc.]:
Lord Ponsonby on Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby on Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 19, line 46, after ("1988") insert ("as amended by Schedule 18 to this Act").
The noble Lord said; My Lords, I wish to address Amendment No. 80, which is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 293. The purpose of the two amendments is to tidy up the role of the Education Assets Board with regard to the transfer of school and community buildings to grant-maintained schools.
The amendments refer to the transfer of property from an LEA to a grant-maintained school and have particular relevance to the transfer of a property not wholly used by the school; in particular, buildings which are shared with the local community. The amendments seek to remove one of the three tests of ownership of facilities provided by local authorities for use by schools and the communities which surround them.
At present, when a school is awarded grant-maintained status the local authority and the school

1185
are frequently able to agree on ownership issues. In the event of a disagreement the Education Assets Board becomes involved. The assets board is empowered to seek to reach agreement between the parties. Should this not be achieved the matter is passed to the Secretary of State for Education for determination.
In seeking to determine the ownership of a particular facility the Education Reform Act 1988 gives three tests of ownership: first, whether the facility can be divided between parties; secondly, which party has the greater need of security of ownership; and, thirdly, which party is likely to have greater use.
It is the second test of ownership which is causing a number of problems. They arise out of the definition of the word "security" and the concept of what constitutes the need of that security. The purpose of the amendment is twofold. The most desirable outcome would be the deletion of the second test of ownership. That would avoid a situation such as that described by Estelle Morris at col. 779 in Committee in another place on 14th January regarding the Great Barr school in Birmingham. That has been in the process of determination for more than two-and-ahalf years. The assets board deliberated on the matter for 18 months. It has been with the Department for Education since September 1992 and has still not been determined. I go into some detail on the case because I know that it is of great interest to my noble friend Lord Howell.
The second purpose of the amendment is to probe the meaning of the word "security" and to examine what factors constitute a greater need of securing for ownership.
I shall not address Amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84 and we shall not move them when they are called.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving notice that he will not move the other amendments in the group and that he speaks only to Amendment No. 80, which is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 293. Obviously, they are linked and relate to the transfer of certain types of property rights and liabilities when a school becomes grant maintained.
Under the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988 there are criteria set out for deciding to whom property should be transferred where it cannot be divided between the school and the LEA. The type of property involved is that which is held or subsisting for the purposes of more than one institution, or which is held or subsisting partly for the purposes of one or more relevant institutions and partly for the other purposes of the LEA. Examples of the former might be a library, swimming pool, gymnasium or theatre, all of which may be shared by more than one institution. A common example of the latter is where school facilities—for example, classrooms, playing fields or theatres—are also used by the local community.
The amendments seek to change the criteria to be used in deciding to whom property should be transferred. Specifically, they will remove the provision in paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 10 to the
1186
Education Reform Act allowing for preferential consideration in certain transfer cases to be given to the body which appears,
"to be in greater need of the security afforded by that estate or interest".
The noble Lord pressed us on the meaning of those words.
The obvious effect of the change would be to reduce the circumstances in which property would be transferred to the school. While the school might quite reasonably be in greater need of the security afforded by ownership of the property, its claim to be likely to be able to make use of the property "to the greater extent" might be harder to sustain. The sheer size of an LEA might enable it to argue that it had more scope to use the property than the school.
We do not believe that this is a sound reason for changing the present arrangements. They are flexible and allow for consideration of transfer matters on a case by case basis. If property which has been in the past used by more than one institution is transferred to one party, the other party is still protected in its use of that property: its user rights are not lost by a transfer of property to a school. They are preserved as part of the terms of the transfer agreement.
These amendments seek to change the balance between LEAs and schools. I do not accept that they are justified or necessary. An LEA does not need any further advantages in its dealings with individual schools. The security offered by the present arrangements is essential to individual schools. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
1 a.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I will withdraw my amendment. However, I would question whether the answer addresses fully the problems of the Great Barr school. As far as I understand that case, the problem is that various other interested groups have been disadvantaged by the transfer, I believe of the gymnasium, to the school.
The noble Lord said that that is a consideration and it should not be the case. My understanding of the case, which has been put forward for determination, is that that is the problem which the amendment seeks to address. As I said, I shall not press the amendment further at this stage but, on a brief hearing of the Minister's explanation, I am far from satisfied that he is addressing that problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Transfer of staff]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 20, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) any person not employed by the school but placed at the school to meet the special educational needs of a child or children, where the Secretary of State considers that continued employment by the Local Education Authority is more appropriate".).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to thank my noble friend Lady Blatch for kindly arranging a meeting with her officials

