Sitting of 14 June 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL HERITAGE

    Cathedrals
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what grants his Department is making to support the preservation of the major cathedrals.
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): The cathedral repair grant scheme assists with the repair both of cathedrals and of comparable buildings of other denominations. English Heritage has provided £11·5 million over the three financial years to 1993–94, and I was pleased to announce that £4 million will be available for this work in each of the years 1994–95 and 1995–96.
    Mr. Brandreth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the maintenance of our great cathedrals can no longer be left to the cathedrals themselves and the Church Commissioners? Chester cathedral is enormously grateful for the support of English Heritage, the European Community and local businesses such as North West Securities. Does my right hon. Friend plan to do more to explore, encourage and sustain partnerships of that kind for the further support of our great and ancient cathedrals?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is right to identify the need for help for the fabric of our cathedrals and about the notable effectiveness of a pluralist response. I am grateful to him for his comments about English Heritage's contribution, and I look forward to the kind of partnership that he described in a series of cases.
    Mr. Enright: While welcoming the support for cathedrals, may I ask whether it applies only to ecclesia Anglicana, or do all other churches and similar buildings receive a grant?
    Mr. Brooke: I shall reiterate my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). I said that the cathedral repair grant scheme assists with the repair both of cathedrals and of comparable buildings of other denominations.

    Deregulation
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what initiatives his Department has taken to promote deregulation.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): My Department is currently carrying out a detailed review of those regulations which impact upon businesses that regularly and significantly supply goods and services in areas for which my Department is responsible. Most of these regulations are not the direct responsibility of my Department but, where justified, my Department will be making strong representations to the relevant Department about unnecessary and burdensome regulations and over-zealous or unacceptably inconsistent standards of enforcement.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend on his return to the Dispatch Box and congratulate him on his commitment, about which I know, to dealing with absurd red tape. Will he tackle as a priority the extraordinary absurdities in fire regulations? Is he aware that they date back to the days when theatres were lighted by gas flames, when cinemas distributed films on highly combustible nitrate, and when there were no smoke alarms or fire ventilators? Such regulations place impossible burdens on places of entertainment. Therefore, will my hon. Friend tackle that problem and modernise all the regulations, bringing them up to date?
    Mr. Sproat: I am glad that my hon. Friend asked that question, because she made two important points. First, with regulations on such matters as fire safety, it is extremely important to ensure that we keep them and that we have the right ones. Equally, it is clear that it is unlikely that fire safety regulations introduced for theatres lighted by gas will be as modern as they should be. Following her perspicacious question, I shall see whether that should be changed.
    Mrs. Clwyd: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box, and have a question about maintaining a policy of deregulation of the press. Will he enlighten the House on the extent of the disagreement between his Department and the Prime Minister on that issue? Is it true that the policy unit at No. 10 was planning a meeting on that matter with Fleet street editors without consulting the Secretary of State? Is it not the case that the Secretary of State favours self-regulation, while the Prime Minister, facing a hostile press, wants to impose tough controls? Is there some disagreement?
    Mr. Sproat: No, there is no disagreement. We shall make our views known in due course, as the hon. Lady well knows from the debate last Thursday.
    Mr. Waterson: May I join those welcoming my hon. Friend back to the Dispatch Box after he was rudely interrupted? Does he agree that the last thing that restaurateurs and hoteliers in my constituency of Eastbourne need is more regulation, and that it is quite absurd that, for example, cheeses have to be kept in a separate room in a fridge, when one has only to cross the channel to see them kept as they should be, in the restaurant, without benefit of refrigeration?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. There are many such examples. We may come to deal with them in more detail in a later question. I shall certainly look at the example that he gave and deal with it.

    Regional Orchestras
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy on regional orchestras; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sproat: The Arts Council and the BBC are responsible for formulating policy relating to regional orchestras. They are collaborating on a joint review of orchestral provision, and a report will be considered by their governing councils later this year. A period of public consultation is planned subsequently.
    Mr. Jones: Bearing in mind the pressure on the Arts Council budget, what is the future for great northern orchestras, such as the Liverpool Philharmonic and Manchester Hallé? I declare my interest as a life member of the Liverpool Philharmonic and as a friend and subscriber.
    Does the Minister accept that the Liverpool Philharmonic has considerable financial difficulities? Will he explain how he may help that great orchestra, as it has a great record of touring and artistic success, and has a charismatic maestro in the person of Libor Pesak? I think that he will agree that Liverpool is now making a new economic future. it is proud of its orchestra and to make the best of its prospects, Liverpool needs the Philharmonic to have the best possible financial backing. What can he do to help that great orchestra?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I share his view of the high qualities of the Liverpool Philharmonic and the Hallé. I can tell him—these are not glib words—that the Arts Council increased the grant to both orchestras by more than 6 per cent. last year, which was more than other main regional orchestras got. That was more than £1 million to each. We are both seized of the importance of the artistic quality to which he referred and, through the Arts Council, are doing something specific and considerable about it.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my hon. Friend concede that the Hallé is one of the finest orchestras in the world? It gives great pleasure in Manchester and the north-west—and, indeed, internationally: it is admired throughout the world. Can we assume from the assurances that my hon. Friend has given that he will ensure that our northern orchestras are properly funded?
    Mr. Sproat: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. It is a great tribute to the Hallé orchestra that its standards have never been higher than they are today, even in the days of Sir John Barbirolli. We are determined to maintain those high standards, both for the people of Manchester and around the world, where the orchestra tours.

    Film Industry
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has held with the British and international film industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooke: In February this year, I met the president of the Motion Picture Export Association of America, at his request, to discuss the state of the United Kingdom industry and United States interests here. I am now engaged in a round of 10 meetings with the different
    620
    sectors of the United Kingdom industry to discuss the state of the industry and possible measures to help it. I will announce my conclusions in due course.
    Mr. Jessel: Many British films are brilliant—of outstanding quality—with British talent winning top awards for acting, photography, direction and production. Will my right hon. Friend see what can be done to retain as much British talent as possible in British-made films, and to bring together people who might finance more first-class films?
    Mr. Brooke: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend's analysis of the strength of the industry. The aim of the important talks in which we are engaged is to discover whether, by some means or other, we can restore critical mass to the industry, and build on that.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is no great secret about the matter? The industry is capable of not only attracting large sums to this country, but providing a good deal of employment. Its present parlous state is directly due to Her Majesty's Government's refusal to give it any assistance, either fiscally or in any other way. Will the right hon. Gentleman simply accept that it is his responsibility to do something quickly?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not often address one of my constituents in so direct a manner, but that was not the most knowledgeable question that the hon. Lady has ever asked. [HON. MEMBERS: "She will not vote for you now."] The hon. Lady has frequently told me that she does not vote for me.
    The Government provide £24 million in support of the industry, by a variety of means. In the talks in which we are engaged, we are analysing possible other ways in which help could be provided.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: May another of my right hon. Friend's constituents—who does vote for him—remind him of the excellent work done by the Ealing film studios—
    Mr. Cormack: Carry on Harry!
    Mr. Greenway: —mostly in producing comedies? Is he aware that there are many more excellent films where those great films came from, and that they can be made if money goes into the industry? Will he do even more than he is already doing?
    Mr. Brooke: It is because of the industry's underlying strength—not least in terms of technical resources, as well as creative and acting resources—that we are conducting our conversations. It may be worth recording that the bringing together of various aspects of film in my Department represents the first occasion on which the cultural and commercial considerations have been united in a single place.
    Mr. Corbett: We welcome the talks between the Secretary of State and those involved in the film industry. I hope that he will also consult those who are active in film making in the regions; they have a role to play as well.
    Films involving British producers, directors and writers have won about a third of the Hollywood Oscars over the past 20 years. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, however, that last year only one major cinema film was made here? Is he aware that American films netted 10 times the £24·.4 million earned by British films in the United Kingdom last

    621
    year? Will he not introduce tax breaks and other incentives to help British film makers build on their success and compete more equally, here and in the international market, at a time of rising cinema attendances?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the talks in which we are engaged. I can give the House a further piece of news about the industry's achievements: of the 36 scripts chosen last week under the EC media programme, seven were British film scripts.
    As for the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question, although I may discuss the issue with the Chancellor, tax is essentially a matter for him.