1187
after the previous stage of the Bill and for sending me a copy of her letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), which was extremely helpful.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that staff who are part of a support service for pupils with special educational needs do not automatically become employees of the school if that school becomes grant-maintained. Teachers or specially trained assistants may be deployed at one school for the purpose of supporting a child or children with special educational needs. It may be beneficial for a member of staff to transfer when a child or group of children transfer, for example, to a secondary school or from pre-school services to school-based services. Equally, the child's needs may change and it may become important to draw on different specialist expertise.
As Clause 37 is currently drafted, it would mean that on becoming grant-maintained the school would retain all the staff currently working full-time at the school. That could lead to a system which would serve neither children nor schools well. In Committee in the other place distinctions were made between staffing and equipment being used by individual children and staffing and equipment being used by more than one child. In either instance staffing or equipment may need to be moved to best meet the needs of children.
The argument has also been put that staff should be employed at a grant-maintained school because that is the only way in which the educational management of the child can be retained in the school. However, the employment of special needs staff is not a prerequisite for retaining such responsibility. The school which receives part-time support from a central support team still has responsibility for the child. The key factor is not the quality of support but that the child is in mainstream education and on the roll of a mainstream school.
It has been accepted that some flexibility is required in decisions about equipment. I maintain that the same is true for staffing. That may be particularly so in relation to teachers with very specialised skills, such as teachers of the deaf or visually impaired children, many of whom are employed by central support services. Flexibility could be achieved if a decision was made school by school. The criteria for decisions on whether to transfer staff could be based on the impact on the local education authority's ability to fulfil its policies and plans for special educational needs. That decision should be made by the Secretary of State in the light of all the evidence.
In my view, it is essential that the Bill is amended to avoid the automatic transfer of employment to a grant-maintained school where such a transfer is clearly contrary to the effective long-term use of resources. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, most warmly, as does the noble Baroness, Lady David, who has attached her name to the amendment but who, unfortunately, has had to leave the Chamber. The noble Lord made a compelling and comprehensive
1188
case. I shall only add that I very much hope that the flexibility now contained in the amendment will find favour with the Minister.
I should like to take the opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for the very useful meeting that we had with the officials about the amendment and a related one that I moved in Committee which referred to equipment. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness for her letter of 28th May (regarding my amendment about equipment) which reads:
"I understand that you feel that the Education Assets Board (EAB) might usefully provide guidance on the question of the transfer of special education needs equipment, drawing on its experience to date. This might prove reassuring to those who are not aware of the role of the EAB in ascertaining which of a school's assets or liabilities should remain with the LEA when a school becomes grant-maintained, and which should transfer to the school itself. Officials are already in touch with the EAB on this, and they are now considering the form the guidance might take".
That is very satisfactory. I am grateful to the Minister and look forward to hearing the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to his noble friend. I hope that he will agree to the amendment, or something like it, to resolve the question of special educational needs staff in an equally satisfactory manner.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like briefly to add my voice to those supporting the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has put forward a very important point. As local authorities will still be maintaining the responsibility for special educational needs, it seems rather silly to try to deprive them of their staff who are capable of giving the correct support.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for the thanks both from my noble friend and from the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). I shall certainly ensure that the thanks they expressed in relation to my noble friend are brought to her attention. Before responding to the amendment, I think that it might be worth reminding ourselves of what Clause 37 is intended to achieve. Clause 37 deals with the transfer of staff to self-governing schools. In most cases the staff working at the school prior to it becoming self-governing will automatically transfer to the school when it acquires its new status.
If the amendment was accepted, it would mean that certain staff appointed to meet children's special educational needs would not necessarily transfer to the employment of the governing body; they would continue to be employed and controlled by the local education authority. The amendment would, therefore, go against one of the central principles of grant-maintained status: grant-maintained schools are self-governing schools whose parents have voted to remove them from the control of the LEA.
Virtually all other LEA staff employed to work solely at the school automatically transfer to the employment of the governing body when the school becomes self-governing. I am sure that both my noble friend and the noble Baroness will agree that control of major staff decisions, such as appointments and dismissals, is a central feature of any system which devolves responsibility to the school. My noble

1189
friend's amendment would to some extent contradict that. Excluding certain staff from the control of the governing body would significantly reduce the power of the governors.
We do, of course, recognise that both LEAs and governing bodies have responsibilities towards children with special educational needs. The position will not, however, be improved by reducing the governing body's role in staffing decisions. The governing body, after all, has overall responsibility for both the child and the school. The Bill makes clear at Clause 155 that it has to use its best endeavours to secure appropriate provision for those of its pupils with special educational needs: this amendment will not assist it in meeting this obligation.
On a purely practical level I also believe that this proposal could be unworkable. It seeks to involve the Secretary of State in decisions about individual staff. This would require detailed knowledge of the circumstances of those staff potentially affected. This could easily be an additional bureaucratic burden for both the school and the department.
I believe that the amendment in the name of my noble friend is clearly well-intentioned but I do not believe it is necessary. In terms of special educational needs staff, the staff transfer provisions of the Education Reform Act, which this clause substantially replicates, have not proved problematic. Schools and LEAs can work together on special education staffing matters without the need for statutory compulsion. Effectively this amendment would take certain staffing decisions away from the school and put them in the hands of the Secretary of State. We believe that that would be contrary to the philosophy of grant-maintained status. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their support. My noble friend Lord Henley will not be at all surprised to learn that I did not like his response or agree with it. I wonder whether he has understood the amendment. He talks about staff who are employed by the school, but the amendment specifically refers to,
"any person not employed by the school".
I do not intend to press this matter this evening but I shall consider it further between now and Third Reading and I shall consider what my noble friend has said. However, I have a strong feeling that it may well he necessary to return at Third Reading with yet another amendment to endeavour to get this provision inserted in the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Restriction on change of purpose for which property used or held]:
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 84 not moved.]
Clause 45 [Supplementary provisions about transfers]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 27, line 4, after ("(1)") insert ("No duty of a local education authority under paragraph 6 of the First Schedule to t he Education Act 1946 (maintenance of voluntary schools)
1190
to convey their interest in any site or buildings to the trustees of a school shall be affected by the school subsequently becoming a grant-maintained school.
(1A) Where such a duty is continued by virtue of subsection (1) above, then, in connection with the site in question, paragraphs 6 to 9 of that Schedule shall continue to apply after the school becomes a grant-maintained school as if it were a controlled school or, as the case may be, an aided or special agreement school.
(1B) Where any such duty as is referred to in subsection (1) above, or imposed by section 263(1) of this Act, applies in relation to a school, then—

(a)if it applies immediately before the date of implementation of proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status, section 36(1)(a)of this Act shall not apply to, or to any interest in, the site or buildings or, as the case may be, the premises to be conveyed, and

(b)if it applies at a time when the procedure for acquisition of grant-maintained status is pending, section 39 of this Act shall not apply to disposing, or entering into a contract to dispose, of the site or buildings or, as the case may be, the premises to he conveyed.

(1C) Where immediately before the date of implementation of proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status there is an agreement relating to any site or buildings made under paragraph 3 or 4 of that Schedule, section 36(1)(a)of this Act shall not apply to any rights or liabilities of any local authority under the agreement; and any directions given before that date under paragraph 5 of that Schedule, so far as they relate to the governing body of the school, shall have effect on or after that date as if they related to the governing body incorporated under section 32 of this Act.
(1D)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 77. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Proposals by promoters]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 86 to 88:
Page 27, line 42, leave out subsection (1).
Page 28, line 2, leave out ("for the purpose of providing relevant education").
Page 28, line 14, at end insert:
("( )A local education authority may not establish any grant-maintained school.
( ) In relation to England thissection haseffect at any timeafter the funding authority have begun to exercise their functions.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to with Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause48[Provisionssupplementarytosections46and 47]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 89 and 90:
Page 28, line 16, at end insert:
("(2A) Subsection (2B) below applies where promoters propose to establish a grant-maintained school in place of an existing independent school which it is proposed to discontinue on or before the date of implementation of the proposals.
(2B) Where this subsection applies, the proposals published by the promoters under section 47 of this Act shall, in addition to the matters required to be specified by virtue of paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to this Act—

(a)specify any arrangements proposed to be made by the promoters for land and other property held for the purposes of the existing independent school to be held for the purposes of the grant-maintained school, and

(b)state whether there is a trust deed or other instrument relating to the existing independent school.").

1191
Page 28, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 26 and insert:
("part-time education suitable to the requirements of persons of any age over compulsory school age, or full-time education suitable to the requirements of persons who have attained the age of nineteen years").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to with Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Proposals for schools to become, or be established as, grant-maintained schools]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 185, line 36, at beginning insert ("Within the period of ten days beginning with the date of publication of the proposals").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 64. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 186, line 16, after ("school") insert (", the percentage of those eligible to vote who voted,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I have just been saved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as I believe this was debated in an earlier grouping and is a consequential amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, to make it easier perhaps, could the noble Lord remind us which earlier amendment this was agreed to with? I am sorry to be rather slow on this matter.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, it was No. 69.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
1.15 a.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 187, line 4, leave out ("proposed for the governing body") and insert ("to be appointed by him").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my apologies for the previous amendment. In moving Amendment No. 94 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 97, 137 to 140 and 263 to 265.
This series of minor amendments tidies the original drafting of Clause 64, which deals with the appointment of sponsor governors in grant-maintained schools, and of Clause 250, which deals with similar appointments in aided schools. There are consequential amendments to Schedule 3.
One set of amendments-Amendments Nos. 94, 97 and 139-relates to the appointment of sponsor governors in schools acquiring grant-maintained status or being established as new grant-maintained schools, and deals particularly with cases where a school wishes to take on two or more separate sponsors. The amendments provide that in such cases it will be made clear, in both the published proposals
1192
for the school and in its initial instrument of government, how many sponsor governors will be appointed by each of the sponsors.
Additionally, Amendment No. 139 provides that no sponsor governor may represent two or more sponsors acting jointly. This ensures a clear line of responsibility and accountability between a sponsor governor and the single sponsor he represents.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 137, 138, 263, 264 and 265, we believe that sponsor governors will be most beneficial and appropriate to secondary schools, and our intention is that the two clauses should relate only to secondary schools. The clauses as drafted broadly reflect that, and the amendments ensure that that will be the case.
Finally, Amendment No. 140 provides that once the instrument of government for a new grant-maintained school with sponsor governors comes into force the instrument will not need to be amended again simply to reflect the first appointments of sponsor governors. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not believe that anyone will oppose the amendments. I merely ask whether it is possible that a little less haste might have meant that these points were noticed before the Bill was published.
Lord Henley: My Lords, one of the purposes of taking Bills through both Houses of Parliament in the way they are is to give us the opportunity to make amendments as we listen to representations made by various individuals and as Ministers themselves consider the Bill further. That is why it was felt that these minor amendments—as I said, simply to tidy up the provisions—were brought forward. I do not believe that the Bill has necessarily been brought forward with excessive haste and I do not believe that the suggestion which the noble Earl made is justified.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 95 to 102:
Page 187, line 33, leave out ("intended") and insert ("proposed").
Page 187, line 36, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert ("and, if pupils are proposed to be admitted for nursery education, give the prescribed information").
Page 188, line 18, leave out from ("of") to ("(in") in line 19 and insert ("sponsor governors to be appointed by him").
Page 188, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert ("and, if pupils are proposed to be admitted for nursery education, give the prescribed information").
Page 189, line 3, after ("10") insert ("or (as the case may be) paragraph 11").
Page 189, line 25, at end insert ("(except, in relation to Wales, before the Schools Funding Council for Wales begin to exercise their functions)").
Page 189, line 31, after ("published") insert ("under section 46 of this Act, the funding authority shall prepare the particulars in respect of the proposed premises of the school mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below.
(1A) Where proposals for the establishment of a new grant-maintained school are published under section 47 of this Act").
Page 189, leave out lines 33 to 37 and insert ("funding authority, at such time and in such form and manner as the authority may direct, by the promoters").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 95 to 102 en bloc. Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 were debated with Amendment No. 69, Amendment No. 97 with Amendment No. 94, Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 with Amendment No. 69, Amendment No. 100 with Amendment No. 59 and Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 with Amendment No. 77. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 189, leave out lines 42 to 44 and insert ("may be required or, in the case of proposals published under section 47 of this Act, as the funding authority may require").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment was debated with Amendment No. 77. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 [Approval, adoption or rejection of proposals]:
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 106, 107 and 108:
Page 28. line 44, at end insert:
("( ) In relation to Wales, subsection (3) above shall have effect before the Schools Funding Council for Wales begin to exercise their functions with the omission of the reference to consulting the funding authority.").
Page 29, line 1, at beginning insert:
("In the case of proposals published under section 46 of this Act, particulars in respect of the proposed premises of the school prepared under paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 to this Act must be adopted by the funding authority.
(4A) In the case of proposals published under section 47 of this Act").
Page 29, line 3, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("funding authority").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 106 was debated with Amendment No. 59 and Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 were debated with Amendment No. 77. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 50 [Implementation of proposals]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 109 and 110:
Page 29, line 28, after ("particulars") insert ("adopted or").
Page 29, line 29, after (" 49(4)") insert ("or (4A)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments which were debated with Amendment No. 77.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 51 [Exercise of powers before proposed date of implementation, and payment of grant]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 30, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) Such requirements may, in particular, if any conditions specified in the requirements are satisfied, require the payment to the funding authority of the whole or any part of the following amount.
( ) That amount is—

(a) the amount of the payments made in respect of the grant, or

1194

(b) so much of the value of any premises or equipment in respect of which the grant was paid as is determined in accordance with the requirements to be properly attributable to the payment of such grant, whichever is the greater.