    Tourism
    Mr. Coe: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to introduce more deregulation measures to help the tourist industry.
    Mr. Sproat: I am deeply concerned about the reports of unnecessary and seemingly counter-productive regulatory burdens under which large sections of the tourism industry believe that they currently operate. I am therefore now inviting those involved in the tourism industry to write to me and/or to come and speak to me directly in the next month about problems arising from over-regulation. I shall be writing later today to all the regional tourist boards and other appropriate tourist bodies, inviting their views. I have already asked my officials to undertake an urgent and detailed' inquiry into burdensome regulations specifically in tourism. My Department will then produce a report on this important subject and make the results known before the House rises.
    Mr. Coe: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box and wish him particular luck with the part of his portfolio relating to sport—he will certainly need it.
    I thank my hon. Friend for his specific and helpful reply. He should be aware that the tourism industry will be pleased and encouraged by his words. May I immediately take him up on his offer to consult directly with hoteliers and other branches of the industry, and ask him whether he will see a delegation from my constituency which will put to him at first hand the deeply damaging regulations which beset many hoteliers and most branches of the industry?
    Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I should be extremely pleased to see a delegation from his constituency, because I know only too well that the south-west of England is one of the areas in which tourism is suffering particularly dramatically.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does not the Minister recognise that, without proper and effective regulation on many aspects of our national heritage, we should not have much of a tourist industry, because historic buildings would have been demolished, our beauty spots destroyed by insensitive road development and works of art exported because of a lack of controls? Will he put aside the absurd ideological fetish of deregulation and recognise that there is a need to preserve what is best in Britain's heritage?
    Mr. Sproat: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that of course there are many spheres in which regulation is extremely important. I have already mentioned fire regulation, and I agree that regulation to preserve and
    622
    conserve that which is best in our heritage is another. However, it does not mean that, while preserving good regulations, we should not consider the barmy ones, which is precisely what my Department is going to do— distinguish sharply and clearly between the two different types.
    Mr. Gorst: Can my hon. Friend estimate what regulation is costing at the moment? If he is not able, at this stage, to give an estimate, will he ensure that, when the survey has been carried out, we are given figures as well as general facts?
    Mr. Sproat: I will gladly do my very best to produce figures on the burdens that the tourist industry is suffering from regulation. It will not be easy, but we shall ask the industry for its best estimates, and we will certainly publish them.
    Mr. Pendry: In welcoming the Minister to his new post and recognising his zealous approach to most regulations, may I remind him that the tourist retail task force initiative is well under way, and that many new measures of good deregulation could flow from its deliberations? Will he assure us that his initiative will not in any way hinder or duplicate its efforts? Will he accept it from me that what the industry wants from him is a clear commitment to restore the damaging cuts made by his predecessor to the English tourist board? As the chief executive of the board said, unless the Government make such an effort, there will be no meaningful services beyond 1994.
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman, perfectly fairly, asks two quite separate questions. I give him the guarantee that he seeks on regulations: we will not hinder any work that anybody else is doing. We shall draw on work that other bodies are doing on deregulation and use it. On cuts in the ETB, it is quite impossible at a time of severe economic restraint for anybody to be wholly immune from economic restraint. The ETB must bear its burden. Tourism increased by 8 per cent. in the first quarter of this year. We have low interest rates and low inflation. Tourism is doing very well, and it is my intention to make it do even better.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a cost benefit analysis of rules and regulations as they affect tourism and other departments and that, where costs are disproportionate to the benefit that they would bring, the rules and regulations should be scrapped?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I assure him that we shall seek to make not only a compliance cost assessment of every regulation but a risk assessment to see whether it is worth the risk that it is trying to obviate. I give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks.

    Broadcasting Act 1990
    Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the working of the Broadcasting Act 1990; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooke: The aim was to increase diversity and choice in radio and television service, and this is being achieved.
    Mr. Mandelson: In view of the private conclave that the Secretary of State is holding with ITV bigwigs later this afternoon, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Government still believe in the principles of competition and regional diversity, as contained in the Broadcasting Act 1990, or now support greater concentration of ownership and takeovers among ITV companies? If it is the latter, what steps will he take to ensure that we do not suffer from a wave of foreign takeovers and invasions of British television companies?
    Mr. Brooke: Since I took office, a number of television companies have asked to see me to discuss aspects of the 1990 Act. Some put one position, some put another, but these were a series of bilateral conversations in which the stations and companies argued their case. I thought that there was virtue in having a meeting, which I am holding this afternoon, at which it would be possible for all to express their opinions with others present so that there will be discussion among them. My job is to listen to the debate.
    Mr. Alison: Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Independent Television Commission to ensure in its review of the codes of practice for religious broadcasting that the Christian gospel, of which he is a doughty champion and which is an essential part of our cultural heritage, can be presented directly and unambiguously on all main independent television channels?
    Mr. Brooke: I am conscious of the responsibility and intention of the ITC to review the code, and I shall be in touch with it about that review.
    Mr. Maclennan: Has the Secretary of State yet had a chance to reach a conclusion on the representations that he has received from a number of companies about the allocation of transmission costs and the proposal to depart from the IBA formula that related costs to the earning power of regions? The proposals that have been made by the majority of companies in the Independent Television Companies Association would leave at least five of the small companies bearing a burden that would put at risk the continuance of television in those areas.
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that propositions have been put to me by the association. My Department has been in touch with individual broad-casters on matters deriving from those propositions. I am addressing that matter at the moment.
    Mr. John Greenway: As an adviser to Yorkshire Television, may I thank my right hon. Friend for the very courteous and constructive way in which he is listening to the real concerns about the future of commercial television in this country? He is right that there is a difference of view among regional franchise holders about the sort of structure needed for the ownership of television franchises in the United Kingdom. But the franchise holders are united in their request for an extension of the moratorium on foreign takeovers, as referred to by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). Will my right hon. Friend please see to it that that is done?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend identifies part of the problem that I was reflecting when I answered the hon. Member for Hartlepool. We do not enjoy unanimity in these matters, and that is one of the reasons why I wish to hear the companies debate the matter in my presence.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Secretary of State reflect when he meets the ITV companies this afternoon that there is unanimity about the chaos caused to the companies by the Broadcasting Act 1990? Will he also reflect on the widespread belief that concentration of ownership will mean less regional diversity, less—not more—competition within ITV and less employment in the regions? Will he remember that the rationale for the Act was not to make the biggest profits for operators, but to ensure the survival of regional commercial television?
    Mr. Brooke: I understand that, in circumstances such as Question Time, it can be impossible to expand on a particular point. However, the hon. Lady did not amplify her remark about chaos. With regard to the representations that she made about a particular point of view, they have been made to me before and, no doubt, will be made to me again later this afternoon by those directly involved.

    Theatre and Dance Companies
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list all those (a) theatre, (b) ballet, and (c) dance companies which have had their arts grant funding withdrawn in each of the last three years.
    Mr. Sproat: Aggregate funding in these three areas by the Arts Council is currently more than £60 million. In the past three years, no theatre or ballet company has had its grant withdrawn by the Arts Council. Funding was withdrawn from one dance company, Extemporary Dance, in December 1991.
    Mr. Hughes: Do the Minister and the Secretary of State realise that, unless some extra funding can be secured, the London City Ballet will have gone into liquidation and come to an end before the next Question Time on this issue? The company is extremely popular and successful and a high revenue earner, both at home and abroad. Would Ministers be willing to meet a deputation from all parts of the House in the next few days and before the deadline, to ensure we do not have the economic madness of a company going out of production that would cost the taxpayer more if it were not performing than if it was?
    Mr. Sproat: I am well aware of the 3 July deadline to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I also think that his description of the work of the London City Ballet is accurate. I should be pleased to meet a delegation from all parts of the House to see what might be done. However, I would not wish to raise expectations too high, given that the Arts Council operates at arm's length and has decided that it does not want to continue to support the company.
    Mr. Dicks: May I welcome my hon. Friend to his Front-Bench position? May I tell him that there are many thousands of people in the country who are sick and tired of any of that nonsense being funded from the public purse? Can he take the opportunity, at a time of financial stringency, to recommend to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that his Department be done away with altogether?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend's views on the matter are well known, and I take them seriously. [Interruption.] Well, I would say that many people—perhaps more outside the House than inside—who look at the £225 million that the Arts Council receives each year say that

    625
    that is equivalent to three brand-new hospitals. We have to look after the spiritual health as well as the physical state of the nation, but both should have their proper place in our accounting.
    Mr. Sheldon: Has the Minister seen the new Globe theatre rising on the south bank? It is now visible even from the other side of the river. As the theatre has not received public funds and is nearing completion, will the Minister ensure that some funds are now made available to that project in some way that is open to him?
    Mr. Sproat: I am not aware of the details of the case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. However. I will certainly look at the matter and give it proper consideration.

    Industrial Heritage Year
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about Industrial Heritage Year; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooke: I have received no representations, but I understand that there has been an encouraging response to the English tourist board's promotional campaign: "Experience the Making of Britain".
    Mr. Thurnham: In view of the importance of Industrial Heritage Year in the north-west, may I extend an invitation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to visit the historic Hall i'th' Wood museum in my constituency, which is the birthplace of the industrial revolution, the home of Samuel Crompton and which is now very much in need of repair? It would be excellent if Industrial Heritage Year could be the occasion for that historic building to be restored properly.
    Mr. Brooke: As my hon. Friend knows, I had the great pleasure of visiting his constituency in March so that we could both watch Bolton Wanderers win and we are both delighted by the success of Bolton Wanderers this season. I very much hope that there will be a further opportunity to visit Bolton in the reasonably near future.
    Ms Eagle: Is not it a damning indictment of 14 years of Conservative rule that we are to have an Industrial Heritage Year when the Government have destroyed large swathes of British industry? All we are good at producing is museums of industrial heritage and not a good, viable industrial future for the people of this country.
    Mr. Brooke: I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) to the fact that we were talking about the residence of Samuel Crompton. We have an industrial heritage which dates back more than two centuries and it is something of which we are extremely proud.

    Tourist Attractions (Signing)
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has had about European signs for tourist attractions.
    Mr. Sproat: I have had no such representations.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that there is a rumour that an elephant is to be used as the sign for a tourist attraction? Does he agree that elephants trumpet a lot, that they are lethargic and that they are very grey? Does he agree that it might be a good idea if the lot opposite changed the red rose to an elephant?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes his usual forthright and trenchant contributions to our deliberations.

    Broadcasting Act 1990
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the workings of the Broadcasting Act 1990.
    Mr. Brooke: I have received representations on a number of issues through meetings and correspondence with broadcasters and others, including some 90 letters from hon. Members this year up to the end of May.
    Mr. Grocott: As the evidence is overwhelming, is it too much to hope that the Secretary of State will acknowledge that the Broadcasting Act 1990 was a disaster; that morale in the industry is at an all-time low and that about one third of the work force in independent television—skilled people—has been lost since the 1990 Act was passed; that there has been a steady drift of production facilities to London away from the regions and that there has been a very worrying and, indeed, frightening concentration of ownership within the industry?
    British broadcasting, which was once admired throughout the world, is now drifting inexorably towards American-style broadcasting. Is it too much to hope that the Secretary of State, who is responsible for our national heritage, will acknowledge that broadcasting, which used to be part of our national heritage and which was admired, needs to be preserved and that he needs to review the 1990 Act if he is to do that?
    Mr. Brooke: I would not for a moment dream of accepting the language that the hon. Gentleman used in posing the first part of his question. Indeed, many think that the transition which has flowed through the introduction of the 1990 Act has been remarkable. As to the further substance of what the hon. Gentleman said, I think that he knows from other places that I am as concerned as he is about ensuring that we retain a critical mass in British broadcasting which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, is admired throughout the world.
    Dr. Spink: I am amazed at the Luddite attitude of the Labour party. Does not my right hon. Friend recall that it was the Labour party which opposed the introduction of ITV—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should remember that we ask questions about Government policy in Question Time.
    Dr. Spink: The Labour party also opposed the introduction of Channel 4. Will my right hon. Friend join me in deploring the Labour party's continued hostility towards the extension of choice?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I recall calling the hon. Gentleman to order previously on these matters. Hon.

    627
    Members must question Government policy at Question Time. The hon. Gentleman has one more minute to have another go.
    Hon. Members: No.

    English Tourist Board (Redundancies)
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he intends to meet the chairman of the English tourist board to discuss staff redundancies.
    Mr. Sproat: My right hon. Friend and I intend soon to meet Adele Biss, the new chairman of the English tourist board and the British Tourist Authority, to discuss a range of issues, but I see no particular need to discuss staff redundancies.
    Mr. Bayley: Given the disastrous state of the balance of payments, would it not make sense for the Government to put more resources into promoting tourism in Britain, to encourage our own citizens and citizens from abroad to go on holiday in our country? That would help our balance of payments.
    Mr. Sproat: Well, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but, as I said in answer to an earlier question, last year the number of tourists in this country rose by 9 per cent. In the first quarter of this year, it has risen by another 8 per cent. on top of that 9 per cent. We have good exchange rates for tourists, low interest rates and low inflation. The tourist industry is doing extremely well. In those circumstances and in view of the economic constraints which we face, the actions that were taken were, on balance, very sensible.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Select Committees (Staff)
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what is the policy of the National Audit Office in respect of secondment of professional staff to assist departmental Select Committees.
    Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The policy of the National Audit Office is to respond positively to any request to second staff to a departmental Select Committee.
    Mr. Bayley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be good for the staff of the National Audit Office regularly to be seconded to departmental Select Committees so that they would see how those Committees and the Public Accounts Committee complement each other in their work? On how many occasions, with the exception of the Defence Select Committee, have professional members of the staff of the National Audit Office been seconded to departmental Select Committees?
    Sir Peter Hordern: There are three staff seconded to a Select Committee at present. Besides the Defence Select Committee, staff are seconded to the Social Security and Trade and Industry Select Committees. Altogether, staff are seconded to 47 organisations at home and abroad.

  NATIONAL HERITAGE

    Fine Arts Heritage
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures he is taking to ensure the retention of Britain's fine arts heritage in this country.
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): The Waverley system of export controls, grants to national museums and galleries, the National Heritage Memorial Fund and several capital tax concessions encourage the retention of Britain's fine arts heritage.
    Mr. Carrington: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the Waverley rules still allow too many examples of our national heritage to leave these shores? Will he consider tightening up those rules to ensure that more funds are available for retaining our prized fine arts heritage and that galleries are given more time to raise the money necessary to retain them?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not think that I would take the view that there was a failing in the Waverley rules, which are responsible for particular items being considered under export licence, but I understand the concern of a number of people about the amount of funds available to meet some of the appeals which consequently arise. In the past five years, just under half the applications that have been made have been refused and the item concerned retained in this country.
    Dr. Howells: Does the Secretary of State agree also that some of the money that is required to retain some great works of art in the country might be found if fewer fat salaries were paid to the culture vultures who run the administration of the arts in Britain, and the arts councils in particular?
    Mr. Brooke: The accounting behind that question must necessarily be somewhat indirect, in that the Arts Council of Great Britain is not responsible for funding applications under the Waverley rules, but the Government have recently employed consultants to review the Arts Council.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the system can work satisfactorily only if the in-lieu system works satisfactorily? In that context, has he seen the article in today's issue of The Daily Telegraph by Mr. Godfrey Barker, which speculates about the future of the Museums and Galleries Commission? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the commission will not be wound up, as it is not populated by fat cats receiving large salaries, to quote the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells)?
    Mr. Brooke: I have seen the article to which my hon. Friend refers. I can give him a categorical assurance that there is no intention of winding up the Museums and Galleries Commission.

    Film Industry
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the current level of support for the British film industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooke: My Department plans to spend £24·4 million on film support in 1993–94. In the 1979–80 financial year, direct Government support for film amounted to

    629
    some £12·5 million at 1993 prices. The Eady levy on box office receipts raised a further £17·25 million at 1993 prices in support of the film industry.
    Ms Eagle: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, as was said earlier, our film industry has many great talents in all areas of production—acting, directing and so—on but that other film industries around the world are being given a great deal of Government support to attract investment mainly from America and having production happen in their countries? What is the Government's reaction to what is happening in the global film market? What will his Department do to ensure that Britain's national pool of talent is preserved and expanded?
    Mr. Brooke: I salute the hon. Lady for the seriousness of her question. In terms of support in other parts of the Community—perhaps I should confine myself to that at this juncture—some of the subsidy support is going straightforwardly on liguistic grounds for the cultural side of film and ensuring that films continue to be made in specific languages. I have taken the trouble to find out what assistance is available throughout the film industry and what it is in terms of the rest of the world. Because of that, we are having the conversations that I described earlier with different sectors of the industry.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Disabled Access
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what expenditure has been authorised for accessibility for the disabled to the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): A comprehensive review of disabled access to the main public areas of the Palace of Westminster has recently been completed by a specialist consultant architect. That report is expected to be submitted to the Accommodation and Works Committee later this month. Cost estimates and a programme of work will be prepared once the Committee's recommendations are known. It is not possible to provide any meaningful estimate of the cost of work already undertaken as part of an ongoing policy to improve access for disabled persons.
    Mr. Corbyn: It is more than 20 years since the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was passed by the House. I am sure that there are many who feel that it is inadequate that it should take so long before the House of Commons Commission produces a report on the matter. I ask the right hon. Member representing the Commission to expedite the report and publish it as quickly as possible, and recognise that the House is fundamentally inaccessible to many people who have sight difficulties, those who need wheelchair access, those who have hearing difficulties or those who simply want to come into the building to watch proceedings in their Parliament.
    It is a disgrace that, in 1993, we still do not have full accessibility other than people in wheelchairs being taken in goods lifts by a different route. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that the report is not simply
    630
    published and costed immediately but acted on immediately so that this disgrace and insult to the disabled of our country is ended once and for all.
    Mr. Beith: It was the dissatisfaction of gaining access to the building for disabled people that led to the appointment of one of the most experienced and respected specialist architects in this field to produce the report. There will be wide support for the sense of urgency that the hon. Gentleman gives to the matter, and I will certainly communicate that to the Committee.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Does the right hon. Member representing the Commission agree that it is entirely right for the House to put its house in order before it seeks to legislate for other buildings further throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman advances a good principle.

    Visitors
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what financial provision has been made for improvements to the arrangements for hon. Members' visitors to Westminster.
    Mr. Paul Channon (Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee): The first report from the Catering Committee on refreshment provision for line of route visitors, published on 25 May, recommends certain improvements in facilities for visitors, including a visitors' centre. These have yet to be costed, and their implementation will need to be co-ordinated with the results of the Catering Committee's current inquiry into proposals to modernise the kitchens and review the House's refreshment facilities. Specific provision will have to await any necessary approval by the relevant authorities and the House.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the hon. Member agree that the House is looking for swift action on those proposals? Will he look at another matter, which causes great frustration; the absurd regulation—for a Government in the mood for getting rid of regulations—which limits the number of people in a hon. Member's party to 16? The usual number in such a party is a busload, 48. That regulation causes great frustration, irritation and extra work for hon. Members, their staff and the House of Commons staff. Can the limit be increased to 48?
    Mr. Channon: The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is not a matter for me, but I will ensure that what he has said is noted by the relevant authorities. As to the first part of his question, the difficulty about the visitors' centre is that if the Westminster Hall cafeteria is turned into a visitors' centre, alternative accommodation will have to be provided for those who currently use it—and there is a great shortage of space in the House.
    Sir Anthony Grant: On the second point raised by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), what is intolerable is the inconvenience and discomfort experienced by parties we bring here to see the House of Commons and the House of Lords. To take a party round the House nowadays is like getting in between the British Lions and New Zealand All Blacks rugby scrum. Rather

    631
    than increase the numbers, either there should be better organisation of the timing at which parties visit, or the numbers allowed should be smaller.
    Mr. Channon: I note what my hon. Friend says. Again, I will ensure that the relevant authorities examine that matter.