( ) In this section "site" does not include playing fields.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Governing bodies of grant-maintained schools]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 192, line 45, leave out from ("must") to end of line 46 and insert ("until every initial governor has ceased to hold office, make the provision required by sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 112 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 120 to 129, 131, 132, 134, 135, 148 to 160 and also 267. I understand we shall also be speaking to Amendment No. 115 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. These amendments all deal with governors at grant-maintained schools. If I may, I should like first quickly to dispose of Amendments Nos. 112, 113, 114, 127 and 129. These are technical amendments which relate to Schedules 5 and 7 to the Bill.
The three amendments to Schedule 5 will make it clear that the instrument of government will provide for the terms of office of initial governors and those parent and teacher governors appointed before the date of implementation of proposals in "new" grant-maintained schools. The instrument will, however, only have to make these provisions while there are still such governors on the governing body: it would clearly not make sense for an instrument of government made 10 years into the life of a grant-maintained school still to refer to the terms of office of initial governors who have long since left the governing body.
The amendments to Schedule 7 merely clarify references to Clauses 58(6) and 59(4). The schedule currently implies that these clauses stipulate that the instrument of government should make certain provisions in respect of the appointment of parent and teacher governors in new grant-maintained schools. In fact, rather than making stipulations the two clauses only provide for the instrument to have effect as if it made those provisions: the amendment makes this clear. I hope with that brief clarification that the House will be prepared to accept the amendments.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 116, 118, 131 to 135 and 297, I think when I started I mentioned Amendment No. 117, which is not in this group. Perhaps I may add that small correction.
Although at first sight this looks to be a lengthy and detailed set of amendments I hope I can assure the House that they are minor but necessary technical changes to ensure consistency among the various provisions dealing with governors in the instrument and articles of government and in proposals from schools for grant-maintained status. We are in particular seeking to ensure that the requirements on governors appointed to new grant-maintained schools are consistent with the need to take account of the absence of parents and teachers before the school is actually established.
Taking government Amendments Nos. 118, 131, 132, 134, 135 and 297, I should explain that among other things these make clear that for new schools the role of the first governors includes appointing parent and teacher governors in the period before implementation: in that period there will be no parents or teachers available to be elected so the first governors will have to appoint them. This is as set out in Clauses 58, 59 and 61. Once the school is up and running these appointed governors will be replaced by elected parents and teachers. The funding authority will have a similar role when it proposes the establishment of a new school. The amendments also improve the wording in the Schedule 19 cross-reference to Clause 55 and provide for consistency in the treatment of instruments and articles of government with respect to Clause 56.
On Amendment No. 116, noble Lords will remember that when we discussed the role of the head teacher during Committee stage my noble friend promised to consider whether a reference to the head teacher might be specifically included in Schedule 6. This amendment puts into effect that commitment. It makes explicit what was implicit in the schedule: that articles of government must set out the head teacher's functions.
I will now speak to Amendments Nos. 120 to 126, 148 to 152 and 156 to 160. Once again I apologise for the number of amendments involved, but the effect of the amendments is really quite simple. These amendments are intended to bridge a gap in the current arrangements dealing with parent governors. In LEA-maintained schools, parent governors may be appointed if fewer governors stand for election than there are vacancies on the governing body. Similar arrangements apply in grant-maintained schools once they are up and running. The existing arrangements do not, however, allow for parent governors to be appointed if too few parents stand for election to the initial governing body of the grant-maintained school. Nor do the existing arrangements allow for situations where an initial parent governor named in the proposals drops out and no one stands for election in his place.
These are not situations that we would expect to happen regularly. That is clearly borne out by the fact that so far the current arrangements have not led to significant difficulties for governing bodies putting together their proposals. It is, however, a situation for which we would like to provide so as to avoid any possible future problems. I trust that with those explanations the House will feel ready to accept that these technical amendments are both necessary and desirable.
I turn lastly to Amendments Nos. 153 to 155. During the Committee stage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, tabled an amendment seeking to ensure that replacement foundation governors are nominated by the persons or bodies who normally appoint them. Under the current arrangements, if a foundation governor named in a school's proposals for grant-maintained status dies, becomes disqualified from holding office or decides he
1196
no longer wishes to stand as a governor, a replacement may be nominated by the foundation governors on the existing governing body, that is, those on the governing body of the LEA school.
We gave a commitment at Committee stage that the Government would return with suitable amendments to ensure that in all cases the appointing bodies—which could be, for example, the school's foundation or a Church body—select or nominate the initial foundation governors. I trust that the noble Lord and other noble Lords will find those amendments acceptable.
I apologise for having to explain at this hour these amendments at length but I think it was necessary. I shall deal with Amendment No. 115 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, after he has spoken to it. But meanwhile, I beg to move my own amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may address Amendment No. 115, which concerns the appointment of first governors. The provisions of the 1988 Act were designed mainly around short-term considerations of opting out arrangements, with little attention being paid to the longer-term conduct of the school in grant-maintained status. It is disappointing that the Bill so extensively re-enacts the 1988 provisions without development or improvement.
The initial first governors after opting out may be considered to have stood collectively for election by parents at the school since their nominations are necessarily part of the proposal for acquiring grant-maintained status. The issue that this amendment seeks to address is that replacement first governors may, according to the 1988 Act and this Bill, later be appointed by the existing first governors with little or no other support.
The amendment therefore seeks to provide better tests of parental support for successive appointments to the dominant party, the governing body, by encouraging external nominations and by requiring a high quorum for the governing body meetings which decide on any new appointments. I do not move the amendment at this stage. I address the amendments.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that this amendment will add to the detailed requirements that the instrument of government must include in respect of first governors. It may be that there is concern that first governors should not become self-perpetuating elites. I hope that I can offer reassurance. The composition of the governing body of a self-governing school is carefully balanced. There are, in addition to the first governors, elected parent and teacher governors, and the head teacher as a governor ex officio.
First governors in up-and-running self-governing schools are appointed by the governing body as a whole, including the elected parent and teacher governors. Parents and teachers —I believe this is the point on which the noble Lord wished for reassurance —will therefore have a say in who is to be appointed as a first governor: they are not simply self-appointing. Two of the first governors must also be parents of registered pupils at the school on the date

1197
they take office. This clearly means that the same group of first governors could not remain in office in perpetuity.
First governors must also include members of the local community and business community. A broad range of interests and expertise is therefore brought together in the governing body. Their common aim, however, must be to work for the good of the school. To this end we have made it a requirement in Schedule 7 to the Bill that first governors are committed to the good government and continuing viability of the school.
We believe that there are already sensible safeguards in place over the appointment of first governors and that it would not be appropriate to encumber self-governing schools with unnecessary requirements. That certainly would be the case if this amendment were accepted. I appreciate that the noble Lord has spoken to it more in the manner of a probing amendment. I trust, therefore, that he will not press it when the time comes. In the meantime, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
1.30 a.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 113 and 114:
Page 193, line 11, leave out ("any") insert ("the instrument for a school must, until every").
Page 193, line 13, leave out ("shall") and insert ("has ceased to hold office, provide for any such governor to").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
Schedule 6 [Content of articles of government for grant-maintained schools]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 194, line 35, after second ("body") insert:
("( ) the head teacher").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 116A not moved.]
Clause 55 [Subsequent instruments of government]:
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 31, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall in respect of subsections (l), (2), (3) and (4) above, consult—

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

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

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

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to Clause 55, which is about changes in instruments of government. The amendment provides for consultation with the Churches and other persons entitled to appoint foundation governors in the case of endowed grant maintained schools. It follows roughly the wording of Amendment No. 22 of the noble Baroness which amended Clause 2.
Consultation is important to ensure so far as possible that any new instruments of government do not remove or water down the entrenched rights of persons entitled to appoint foundation governors or the promoters of new grant-maintained schools under Section 47 of the Act. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I wish to support the noble Lord. At Committee stage I believe that the Minister indicated that she would take this point away and come back to it at Report stage. We have not heard anything and for that reason the amendment has been tabled. It is in order to make sure that she has an opportunity to report back to us.
Baroness Blatch: As I made clear when this matter was raised during Committee stage, the Government will certainly consult widely about the regulations to be made for grant-maintained school instruments and articles of government. I can assure noble Lords that consultation will include national bodies representing the Church of England and the Catholic Church.
The Government believe that it is right to consult the Churches and other appropriate bodies when drawing up national regulations affecting grant-maintained schools. It is also right that those national bodies should be consulted if at a later date all grant-maintained schools or all Church of England or Roman Catholic grant-maintained schools have their instrument or articles of government amended by the Secretary of State.
However, this amendment will not provide for consultation on the making of regulations; that is covered by Clause 54 rather than Clause 55. The amendment is in fact specific to subsequent variations in a school's instrument of government.
It is far more practical for the Secretary of State to consult on a national basis when national changes are being made and on a local basis when he is initiating changes to individual schools. However, if an individual school itself seeks to initiate a change, then it is far more practical that the requirement to consult with the local diocese or bishop should fall on the school. It would not make sense for the Secretary of State to have to consult with local bodies when it is the schools themselves which are seeking a change. The schools will know which are the relevant local bodies and who will be able to enter into meaningful discussions with them prior to seeking the Secretary of State's approval of a change in their instrument of government.
I have given a clear commitment to national consultation on instruments and articles of government regulations. I have also set out some of the ways in which that consultation could be conducted. I do not believe therefore that this amendment is necessary. Apart from the technical problems associated with what is proposed, it is not appropriate for such requirements to be included on the face of the Bill. First, it can be overly rigid to list consultees in statute. Secondly, I do not believe that such singling out of two bodies for inclusion in the Bill is desirable. There are other interests, particularly those of individual schools, which also need to be consulted.

1199
There is one other point worth making. There are a number of other areas in which the Churches would wish to see explicit references to their involvement in consultation. As I said before, we do not think it is necessarily practical to include that type of requirement on the face of the Bill. But I am more than willing, if noble Lords are still concerned about the issue, to table an amendment at the next stage to provide for regulations to be made which will specify which bodies are to be consulted on that and other relevant matters. With that assurance, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that assurance. On the basis of her assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 [Subsequent articles of government]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 32, line 1, leave out ("the existing articles for the school") and insert ("any articles made under paragraph (a) above or, where articles made under Chapter IV of Part I of the Education Reform Act 1988 have effect by virtue of paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 19 to this Act, those articles").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 118 was spoken to with Amendment No. 112. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 119:
After Clause 56, insert the following new clause:
("Whole school behaviour policy
.—(1) The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 22—

(a)in sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) after "authority" there is inserted "and for others"; and

(b)at the end of paragraph (a) there is added "and such measures shall be known as the whole school behaviour policy of that school"; and

(c)in paragraph (b), after the words "any such measures" there is inserted—

"( ) to consult with the staff—both academic and non-academic—of that school, with the registered pupils at that school and with the parents of such pupils.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 22 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 makes a requirement that,
"The articles of government for every county, voluntary and maintained special school shall provide (a) for it to be the duty of the head teacher to determine measures … to be taken with a view to (i) promoting, among pupils, self-discipline and proper regard for authority".
I do not want, either, to expand on or repeat the arguments I adduced at Committee to convince your Lordships—which was not difficult to do—that discipline which rested on a proper regard for authority only would not necessarily provide an effective school. Keeping the pupils down does not necessarily bring them on. Your Lordships agreed that the missing word was "others"—a proper respect for authority and for others.
Therefore the first paragraph of the amendment introduces that word by amending that section. At the same time the amendment takes the opportunity to give a name to the other ingredients of making an effective school; that is, the "whole school behaviour
1200
policy", which is a term widely used in schools in this country. It is much easier to promote a policy if it has a name.
The third element of the amendment is a requirement that the whole school policy shall be approached by the way that works best—that is to say, involving all the staff, both academic and non-academic, and the pupils and their parents.
I should add that at Committee stage my noble friend pronounced herself in some sympathy with the first element of the amendment and said that she would like to think about it between then and Report. I have heard no more and like the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I am providing her with an opportunity to tell us how she got on with that.
The second two elements could be met by an undertaking from the Minister to proceed by regulation or guidance because it seems to me that the 1986 Act is defective in that respect. That aspect is tackled by the first element in the amendment. I hope that my noble friend will agree at least to accept that much of it. I beg to move.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Elton, very strongly on this point. It would be a pity if all the work the noble Lord has done on the discipline of schools would allow the wording of the 1986 Act to remain. That would be a limited view of the duty a school and its governors should have to ensure that there is moral education in the school. That is not a matter simply of obeying the rules or respecting authority, though it would be an element of it. What is required is a kind of internalisation of the rules where the pupils in the school are taught specifically to develop a moral sense with regard to other people. That requires the 1986 Act to be amended.
It is well known that a whole school policy is needed because the whole staff of a school, teachers and others, have to be prepared to take on the responsibility for developing a moral sense in pupils, largely by example but also by precept and, if necessary, punishment. A whole school policy seems to be something that should be insisted upon. I do not know whether that should be done by regulation or by some other means, but the first part requires legislation. I therefore support what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, put forward.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I too very much support the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in the principle of the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I too support the amendment most warmly.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Section 22 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 is a key provision. It establishes the responsibility of head teachers to maintain good discipline and order in their schools. The head is empowered to institute measures to that end, but is required to act in accordance with any general principles laid down by the governors. I believe that is the right balance. The governors determine overall policy but the head teacher is the person responsible for day-to-day enforcement and