    Smoking
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the policy with regard to smoking in the Palace of Westminster; and what plans he has to review this.
    Mr. Beith: By long-established practice, there are certain parts of the House where smoking is not permitted, such as the Chamber, the Members' Lobby and part of the Tea Room. The Administration, Accommodation and Works and Catering Committees, and the Board of Management, have responsibility to determine whether any changes need to be made in areas for which they are responsible.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Is the right hon. Member aware of the report of the Health Education Authority on the impact of passive smoking? Is he further aware of a recent out-of-court settlement involving a local authority and a claim against it for compensation from one of its employees? Does he not think, in the light of the advice given by the Health Education Authority, that he has responsibility for the health and safety of people who work in the Palace of Westminster? Is not the House somewhat behind public authorities throughout the country, and many private employers, in the provision of a healthy and safe environment in which to work?
    Mr. Beith: I am aware of all those matters. If it were left to me, smoking would be confined to a small area on the roof. The areas for which the Commission is responsible are those in which employees of the House work. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the matter to the Commission's attention, and it will be placed on the agenda. Hon. Members generally have a responsibility to the staff they employ—including those in these buildings —for the atmosphere and conditions in which they work.

    Health and Safety Checks
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how frequently health and safety checks are carried out on office accommodation occupied by hon. Members and staff.
    Mr. Beith: Regular safety checks of offices are carried out by departmental safety representatives, staff of the Parliamentary Works Directorate and the Fire Safety Manager. In addition, the Occupational Health Manager carries out visits to Members, Members' staff and staff of the House to give advice on health and safety matters. It is not possible to provide detailed statistics on the frequency of these various checks.
    Mrs. Campbell: Does the right hon. Member share my concern that we ask staff to occupy accommodation which is subject to less rigorous health and safety checks than that of outside organisations? May I draw his attention to
    632
    the building which I occupy where there has not been a fire practice arranged in the past year, as far as I am aware, and where fire doors are frequently left propped open?
    Mr. Beith: It is the policy of the Commission that checks and procedures in the House should be no less rigorous than those in force elsewhere. The hon. Lady's point will be drawn to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he provides written records of the inspections, so that people can see that we are complying with all the regulations that Opposition Members would like to see introduced by the European social charter?
    Mr. Beith: I believe that many of the checks to which I have referred are the subject of written records. If I can give the hon. Gentleman any more information on that point, I will certainly do so.

    Line of Route (Facilities)
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what financial provision is being directed towards improving facilities for members of the public on the line of route.
    Mr. Channon: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago to his hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).
    Mr. Skinner: Yes, I was listening to that. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when I took a party of disabled people round this place, we got into Westminster Hall and they could not get to a toilet there without climbing the stairs to the one in the Jubilee Room or going down the stairs to an interview room? Will he ensure that toilets are introduced that are suitable for the disabled? If it is possible for this mother of Parliaments to have 16 bars and boozers, there ought to be decent toilets for the disabled.
    Mr. Channon: I have some sympathy for the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. He will have heard the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) announce a moment ago that there is to be a comprehensive study of the House and the needs of the disabled. Indeed, if the new visitors' centre is created, that will resolve the problem.

    Working Hours
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he is now in a position to report on his discussions on the hours of work of the House; and if he will make a statement.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Discussions are continuing through the usual channels. Meanwhile, every effort is being made to arrange the business of the House in a way which reflects the recommendations of the Jopling report.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that in 1970 there were more hours worked in this place than are worked at the present time, and that it seems that, if the recommendations go ahead, there will be more opportunities for people to go on trips, which have gone

    633
    up by 10 per cent. in the intervening 23 years? There are 15 per cent. more moonlighting jobs in the 23 years. Will he, therefore, bear in mind that, if the Government go to the European Assembly and argue the toss against a 48-hour week for people outside this place, it is bordering on hypocrisy to say that hon. Members can do a 30-hour week, yet those outside the House have to do more than 48?
    Mr. Newton: I will merely observe, as generously as I can manage, to the hon. Gentleman that I should be very surprised, knowing him, if he did not work at least as many hours as the difference between 30 and 48—without validating his figures—in service to his constituents in other ways. I am absolutely certain that most other hon. Members put in at least as many hours, and, indeed. many more. It is because of the desire to meet the many other requests, demands and needs of our constituents in other ways than by attending the House that there is the demand for some further reform of the hours.
    As for the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question, I cannot validate the statistics that he has given, but from my recollection of the first two Parliaments of which I was a Member, from 1974 to 1979, the House did sit rather longer hours than it does now. That is perhaps some measure of the progress that has been made, and I know that this will be welcome to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) as some indication of the progress that has been made already by informal means.
    Mr. Jopling: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is doubtful whether any hon. Members work less than 48 hours a week? Does he recall that, in the report of the
    634
    Select Committee, we pointed out that the House sits more hours and days than almost any other assembly in the western world? Does he agree that the unanimous report on an all-party basis has been lying on the table for long enough? Is it not time that the shadow Cabinet got its act together and came to a conclusion, and allowed the House reach its agreement on the basis of the report of the Select Committee, which has broad acceptance and welcome throughout the House?
    Mr. Newton: I certainly endorse what my right hon. Friend says about the basis on which his Committee's important report was made. My opposite number, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is unable to be here today, but the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who deputises for her, will have heard what has been said and will, I hope, transmit the message.
    Mr. Maxton: Does the Lord President of the Council agree that the best way to reduce the working hours in this place is to devolve a large part of the business elsewhere by the establishment of a Scottish parliament, a Welsh parliament and, if required, regional parliaments throughout the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Newton: No, I do not agree with that. I agree that new opportunities can perhaps be created for debate on Scottish issues in the ways outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. We shall seek to make progress on those matters in the same way as on the report of the Jopling committee.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: We shall take the statement first.

Flooding (Wales)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): On Thursday and Friday last, several areas of Wales experienced very heavy thunderstorms which resulted in local but very severe flooding, particularly in the Llandudno area and Cardigan. I am sure the whole House would want to join me in sending our sympathy to all those whose homes have been damaged and lives affected by the disaster.
I am pleased to say that, as a result of strenuous efforts by the various service organisations and authorities, the flood waters have now been largely drained and cleaning up is in progress. The weather forecast is for some more moderate rain but not thunderstorms, which caused last week's events. I hope—as I am sure does the House—that the weather allows the clean-up to continue unimpeded.
I am sure many hon. Members will have seen pictures of the flooding on television. I visited the areas affected at Llandudno and heard first hand accounts from residents and officials. More than 5 in of rain fell in four hours and water was flowing in sheets off the hillsides. The streams and drains just could not cope. Many properties that would not normally expect to be at risk from flooding had water flowing right through them, including the ground floor of the local hospital. Those at the bottom of the hills fared even worse as the water collected. Pumps which normally drain the area were put out of action as they were overwhelmed by huge and unexpected quantities of water. We were very fortunate not to suffer any loss of life in those incidents.
The damage has been very extensive, with 500 to 600 people in the Aberconwy area having to be evacuated from their homes. I understand that the number of properties affected in some way is very much greater, with many families living upstairs or living in apartments in upper floors of blocks. Damage to the hospitals and their equipment is going to be extensive, particularly at the Llandudno general hospital, which was worst affected. There is also considerable damage to roads and services.
In the Cardigan area, the damage does not appear quite as extensive, but is nevertheless quite severe in places. Up to 100 properties seem to be affected and a few people, mainly elderly, have had to be evacuated. I am told that there is extensive damage to highways and other utilities.
Much of the praise for dealing with matters so well must go to the emergency services, particularly the fire brigades, the local authorities, hospital staff and the National Rivers Authority. Welsh Water has also been involved. I am sure that all hon. Members would wish to join me in expressing appreciation for the dedicated work of that organisation, and for the work of the voluntary services.
Relief under the Bellwin scheme will he available to local authorities for emergency work. That will be provided as usual—85 per cent. of eligible expenditure over the threshold for each authority will be paid for. Officials are writing to authorities setting out the details of the scheme, and a copy of that letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
We are also in close touch with Gwynedd health authority to gauge the scale of problems associated with the flooding of the hospital. Once the picture is clear, the
636
Welsh Office will provide whatever assistance is required, above the usual threshold, from the pool of finance that is held for such incidents.
I would like also to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for his diligence in visiting residents affected in Llandudno and for keeping me informed following my visit.
Mr. Ron Davies: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I should like, on behalf of the Opposition, to express sympathy to the victims of the flood and to join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the magnificent efforts of the emergency services, the National Rivers Authority and the voluntary services.
The Secretary of State has outlined the extent of the damage. I am particularly concerned that the hands of the local authorities involved should be freed so that they may respond to the crisis and offer immediate assistance to the scores of families who will be unable for a number of months to return to their homes. Millions of pounds' worth of damage has been done. The cost to local authorities of repairs—especially repairs to houses and roads—will be considerable. I understand at this early stage that about 500 council properties have been damaged and that an initial estimate is that Aberconwy borough council is faced with a repair bill of at least £2 million. Gwynedd county council faces a repair bill estimated to be in excess of £1 million for the repair of flood damage to roads. The north Wales constabulary will have to meet a large bill for overtime, and the work of the Gwynedd and Clwyd fire brigades has added to the cost of the floods. Perhaps the Secretary of State can say what extra resources will be provided for the police and fire services.
It is estimated that about 2,500 people have been displaced as a result of the flooding. Does the Secretary of State intend to offer individual compensation for victims, especially those who are not adequately covered by personal insurance? Will he immediately contact the insurance companies to ensure that claims are dealt with quickly and without any unnecessary or bureaucratic delay?
Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the Welsh Office will provide adequate resources to cover the losses incurred by the local authorities? The last time the Bellwin formula was invoked—in December last year, in south Wales—Welsh Office aid was not forthcoming, despite the assurances of the previous Secretary of State, and the burden fell on local government, already under pressure from under-resourcing. Mid Glamorgan county council, for example, had to find £350.000, having received not a penny piece in aid from the Government.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will confirm precisely what the Bellwin formula covers. Does it include structural damage to council housing and to roads? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, if the Bellwin thresholds are not reached, Government money will nevertheless be available to cover the costs in full? It is ironic that the worst-hit council—Aberconwy—is the only one in Wales to be charge-capped. It has already been required to cut its budget by £167,000, and any additional expenditure incurred by it under the Bellwin formula will mean immediate cuts elsewhere in vital public services. To restore confidence, will the Secretary of State announce today the end of charge capping?