1201
for reacting to situations as they arise. I do not believe that it is appropriate in primary legislation to lay down too many restrictions on how head teachers should act in carrying out their responsibilities under Section 22 of the 1986 (No. 2) Act. For example, to require in law the head to consult widely as suggested here seems an innocuous enough provision but can lead to problems. What would happen if the course of instituting measures which accorded with broad principles laid down by the governors the pupils, having been consulted, objected to them? How far is the head teacher to be required to take account of such views? Are we not undermining his authority?
That is not to say that the head should act alone in determining the behaviour policy for the school. While he should take the lead in proposing principles and standards, we would expect the detail of policy to be worked out co-operatively in consultation with teaching and non-teaching staff. The principles and reasons for the school's behaviour policy should also be made clear to parents and pupils. The department will be embarking on the production of guidance on behaviour and discipline linked to the new duty in respect of education otherwise and our changes to the exclusion procedures. If I heard my noble friend aright, I believe that at least he accepted the principle that that issue could be coped with in guidance. The former is now on the face of the Bill; the latter will be the subject of further government amendments which will be tabled shortly. I believe that such guidance provides a more appropriate vehicle for encouraging heads to arrive at a degree of consensus among all concerned—staff, parents and pupils—on measures designed to promote good behaviour in schools.
My noble friend Lord Elton will recall that in Committee I expressed some interest in his proposal —repeated here—that respect for others should be specifically mentioned in Section 22 of the 1986 Act. I am sympathetic to the underlying thinking. It is highly desirable that young people should be encouraged to have respect for others, not least those in society who are vulnerable. I have particularly in mind the elderly and the handicapped. The Government's views on the important part that schools can play in promoting shared values are well known. But we must also be alert to the dangers of adding wording to existing primary legislation when it may have little practical effect in law. We would therefore propose to make respect for others a theme in our forthcoming guidance on behaviour rather than amend primary legislation.
I hope that on that basis my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps she will explain one matter. She referred to guidance on the matter of behaviour but said that it was guidance on education other than in school. If so, it is totally irrelevant to the amendment. I wonder whether that is what she means or whether she is referring to something else.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not absolutely certain that I took the point of the question. Will my noble friend bear with me and explain it again?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend said in her answer, and looked around appealingly, if I may say so, as she said it, that she was planning for there to be guidance issued on behaviour for education otherwise than in schools. That was the phrase that she used. I am talking about what goes on in schools. If that is what she really meant, it has no bearing on this amendment at all and of course it cannot satisfy me. If I dwell a little longer on the thought, I wonder whether she could just cast her eye over what she said and let me know whether or not I am right.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is right and that it was on the narrower point of being linked to education otherwise. What my noble friend is saying is that it must be much more expansive and take into account whole school policy in mainstream schools. Is that right?
Lord Elton: My Lords, this amendment addresses what goes on in schools, not what goes on outside schools. That, I think, is fairly clear on the face of the amendment. It was also in the note I sent to my noble friend and her department on Monday explaining that that element of it which she is now discussing—the inclusion of the words "and for others" in the amendment—could only be undertaken by changing legislation whereas the remainder could be undertaken in giving guidance. It seems to me that my noble friend has said that she does not wish to change legislation because it is dangerous to add words which may not have any effect. But the effect they would have would be considerable. At the moment, what the statute book says is that all you have to do to have pupils behave properly is keep them down and make them keep to the rules. After that, you have a good school. That is absolute rubbish. It is not right to leave on the statute book something which says something which is educationally rubbish.
I am not satisfied with that part of my noble friend's reply. We come to the remainder where I said, in the note which I sent to her on Monday, that I would be content for it to be done by guidance. I would be perfectly satisfied with that. But it seems irrelevant to say that guidance will be given connected with a subject within an area totally remote from that which is addressed by the amendment. Of course I cannot at this late hour divide the House but I must tell my noble friend that I am in no way satisfied by either part of her reply and that I shall return to the matter at Third Reading.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wonder whether, with the leave of the House, I can respond to my noble friend. I am prepared in principle at this stage to accept the addition of the words "for others" to Section 22 but if he will allow me I shall think more about the other things that he said in the course of the amendment and come back and put it right at Third Reading.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am most grateful for that slight change in course. I look forward to seeing my noble friend's amendment to achieve this. I take it that she will provide the amendment. I am prepared of course to draft but I am also expecting to be told that

1203
it is non-effective if I draft it myself. That is what always happens when I draft anything myself. Great is the pride and satisfaction with which I bring them to the House. I am grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 [Categories of governors]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 120 to 126:
Page 197, line 23, after first ("elected") insert ("or appointed").
Page 197, line 23, after second ("elected") insert ("appointed").
Page 197, line 28, after ("and") insert ("a person elected or appointed under that section to hold such office").
Page 197, line 28, after ("elected") insert ("or appointed").
Page 197, line 29, after ("elected") insert ("appointed").
Page 197, line 34, leave out first ("a") and insert ("an appointment or").
Page 197, line 35, after ("his") insert ("appointment or").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving these amendments, perhaps I may deal also with Amendments Nos. 128, 129, 131 and 132. These were spoken to with Amendment No. 112. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 127 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 128 and 129:
Page 199, line 7, leave out ("or (6)") and insert:
("of this Act,
( ) is appointed by virtue of section 58(6)").
Page 199, line 14, leave out ("under a provision of the instrument of government made").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 130 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 58 [Parent governors]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 33, line 3, leave out from ("if") to end of line 8 and insert:
("(a) before the date of implementation of the proposals, the governing body had power to appoint as parent governors persons who satisfy the prescribed requirements, and
(b) the first appointments were to be made before that date.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59 [Teacher governors]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 33, line 35, leave out from ("if") to end of line 40 and insert:
("(a) before the date of implementation of the proposals, the governing body had power to appoint as teacher governors persons who satisfy the prescribed requirements, and
(b) the first appointments were to be made before that date.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61 [First governors]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 34, line 29, at end insert:
1204
("( ) shall require at least one of the governors to be a person who can demonstrate recent knowledge and understanding of special educational needs (and such persons may also satisfy one or both of the requirements of paragraph (a) (i) and (ii) above).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 136 which is grouped with it. The purpose of both amendments is to ensure that in a grant-maintained school there is at least one governor with an understanding of special educational needs.
I spoke to these amendments in Committee on 27th April when I moved an amendment relating to parent governors. At col. 267 of the Official Report, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said firmly that he did not see how he could issue guidance to parents as to who they should or should not elect but he would look at the matter again with officials. I accept the point in relation to parents, but I return with amendments aimed at ensuring that there is one person on the governing body with a general understanding of special educational needs. This would help the governing body as a whole to carry out its very clear responsibilities. It would help to establish existing good practice more firmly and complement the Government's own amendment to what is now Clause 155(4) —the requirement to publish the school's policy on special educational needs.
I was very pleased to receive a letter this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, which mentioned guidance. Therefore, I look forward to the Minister's reply. If she says what I hope she is going to say, I shall be grateful; I shall shut up and withdraw. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as has been made clear in earlier discussions of these matters, the governing body of a self-governing school is not intended to be purely a representative body. It is there to effectively manage the school. As such it is not necessary or desirable for all possible constituencies to be represented on the governing body.
In many schools the number of pupils with special educational needs is likely to be a very small proportion of the total number of pupils in the school. In some schools there may be no children falling within this category. It would therefore be inappropriate for a particular group of pupils, no matter how few, to be in effect guaranteed their own representative. The influence of such governors might then be disproportionate to the numbers of pupils at the school with special educational needs.
I think that we would all agree that children with special educational needs who are integrated into mainstream school, should be treated in a similar way to the majority of pupils wherever possible. However, I do not believe that these amendments are the best way to achieve this. There are in fact other provisions in the Bill which I believe provide a much more practical and desirable way of approaching this issue.
As noble Lords will know, Part III of the Bill already places great emphasis on the role of the school, and the collective responsibility of all members of its governing body, in providing for all pupils with special educational needs. In particular, Clause 155 continues the requirements of the Education Act 1981

1205
that governing bodies use their "best endeavours" to secure that any registered pupil with special educational needs receives the special educational provision his learning difficulty calls for. The clause also introduces a new provision to bring into effect the Government's policy that schools should publish and report annually on their policies for teaching all pupils who have special educational needs. Additionally, all schools in the maintained sector (and this includes self-governing schools) will be required to have regard to the code of practice to be introduced under Clause 151. The code will offer practical guidance to the governing bodies of such schools on how to exercise their functions towards pupils with special educational needs.
I think these general requirements demonstrate our commitment to improving the position of pupils with special educational needs. They show that schools must take very seriously their responsibilities towards pupils with special educational needs. They are a more practical proposition than those put forward in these amendments. At a more detailed level, I also believe the amendments would cause severe difficulties for schools because they are not sufficiently objective. Who is to say what level of special educational needs expertise will qualify a person to be a governor under this category? Who will do the testing? I am sure my noble friends will accept that placing ill-defined criteria on governing bodies can only lead to confusion.
In any case, the governing body of a self-governing school is not required to contain persons with individual expertise in any other particular area. There is no requirement for there to be a governor with, say, knowledge of staffing issues, or the curriculum. It should not therefore be obligatory for there to be a particular special educational needs expert on the governing body. I would here add that schools are of course free to obtain specialist advice on any subject and that will obviously include advice on special educational needs.
As I think has been made clear, we would expect the governing body as a whole to be familiar with the requirements of children with special needs in their school. With this in mind, we shall consider carefully how guidance under the Bill, once enacted, could encourage governing bodies to make sure that by whatever way seems most appropriate they have the necessary knowledge to fulfil their duties towards pupils with special needs. The Government believe that this will be of more general value than appointing one specific governor with knowledge of special educational needs.
Finally, and not insignificantly, this amendment may also have the effect of marginalising pupils with special needs by making them appear to be a separate group within the school with their own governor. I am sure that this is not the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), but it may be one effect and another reason why we have to ask for these amendments to be opposed.
Therefore, although I know that these amendments are underlain by considerable anxiety on the part of the noble Baroness, they are neither practical nor
1206
desirable. I hope that the more practical measure which I have mentioned, together with what my noble friend Lord Henley said in the letter to the noble Baroness, will mean that she will not press the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for taking the trouble to give such a long and detailed reply. I find some of it slightly discouraging and would not agree with her arguments. But what I found encouraging was what was probably her penultimate paragraph when she said that she would encourage governing bodies to make sure that, by whatever means is appropriate, they have the necessary knowledge to fulfil their duties towards pupils with special educational needs by guidance. In many cases I imagine that that will mean appointing a governor with such knowledge. Indeed, many governing bodies have already done so. Anyway, I am in the main well satisfied with what she has said and with what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said in his letter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 134 and 135:
Page 35, line 11, after ("Act") insert:
("(a) any provision of the instrument made by virtue of").
Page 35, line 13, at end insert ("and
( ) any provision of the instrument made by virtue of subsection (3) (b) above shall apply as if references to the governing body were references to the funding authority").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these were spoken to with Amendment No. 112. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 63 [Foundation governors]:
[Amendment No. 136 not moved.]
Clause 64 [Sponsor governors]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 137 to 140:
Page 37, line 25, leave out ("school which provides secondary education") and insert ("secondary school").
Page 37, line 33, leave out ("provide secondary education") and insert ("be a secondary school").
Page 37, line 37, at end insert:
("( ) Where the instrument of government provides for two or more persons named as sponsors of the school in such proposals or, as the case may be, in the instrument to appoint governors

(a)it shall provide for each sponsor to appoint such number of governors as is specified in relation to him in the proposals or, as the case may be, instrument, and

(b)it may not provide for any of those governors to be appointed by two or more sponsors acting jointly.").