637
The people of Aberconwy have the Minister of State as their local Member of Parliament. As the Secretary of State has said, his right hon. Friend has been vigorous and forthcoming on behalf of those people. Other areas of Wales, especially Dyfed, have been similarly affected. That being the case, can the Secretary of State guarantee that equivalent levels of help will be available to them and to any other areas that might suffer this misfortune in the future?
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing with the sentiments that I expressed about the work of the voluntary services and the other bodies involved in the clean up and for his expressions of sympathy for those affected by the disaster.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, following legitimate claims under the Bellwin formula, assistance will be prompt. When the claims come in, I shall make it a personal concern to ensure that the money is forthcoming as rapidly as possible. Ninety per cent. of a reasonable claim will be met as quickly as may be, and the balance will be paid once the audited work has been completed. We cannot yet confirm that, because, as the hon. Gentleman has said, the amount involved will be many millions of pounds. Obviously, we await a proper assessment. If many millions of pounds of extra revenue expenditure are incurred, then the formula allows us to meet those claims. All claims under the scheme will be considered promptly, and officials will follow up, if there are uncertainties with the local authority, to ensure the scheme's smooth operation.
The scheme covers all reasonable revenue expenditure incurred in putting matters right in the immediate clean up, and temporary accommodation for people who have been affected.
Of course, the scheme will cover the overtime of the public services that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
As for individual compensation, I believe that there is to be a mayoral appeal. I will take up the hon. Gentleman's point about the speed of insurance claims, and I will make a point of ensuring that the insurance companies know that we want the claims settled as promptly as possible. It is correct that most people are insured; in such cases the insurance companies should be forthcoming with the money—that is why people insure against this sort of eventuality.
The capping of Aberconwy council is a separate issue. I shall look at it shortly; I have not yet come to a decision. When I have, I will notify the House in the usual way.
I can assure the House that any other affected area will get similar treatment. If a local authority elsewhere in Wales incurs this sort of expenditure, it too can claim, and if it has legitimate claims they will be met under the Bellwin formula, just as surely as they will be in my right hon. Friend's constituency.
Mr. Rod Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his visit to the flooded areas of north Wales was greatly appreciated by everyone there, particularly because it showed, at a very early stage, his commitment to the people of Wales?
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind remarks. I certainly learned a lot from the visit. It made me aware of just how quickly we need to get this operation into effect.
Mr. Alex Carlile: May I join the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) in their praise for the emergency services, who did a marvellous job, and for others? I understand that members of the health authority were on their hands and knees mopping up in Llandudno general hospital immediately after the flooding.
I also ask the Secretary of State to recognise the great stoicism and courage that local residents have shown in facing up to the emergency.
I understand from contacts with Aberconwy district that many local people are reluctant to apply for social fund loans because they believe that they will be hounded to repay them when they are unable to do so. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House and local residents that he will contact the Department of Social Security to ensure that there is great forbearance in pursuing the repayment of loans, especially by pensioners, many of whom have had to cut insurance from their budgets? Will he also investigate whether the fund or the Welsh Office can provide grants that would enable people to meet essential expenditure which they otherwise cannot afford?
I also join the hon. Member for Caerphilly in urging the Secretary of State to ensure that this disaster is taken into account when he considers what to do about the capping of Aberconwy council.
Mr. Redwood: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that many residents in the affected area were responsible for acts of heroism and hard work in dealing with the immediate aftermath of the disaster. Like him, I wish to praise their efforts.
I am also delighted that many people in the health authority did such an excellent job, so that by the time I visited the hospital, not many hours after the flood, it was for the most part clean, thanks to their great efforts.
The hon. and learned Gentleman may also like to know that the Territorial Army has played a leading part in the clean-up operations. I believe that today a platoon of the Staffordshire regiment will also assist. That can be covered under the arrangements that I have described for the money.
I will look into the question of social fund loans. Like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I would not want attempts to enforce repayment from those who clearly cannot repay, especially if their home lives have been badly disrupted by the disaster.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his visit to north Wales? He will know, as I do, that some of the most poignant images that we have seen are those of people who have, unfortunately, not made insurance arrangements and who appear to have lost everything. In the circumstances, I ask my right hon. Friend closely to examine what can be done to assist those people. The people of north Wales have the sympathy of all my constituents.
I have been in touch with the chief executives of each of my councils today. They have not been so badly affected by the heavy rain of the past few days, but my right hon. Friend will he aware that there has been an embankment slippage on the heart of Wales line, which has brought back images of the Glanrhyd rail disaster.
As a by-product of those events, will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will speak to his right hon. Friend

639
the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that steps are taken under the railway privatisation arrangements to ensure that if, flooding damages the permanent way proper arrangements will be in place to meet the cost of its reinstatement?
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point, which I shall take up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. It is important that such facilities are properly and regularly inspected and that any remedial works are undertaken. That is also true of tips and other sites where there could be movement in heavy rains, and I shall ensure that they are properly inspected. They are inspected regularly.
I appreciate that, although my hon. Friend's constituents were not as badly affected as the people I described—especially those in Llandudno—they also suffered from the storms and I express my sympathy with them, as does my hon. Friend. As to those who are uninsured, I believe that a mayoral fund may help, and I shall examine the terms of that fund to find out whether the Government ought to do anything more.
Mr. Barry Jones: Were there any other recent floods prior to the distressing series of floods in the Llandudno area? Also, before those floods, had the Welsh Water authority been asked to invest in improving the infrastructure to guard against flooding?
Mr. Redwood: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been previous cases, which the House debated, for example, when the formula was similarly brought into operation. As a result of that, and of good housekeeping, there is a regular review of flood prevention and anti-flood devices. The Government, the water authorities and the National Rivers Authority have been involved. The work continues, and if more schemes are forthcoming which are suitable for investment, I would be happy to be associated with them.
Mr. David Harris: As someone whose constituency was severely hit by flooding earlier in the week, I join in the sympathy expressed by the House to all those who suffered in Wales. However, drawing on his experience as the Minister with responsibility for local government, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the help that the Government are rightly giving the people of Wales through the Bellwin rules will be applied equally, not just to other councils in the Principality, but to councils in England, and that the rules apply in England and Wales? If he is unable to give the answer, could he—
Madam Speaker: Order. There are procedures by which the hon. Gentleman can put his question to the appropriate Minister. He knows full well that we are dealing with a Welsh issue and with the Secretary of State for Wales. I will not allow a question to be put to a Minister who has no responsibility. I am sure that the Minister would like to answer the first part of the question.
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful, Madam Speaker, and I understand my hon. Friend's wish to ask such a question. My hon. and right hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment would tell my hon. Friend that no request has been received from any Cornish council. They would
640
consider one if it were made. In the case of Wales, we were in touch with councils which clearly wanted the Bellwin formula to be brought into operation. We have responded rapidly for that reason, and the need was very great.
Mr. Nick Ainger: I too join in the congratulations to the emergency services during the past two or three days. Their work has been excellent and, when we talk about compulsory competitive tendering, it is important to remember the work that they have done in very difficult circumstances.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that in Dyfed's case, for instance, the Bellwin formula will not be activated and therefore the county council will not get a penny piece of grant aid unless it spends more than £550,000 in the next two months? It would be wrong if, as a result of spending less than is allowed under the Bellwin formula, other services has to be cut to pay for repairs to bridges and roads in the county. The Bellwin formula needs to be reformed so that it refers not just to 85 per cent. grant aid above the threshold but to 85 per cent. of all expenditure incurred.
Mr. Redwood: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the formula works for districts in his area and not for the county. We shall have to see how much damage was done and how much expenditure is necessary. It is normal for councils to have some contingency provision in their budgets, and this is exactly the type of awful contingency for which such provisions are made. Of course, contingency funds are larger for large counties than for small districts. The Bellwin scheme deals with those large sums relative to the local authority's budget for which the authority could not have been expected to make provision itself. If that is the case in the hon. Gentleman's area at council or district level, Bellwin money will be available in exactly the way that I hope he would want.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Apart from insurance, to which my right hon. Friend has referred, has he had time to consider the anxieties of people in Wales whose houses might suffer long-term damage from waterlogging? In view of my hon. Friend's extensive environmental experience, would he consider issuing advice to householders on how best to protect wood, plaster and electrical wiring in their houses in the long term?
Mr. Redwood: I shall discuss that matter with my officials to see whether there is anything that we can do by way of extra guidance. The health authority has already issued guidance on immediate health issues; and my hon. Friend makes another important point about the long-term stability of the housing stock.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: No doubt on his journey from Llangollen to Llandudno the Minister did not travel by rail. I remind him that not one train is running there today and that some damage has been occasioned to the railway line. Will he raise that matter immediately with the Secretary of State for Transport, so that the line is not further run down? I also pay tribute to the relief workers of Gwynedd county council and Conwy borough council and people in the emergency services.
I have two important questions for the Minister. First, similar flooding has occurred in parts of Llandudno in the past five years. Why? Secondly, what lessons have the Government learnt from the similar incidents of

641
Towyn-Abergele? The real tragedy of that situation was that many people, especially the elderly, were uninsured. To leave matters to a mayoral fund is piffling and is not the answer. The Government must act now. They cannot wait for pensioners to chip into a mayoral fund. That is beyond belief. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that now is the time to take the bull by the horns.
Mr. Redwood: I am assured by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that the main north Wales railway line is functioning. Of course my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be interested in the branch lines to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that I went to and from Cardiff today by rail; I use rail wherever possible for my journeys.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about similar flooding in the past, but I do not think that the circumstances were entirely the same. It is difficult to design a drainage system that will cope with more than 5 in of rain in three hours. That results in a staggering amount of water, and it led to the great problems that we have seen. We will look at what happened to see whether anything can be done to prevent a future recurrence of the problem. The sheer weight and scale of the water was massive, making it difficult for any system to cope, even including quite new pumping systems.
Dr. Kim Howells: The hearts of my constituents go out to people in other parts of Wales who have suffered flooding: my constituents know about it only too well as it happened to them last winter. Like me. they will also hope that the householders who have been mentioned in the Chamber will be treated better than the householders of Pontypridd, many of whom were uninsured and had to make do with stoicism, about which the Secretary of State spoke earlier, in putting their houses right. If it had not been for the sterling work undertaken by Mid Glamorgan county council, Taff Ely borough council and the National Rivers Authority, those people's homes would still be flooded and in a mess.
Mr. Redwood: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I am glad that he thinks that the arrangements today are more satisfactory than was the case for
642
Pontypridd. It is our intention to do everything that we reasonably can to ensure a smooth clean-up and get people back to their homes as quickly as possible.
Mr. Alan Williams: Is not it a fact that the Bellwin formula has nothing to do with providing help to people who need the aid but is only a fig leaf to hide the inadequacy of what the Government intend to offer people in need? How much has been paid in Wales under the Bellwin formula over the past five years?
Mr. Redwood: I do not have that figure to hand. I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman with it. The Bellwin formula is not a fig leaf. It is important assistance and it takes care of the bulk of the extra costs that local authorities incur as a result of a disaster of that nature. Where we have direct responsibility, as in the case of the hospital, that too will be put right at public expense through central taxpayer's reserves from the health authority. We must do everything in our power to put those things right. The right hon. Gentleman's charge is simply incorrect.
Mr. Paul Murphy: Does the Secretary of State agree that we must be sceptical about the views of experts who said at the weekend that floods occur once every century? The last time that we had to deal with this problem was not a century ago but six months ago. We asked his predecessor then for a thorough, proper and independent survey of the river banks and coastlines of Wales, to be conducted by the Welsh Office, local authorities and the National Rivers Authority. Does the Minister agree that that is the only long-term measure for the prevention of flooding and that that is the answer to the problems that we have seen over the past few days?
Mr. Redwood: I shall look thoroughly at what happened to see whether something can be done to make a recurrence of that awful event less likely. However, I shall repeat what I said earlier: the amount of rainfall was unprecedented. It was extreme. It was difficult for the drains to handle the water—even had they been considerably larger, it would still have been difficult for them to handle it—because of its sheer force and intensity.

Points of Order
3.57 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House will know that parts of Cornwall and Devon have suffered similar devastation from flooding in recent days, including the weekend. I understand that the local authorities concerned are making an application to the Department of the Environment this afternoon as there has been not only devastation to property and roads but tragic loss of life.
I wonder whether you, Madam Speaker, have had an application from Ministers at the Department of the Environment to make an equal and comparable statement to the one made this afternoon by the Secretary of State for Wales? As yet, we have had no statement and no reassurance. People in the west country feel that there are double standards in this matter. If there has been an application, will there be a statement tomorrow?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker, I hope that I can be helpful.
I am aware that heavy rain and strong winds have caused severe flooding in many parts of England, including Cornwall. I am sure that the whole House wishes to express its condolences to the families of those who have died as a consequence of the flooding. However, as of yet, no requests for financial assistance have been received by—
Madam Speaker: Order. Is the Minister making a statement? I thought that he was responding to a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is placing me in some difficulty. I cannot allow a statement. If the hon. Gentleman is responding to a point of order, will he do so briefly?
Mr. Baldry: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. If local authorities in Cornwall make applications under the Bellwin rules, they will be considered promptly and carefully. As yet, no application has been made.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the House is fully aware that the original question put to me concerned whether I had been told by a Minister that the Government were seeking to make a further statement on the flooding that, sadly, has affected many parts of the country. The answer to the point of order is that I have not been told by a Minister that he wishes to make a statement. The Minister has done his best to be helpful in this matter. I cannot allow questions to the Minister.
Mr. Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Taylor: Yes.
Madam Speaker: In that case, I will hear it.
Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I think that the Minister has just attempted to make a statement. Would it not be appropriate for him to make a full statement to the House, and to answer questions?
Madam Speaker: I have already dealt with that point: I have said that the Minister was not making a statment, but trying to be helpful in response to a point of order. It has been made clear to Ministers that hon. Members want a statement to be made; we must leave it at that.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware that the Sunday lunches of many of your parliamentary colleagues were greatly enhanced by your cheerful and elegant choice of records on "Desert Island Discs"?
May I ask why we were allowed only five minutes, rather than 10, for questions to the Lord President of the Council, for the first time in living memory? I had expected to be able to raise the cases of Simon Dunn—the prisoner who has been taken at Umm Qasr—and Kai Sondermann. In the context of the terrible things that have been happening to Iraqi babies—which I outlined on Friday, at columns 576–82—should not a Government statement be made about the cases of those unfortunate prisoners, the whole question of sanctions and the need for discussions about sanctions to take place with Iraq before anything is done about the prisoners?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is very cunning. Many of us are very sad that his question was not reached today, but he must not try to make that a point of order for me. The length of time allowed for Ministers to answer questions is a matter for the usual channels, not for me.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his earlier remarks. I hope he noted that I chose to take the Mace with me to the desert island: that might have given the House a few more days' recess until I was found.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a separate point of order, of which I gave you notice, about a matter affecting hon. Members' right to intervene in immigration cases—a most important right, which you will undoubtedly have exercised on numerous occasions in your constituency.
On Friday night, I was informed that a constituent, Mrs. Abida Parveen, had been arrested, and was to be deported to Pakistan on Saturday. I contacted Bradford police at 10.30 pm; however, the custody officer refused to disclose details of the arrangements for her deportation, the name or telephone number of the immigration officer concerned, the contact telephone number for her solicitor or the duty solicitor, and even information about the arrangements that were being made.
It is clear that the existing arrangements for hon. Members to make representations in emergency immigration cases—especially those concerning threatened deportation—have broken down. Will you consider—I emphasise the word "consider"—convening a Speaker's conference of interested parties in the House with the Home Office, the immigration service and the police, to ensure that new arrangements can be devised to give hon. Members a proper opportunity to intervene promptly and effectively, with the full co-operation of all the agencies concerned?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a longstanding Member of the House. He is raising with me a matter of Government policy. As a long-standing Member of Parliament, he knows that he could raise the matter

645
directly with the Minister concerned by various methods and procedures, and on various occasions, and receive the full reply that I know he seeks.
Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As you have rightly said, the existing arrangements are the Home Secretary's responsibility. It is now self-evident to many hon. Members that those arrangements have broken down. As the House constitutes the thin line between constituents' being deported—in many cases, unfairly and unlawfully—and their being given their full right to make representations, along with hon. Members, I am now appealing to you, Madam Speaker. I am asking whether you, as guardian of the rights of hon. Members and those of the House, will convene a conference which, hopefully, will be able to reach a conclusion and devise proper arrangements for hon. Members to make the representations that I seek to secure.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has every right and opportunity to make representations through the usual procedures of the House. I cannot specify to him across the Floor of the House the procedures under which he could do so. If he wishes to come and see me, I shall be as helpful as possible. It is a matter for the hon. Gentleman. This is an individual case, and we must all represent our constituents to the best of our ability and in the way that the House allows us. I can take it no further at this stage.
Mr. David Harris: I am sorry to raise the question of flooding again, but could I—
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Harris: It is a point of order.
Madam Speaker: That is better.
Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you help me with a difficulty facing the House? As you will
646
remember, at Question Time I attempted to ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether what he was announcing for Wales was the equivalent of the system for England. You rightly said that he was not responsible for the Bellwin rules as applied to England. If I put the same question to an Environment Minister, he would no doubt say that he was not responsible for the rules in Wales.
What I and my parliamentary colleagues from Cornwall in particular are concerned to do, in the light of the flooding that we have just suffered, is to establish that the ground rules of what has been announced today by the Secretary of State for Wales also apply to England. Can you advise me, Madam Speaker, on how I can get an answer to that question?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time. He knows that he can table a written or oral question. If he has any problem with procedure, he should apply to the usual channels, or come to see me and I shall be pleased to advise him.

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(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

OVERSEAS GOVERNMENTS (DEBTS)
That the draft Debts of Overseas Governments (Determination of Relevant Percentage) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (FEES)
That the draft Department of Transport (Fees) (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Housing and Urban Development Bill
  (changed to

  LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT BILL)
  Lords amendments considered.
  Ordered,
  That the Lords amendments to the Housing and Urban Development Bill be considered in the following order, namely: Nos. 1 to 22, 219 to 226, 23 to 38, 227, 39 and 40, 228 to 231, 41 to 48, 232 to 244, 49 and 50, 245 to 257, 51 to 77, 258, 78 to 83, 259 to 264, 84 to 90, 265, 91 to 163, 266, 164 to 215, 267 to 278, 216 to 218 and 279 to 283.— [Sir George Young.]