Page 37, line 41, leave out ("provide for") and insert ("have effect as if it required").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these were spoken to with Amendment No. 94. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 66 [Powers of governing body]:
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 141:

1207
Page 38, line 26, leave out ("and (7) below") and insert ("(7) and (7A) below and section (Charitable payments etc. to individual pupils) of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 141, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 142 and 143.
Clause 66 confers powers upon the governing body of a grant-maintained school in an unrestricted manner which causes some concern. Subsection (4) states:
"the governing body of a grant-maintained school may do anything which appears to them to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of or in connection with the conduct of the school".
These amendments aim to address two concerns arising from that subsection. The more specific concern is in respect of potential abuse of financial resources (whether private charitable funds or otherwise) by governors offering inducements or marketing incentives in order to recruit more pupils. The more general concern is that private charitable funds in the hands of the governors as trustees may not be properly held separate from other moneys over which they may exercise greater discretion.
The Minister might say in reply that there is no evidence of misbehaviour and so there is no case for legislating. To counter that, one might refer back to the 1988 Act's provisions about charges in maintained schools: where Ministers accepted in 1988 that clarification of the limits of schools' powers was desirable, even though the evidence then was of confusion rather than misbehaviour.
Would the Minister in replying state clearly the Government's position on legislating to prevent the kinds of abuse referred to? Could the Minister describe what action could be taken, short of new legislation, in response to any reported instances of abuse or misbehaviour? I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a governing body will have many expenditure priorities and will not, I believe, even contemplate using grant to induce pupils to join or remain at the school. More specifically, a governing body would not be able to justify the use of its grant to influence pupils to join or remain at a school. As Clause 79 makes clear, annual maintenance grant is specifically paid to the governing body, "in respect of expenditure for the purposes of the school". It is very doubtful that any governing body could legitimately claim that offering payments to pupils to join a school or to remain at the school could be classed as expenditure for the "purposes of the school".
As to the new clause, this would require that any help given to pupils from charitable funds should be given independently of the likelihood of the pupil remaining at the school; and to comply with directions from the Secretary of State on the considerations they may take into account when giving such help. This strikes me as an unnecessary interference in the right of schools to administer these trusts according to their own good sense and the wishes of the donor. It also looks like a recipe for confusion: who is to say whether assistance to pupils is or is not to be regarded as conducive to that pupil staying at the school?
1208
The new clause would also require charities making such payments to be administered separately from the school's administration. That is both unrealistic and unnecessarily bureaucratic. Noble Lords will appreciate that it is not practical or desirable for the Bill to spell out every single power that a governing body may require. Nor does it make sense to specify every action it shall not take. Certainly that is not the way in which the equivalent section—Section 57(3) of the Education Reform Act—was framed.
There has not to my knowledge been any suggestion that schools will use their grant in order to recruit pupils. Nor do we believe that the general powers provisions of the governing body, as set out in this Bill, extend to allowing payments to be made to pupils. Similarly, I am unaware of any instances when assistance to pupils from charitable trusts have been used in the way envisaged by the proposed new clause. With the exposed position of published accounts, and auditing and monitoring procedures, it is almost impossible to think that any school could abuse the system in such a way. I ask that the amendment should not be pressed.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. However, she did not reply to one of my questions. If there are any reported instances of abuse, what action short of new legislation can be taken in respect of those abuses, however unlikely she may believe that will be?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if there were abuse of funds, that would be picked up by the district auditor or complained about by a parent or even a governor. It would be dealt with in the way any abuse of public money is dealt with.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lord, I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall consider my position on this set of amendments. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 142 to 147 not moved.]
Clause 69 [Determination of initial parent and teacher governors]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 148 to 150:
Page 41, line 15, after ("election") insert ("or appointment").
Page 41, line 46, after ("elected") insert ("or appointed by the procedure applicable under that Act").
Page 42, line 7, after ("elected") insert ("or appointed").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 112. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 72 [Replacement of proposed initial parent and teacher governors before incorporation]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 151 and 152:
Page 43, line 44, after ("elected") insert ("or appointed by the procedure applicable under that Act").
Page 44, line 3, after ("election") insert ("or make an appointment").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 73 [Replacement of proposed initial first or foundation governors before incorporation]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 153 to 155:
Page 45, line 31, after ("by") insert ("the person or persons named in the school's instrument of government as being entitled to appoint").
Page 45, line 32, leave out ("on") and insert ("to").
Page 45, line 34, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("( ) Subsections (8) and (9) of section 71 of this Act apply for the purposes of subsection (2) above as they apply for the purposes of that section, but as if references to selection were to nomination.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 74 [Elections and appointments required for determining initial governors of an elected category: supplementary provisions]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 156 to 158:
Page 46, line 16, after ("election") insert ("or appointment").
Page 46, line 37, leave out ("in the case of an election").
Page 46, line 39, leave out ("in the case of an election or appointment").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 78 [Chapter V: interpretation]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 159 and 160:
Page 47, line 39, after first ("Act") insert ("and in sections 69(7) and 72(2) of this Act").
Page 47 line 40, leave out ("in relation to filling the vacancy").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at three minutes past two o'clock.

  POST OFFICE STAFF: DISHONESTY CONVICTIONS
  POST OFFICE STAFF: DISHONESTY CONVICTIONS
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION
  MALAWI: REFERENDUM
  MALAWI: REFERENDUM
  MOZAMBIQUE: HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE
  MOZAMBIQUE: HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE
  FORMER YUGOSLAVIA: BRITISH FORCES
  FORMER YUGOSLAVIA: BRITISH FORCES
  RAF MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
  RAF MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
  DEFENCE ANALYTICAL SERVICES AGENCY: TARGETS
  DEFENCE ANALYTICAL SERVICES AGENCY: TARGETS
  LLOYD'S UNDERWRITING MEMBERS: TAX
  LLOYD'S UNDERWRITING MEMBERS: TAX