Clause 1

  THE RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE ENFRANCHISEMENT
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 17, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
  4.11 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Speaker: With this we shall consider the following Lords amendments: Nos. 5, 8, 9, 13, 20, 32, 36, 45, 46, 51, 53, 56 to 58, 60, 68, 75, 77, 78, 84, 94, 105, 106, 108 to 110, 116, 125, 129 to 131, 133, 134, 136, 140 to 142, 144, 148 to 152, 154 to 156, 160 to 162, 216, 219, 221, 223, 229, 231, 236 to 239, 243, 255, 256, 258, 260, 261, 263, 264,271, 273 and 277
  Mr. Baldry: This is a large group of amendments. They are almost entirely drafting and technical amendments, which are required to clarify some provisions, correct cross-references and amend minor defects. They were made in response to comments received and after further consideration of the Bill elsewhere. They ensure that the Bill's provisions work more effectively. I do not intend to take the time of the House in discussing any of them individually. However, I shall mention amendment No. 216, which changes the name of the Bill to "Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill".
  The original short title of the Bill was drafted to be as short as possible so that it could be easily referred to in other Acts and subordinate legislation and by anyone seeking to use its provisions. However, it was argued in another place that the title was not helpful as it did not refer to the leasehold provisions that take up the whole of part I and are of great interest to many people. The new title reflects the structure of the Bill and makes it clear that it covers important reforms to the leasehold system.
  Mr. John Battle: We are faintly surprised that the Government decided to change the title of the Bill. The Bill's provisions for housing have been residualised and it will not create a single new home, so perhaps it is not surprising that the Government have decided to change the emphasis to leasehold enfranchisement.
  I do not wish to open a debate on the issue, but I must say that the Bill creates expectations for the 750,000 leaseholders but, as I am sure will be revealed in our debate
  648
  and as it has been revealed in another place and in Committee, it will short-change many leaseholders who think that they will be enfranchised but who will discover that they will not receive franchise entitlement.
  The low rent test still appears in all the amendments, despite all the attempts in the House and in the other place to change it. That will disqualify many of those 750,000 people from leasehold enfranchisement. The Bill claims to give rights to leaseholders—even its title has now been changed to stress leasehold enfranchisement—but, in practice, many people will be disappointed. In practice, and on the face of the Bill, the rights that were promised in the consultation paper will be dashed on the rocks of expediency by the Government and people will not receive their entitlements.
  The Labour party believes that restoring those rights is one way in which the Government can fulfil their original pledge. Only a few hours ago, the Prime Minister said that he would honour all the Conservative party's manifesto commitments, yet many of the rights promised in the original title of the Bill have been removed. In other words, the Bill will not do what the Government claimed. It will short-change many leaseholders, and a change of title will not cover up that.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4

  PREMISES EXCLUDED FROM RIGHT
  Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 5, line 18, leave out from ("are") to ("and") in line 19 and insert("neither—
  (i) occupied, or intended to be occupied, for residential purposes, nor
  (ii) comprised in any common parts of the premises;")
  Madam Speaker: With this, we will take Lords amendment No. 3.
  The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The amendments are intended to clarify the definition of non-residential parts of premises so that the eligibility of buildings can be more easily determined.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 5

  QUALIFYING TENANTS
  Lords amendment: No. 6, in, page 6, line 7, at end insert—("(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply where the immediate landlord under the lease is a registered housing association and all the flats in the premises are—
  (a) particularly suitable, having regard to their location, size, design, heating systems and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and
  (b) are occupied by persons of pensionable age on physically disabled persons, and
  (c) have special facilities which include the services of either a resident warden or a non-resident warden and a means for calling them.")
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.— [ Mr. Baldry.]
  Mr. Battle: I am surprised that the Government tabled the motion. Lords amendment No. 6 omits sheltered housing and accommodation that is specially adapted for

  649
  disabled and elderly people. I should have thought that it is a common sense and reasonable amendment that the Government would accept. In all other cases, the Government take away the rights of leaseholders left, right and centre by tightening the framework of the Bill, but in this case—I press the Government to give their estimate of the number of flats that are affected—when common sense would suggest that there should be an exemption to ensure that sheltered housing and specially adapted dwellings remain, they have decided to ensure that there is a right to enfranchisement. They would do far better to address the real needs of people in flats and houses who will be denied enfranchisement by the strict low-rent test and other measures, including some that they accepted in the other place.
  Interestingly, when the amendment was moved in the other place, there were no Tellers, because the Chief Whip and the Deputy Chief Whip were not in the Chamber when a vote was sprung on the Government. In that sense, the Government lost it without even opposing it, yet now they come back to the House to try to repair the results of their incompetence in the other place.
  It is surprising that housing association schemes are now included. The amendment would exclude leasehold schemes for elderly people from leasehold enfrachisement where the freeholder is a registered housing association. Under the Bill as drafted, leaseholders of housing association sheltered housing schemes can exercise enfranchisement where they own 100 per cent. of the leasehold interests.
  The amendment seeks to exclude sheltered housing from the enfranchisement provisions. It would affect only a tiny number of schemes where the association had not received housing association grant. For housing association grant-funded schemes, the association is required to retain 20 per cent. of the equity. Under clause 6, enfranchisement would not then apply. Instead, under chapter II, the individual leaseholder would have an automatic right to renew the lease, but many housing associations have undertaken sheltered housing schemes without using housing association grants.
  The amendment would affect such schemes. The proposal was not made lightly by the National Federation of Housing Associations, on behalf of all housing associations. It argues that, if the Government now decide to vote against the Lords amendment, the Bill would discriminate against elderly and disabled people, for whom special provision has been made.
  Faced with the needs of an aging population, housing associations that have undertaken leasehold schemes to provide sheltered housing for elderly people are most concerned that, if leasehold enfranchisement applies to such housing it could, in time, lead to the loss of the warden service and other special provisions simply because they cost money. Ultimately, those properties could be sold to non-elderly buyers, which in turn would reduce the overall supply of sheltered accommodation at precisely the time when the need for it is increasing. According to Government figures, by the year 2001 there will be 1 million people in Britain over 85. The need for sheltered accommodation is increasing and the Government's petty approach, which will diminish stock, is damaging.
  Why are the Government making such a proposal? I do not think that they have an argument. The amendment was carefully drafted to ensure that only those schemes that genuinely provide sheltered housing are included.
  650
  What is more, the wording of paragraph 10 of schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985—the Government's own housing legislation—excludes sheltered housing from the right-to-buy provision precisely because it would diminish the amount of housing stock in Britain at a time when we need a supply of sheltered housing to rent. As the amendment mirrors almost exactly the wording of paragraph 10 of schedule 5 to the 1985 Act, it seems illogical, irrational and petty that the Government should now turn against it.
  It may be suggested that restrictive covenants could do the job as well as the amendment, but they could be changed by agreement between the new freeholder and leaseholders once the freehold has passed to another body. The retention of sheltered housing for its original purpose cannot therefore be guaranteed by those restrictive covenants. That could be achieved only by excluding such housing from the Bill's provisions.
  I challenge the Minister—before he pushes the motion through on the nod—to tell the House how many properties will be affected and how many people will be enfranchised by the provision. He should compare and contrast that with the number of people who will be unfairly excluded from leasehold enfranchisement by the restrictive clauses that the Government have built into the Bill, and also by the further restrictive clauses that the Government have accepted from the other place.
  If the clause is accepted, and housing associations' sheltered housing schemes are excluded from enfranchisement, elderly leaseholders would automatically receive the right under chapter II of the Bill to renew their lease in line with leaseholders in housing association grant-funded schemes. It could be argued—I should be interested to hear the Minister's opinion—that that right, rather than outright enfranchisement, would be more beneficial to the elderly people concerned. It would guarantee that the amount of sheltered and specially adapted accommodation to rent could be expanded.
  Mr. Baldry: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to discuss the amendment with organisations such as Age Concern since it was debated in the other place.
  Since the amendment was accepted in the Lords, we have received representations from organisations such as Age Concern and the Association of Retired Persons, which have expressed their dismay at the exemption from enfranchisement of such developments. The amendment is clearly discriminatory, and that is their concern. The amendment deliberately discriminates against the elderly. There is no fundamental reason why developments for the elderly and disabled that are owned by housing associations should be excluded from the scope of enfranchisement.
  The hon. Gentleman has expressed a concern—also put forward by the National Federation of Housing Associations—that, once the freehold has been bought, flats may be sold to people who are neither old nor disabled. That is a misunderstanding. Flats would not necessarily move out of the sheltered housing sector. Enfranchisement does not affect the terms of leases, so any restrictive covenants which might, for instance, specify that the flats were to be let only to the elderly, will remain in force after the freehold has been bought. Such covenants in the leases of non-participants cannot be changed without the agreement of both parties to the lease. Those would include housing associations.

  651
  The Lords amendment clearly discriminates against the elderly. It has met with vehement opposition from organisations such as Age Concern, and I urge the House to disagree with it.
  Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 148.

  Division No. 294]

  [4.22 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Evennett, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Faber, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Ashby, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Forth, Eric

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Baldry, Tony

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  French, Douglas

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gale, Roger

  Bates, Michael

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gill, Christopher

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Booth, Hartley

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boswell, Tim

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gorst, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Bowis, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hague, William

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burns, Simon

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burt, Alistair

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butcher, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butler, Peter

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cash, William

  Hayes, Jerry

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heald, Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hendry, Charles

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Horam, John

  Congdon, David

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

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

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cope, Rt'Hon Sir John

  Howell, Sir Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jack, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jessel, Toby

  Devlin, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Key, Robert

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Eggar, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Elletson, Harold

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  652

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

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Knox, Sir David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Legg, Barry

  Sackville, Tom

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lidington, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lightbown, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Luff, Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Maclean, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spink, Dr Robert

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spring, Richard

  Madel, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Malone, Gerald

  Steen, Anthony

  Mans, Keith

  Stephen, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stern, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Allan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Streeter, Gary

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sykes, John

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mills, Iain

  Thomason, Roy

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thurnham, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

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

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tredinnick, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trend, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waller, Gary

  Norris, Steve

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Watts, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wells, Bowen

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Pickles, Eric

  Whitney, Ray

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Whittingdale, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Willetts, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wood, Timothy

  Richards, Rod

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Riddick, Graham

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robathan, Andrew

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Caborn, Richard

  Allen, Graham

  Callaghan, Jim

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clapham, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Battle, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coffey, Ann

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Corbett, Robin

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Cryer, Bob

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Blair, Tony

  Dalyell, Tam

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Darling, Alistair

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

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

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  653

  Denham, John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Dewar, Donald

  Martlew, Eric

  Dixon, Don

  Maxton, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Meacher, Michael

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Meale, Alan

  Dowd, Jim

  Michael, Alun

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Eastham, Ken

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Enright, Derek

  Murphy, Paul

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Fisher, Mark

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Flynn, Paul

  Patchett, Terry

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Pendry, Tom

  Garrett, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  George, Bruce

  Pike, Peter L.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Pope, Greg

  Gordon, Mildred

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Prescott, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Gunnell, John

  Raynsford, Nick

  Hall, Mike

  Rendel, David

  Hanson, David

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hardy, Peter

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Harvey, Nick

  Rogers, Allan

  Henderson, Doug

  Rooney, Terry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hoey, Kate

  Ruddock, Joan

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Short, Clare

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hutton, John

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

  Illsley, Eric

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Spellar, John

  Jamieson, David

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Stott, Roger

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Straw, Jack

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Tyler, Paul

  Keen, Alan

  Vaz, Keith

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Wareing, Robert N

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Lewis, Terry

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Litherland, Robert

  Wise, Audrey

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Worthington, Tony

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  McAllion, John

  McCartney, Ian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McFall, John

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

  Madden, Max

  Mr. Gordon McMaster.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  After Clause 5
  Lords amendment: No. 7, insert the following new clause—
  Qualifying tenants satisfying residence condition—
  (".—(1) For the purposes of this Chapter a qualifying tenant of a flat satisfies the residence condition at any time when the condition specified in subsection (2) is satisfied with respect to him.
  (2) That condition is that the tenant has occupied the flat as his only or principal home—

  (a) for the last twelve months, or

  (b) for periods amounting to three years in the last ten years, whether or not he has used it also for other purposes.

  (3) For the purposes of subsection (2)—

  (a) any reference to the tenant's flat includes a reference to part of it; and

  654

  (b) it is immaterial whether at any particular time the tenant's occupation was in right of the lease by virtue of which he is a qualifying tenant or in right of some other lease or otherwise;

  but any occupation by a company or other artificial person, or (where the tenant is a corporation sole) by the corporator, shall not be regarded as occupation for the purposes of that subsection.
  (4) In the case of a lease held by joint tenants—

  (a) the condition specified in subsection (2) need only be satisfied with respect to one of the joint tenants; and

  (b) subsection (3) shall apply accordingly (the reference to the lease by virtue of which the tenant is a qualifying tenant being read for this purpose as a reference to the lease by virtue of which the joint tenants are a qualifying tenant).")

  Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 16, 18, 19, 22, 54, 59, 61, 63, 64, 66, 70, 222 and 225.
  Sir George Young: I shall speak briefly to the amendments and then speak again if there are any issues that the House wishes to raise.
  When the Bill left the House for another place, it contained no test to residence on qualifying tenants that had to be satisfied before either of the new rights—collective enfranchisement or individual lease renewal—could be exercised, but there was a strong feeling that there should be a residence qualification. Two groups of amendments constitute the Government's response. Amendments Nos. 54, 59, 61, 63, 64, 66 and 70 introduce a residence test that qualifying tenants will have to satisfy before they can obtain a new lease under the provisions of chapter 2. We have followed the principle of the test provided for in the 1967 Act that is applied to individual tenants of houses.
  The remaining amendments in the group introduce a residence test for collective enfranchisement. Basically, the new test requires half of the participating tenants to be residents. The new test is intended to prevent a majority of non-resident long leaseholders from purchasing their landlord's interests. Our declared policy is that flat owners should be able to gain ownership and control of their blocks. The test does not seriously interfere with that objective but clearly signals that flat owners cannot take over if only a minority of the participants live or have lived for significant periods in their flats. That amendment will be appreciated by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  In another place, Lord Williams, representing the Labour party, said that he had sympathy with the idea of a resident test that supported the principle that companies and absentee landlords should not be allowed to take control of what he called "real people". Lord Strathclyde confirmed that these amendments will not disfranchise many blocks but will exorcise the spectre of control by an absent minority.
  Mr. Battle: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his recent appointment, and wish him well. It is fair to say that he is the longest serving Minister in his post. I hope that his new appointment will take him into the inner sanctum of Government and perhaps a little closer to the Treasury, so that he can apply some real pressure for housing resources in the future.

  655
  We now move to the group of amendments, headed by amendment No. 7, that start to tighten the rights of leaseholders with regard to enfranchisement. When leaseholders examine the Bill, they will discover that the reforms are not as substantial or as far-reaching as they expected.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: Very good.
  Mr. Battle: That shows that there is still a difference between those Conservative Members who agree with the Government's manifesto commitment to give 750,000 leaseholders real enfranchisement and those Conservative Back Benchers who are fighting a rearguard action in another place and in this House to take away that right. Leaseholders will know that they have been short-changed; their expectations of leasehold reform have been raised—it is there on the face of the Bill—but in practice, the hedging and disqualifications will mean that those 750,000 leaseholders will not get enfranchisement after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
  The Bill is hedged with disqualifications, and the low rent test is the primary one. A Labour Government will abolish that test. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have said that a Labour Government are committed to abolishing that test, and we will stick with that commitment because the test is discriminatory and ensures that people who should have the right to leasehold and enfranchisement will not have that right.
  Clause 7 is not as strong as the original clause, which said that there should be a three-year test of residence before people could get enfranchisement. That was pushed hard on the Government by those defending the great estates—we sometimes refer to them as the Duke of Westminster and his merry men, who are holding on to their entrenched interests. Thankfully, the Government did not agree with that argument.
  We are still left with a one-year residence test. Effectively, the Government are gradually narrowing the range of eligibility. As a result of the new clauses and amendments to the Bill, the Government are limiting eligibility for enfranchisement. They will now offer such enfranchisement to but a tiny fraction of the leaseholders who expected to receive it once the Bill was enacted.
  In effect, all long-term leaseholders of houses have no chance or hope of enfranchisement. The Government have offered a banner right, but they have qualified it away. They have whittled down the number of those who will be eligible. The Government have created expectations, but, in common with the citizens charter, in reality we are left with a damp squib on a dull day. Many who expected the rights that the Government promised them in the manifesto will now discover that they are not eligible to receive them.
  Lord Strathclyde claimed that the Government wanted
  "to keep exemption from leasehold enfranchisement to an absolute minimum"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 March 1993; Vol. 543, c. 1037.]
  In other words, the Government maintain that it is their intention to give enfranchisement to as many long leaseholders as possible. That will not happen.
  It is important to consider the substance of Lords amendment No. 7. To insert a residence qualification into the current proposals mean that, because of the collective nature of enfranchisement, particularly of flats, any
  656
  residence test will deprive those who pass it, as well as those who do not, of the chance of becoming full owners of their homes. We accept that, unlike other tests previously proposed and rejected, the new residence test will not wreck the Bill, but it could have certain repercussions.
  The research of the Consumers Association, which we discussed in Committee, spelled out that a high proportion of flat owners tend to own their properties for a relatively short time. That fact, taken with the two-thirds majority requirement for enfranchisement, which has now been stiffened by the proviso relating to not less than 50 per cent. of all flats, means that any residence test is bound to have a significant and unfair effect, because it will exclude flat owners in particular from any chance of enfranchisement.
  When the residence test was promoted in the other place, emphasis was placed on the hypothetical examples of the enfranchisement of properties owned by companies and foreign residents. Let us put things in perspective. I believe that the vast majority of flats are owned by ordinary British citizens, who have always lived here. Although recent economic difficulties may have forced some of them to become non-resident owners—we all know that repossessions have taken their toll and that negative equity problems have pushed people into difficulties—the residential qualification, albeit narrow, will reduce the number of those who are entitled to enfranchisement under the Bill.
  The Government set out with a great intention. The Prime Minister suggested on the eve of the general election that about 750,000 leaseholders would receive the right to leasehold enfranchisement once the Government were re-elected. As in many other areas of policy, the Government have pared that offer and hedged it with disqualifications. They have built up expectations only to dash them on the rocks of Government expendiency. Those who expect to be enfranchised will, sadly, find out that they are denied that right. Sadly, they will only discover that once the Bill is enacted.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I echo what the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said about the recent honour bestowed on my right hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that many other hon. Members are pleased to register their pleasure at that. May I also declare, for the last time, what I am told is not, strictly, an interest: I hold the leasehold of a flat in my constituency.
  The Bill is an excellent piece of legislation, and it is characteristically churlish of Opposition Members to criticise it, particularly when they could muster only a measly 148 votes in the previous Division. That reveals their level of genuine interest in this important, bold and imaginative Bill, which will redeem an important and widely welcomed manifesto pledge.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that the central provisions of the Bill have emerged largely unscathed from another place. It is an excellent Bill, and it has been my desire throughout its passage to ensure that the provisions offered by it are available to as many people as possible.
  I appreciate the concern that underlies the new clause tabled in amendment No. 7 about speculators who may seek to advantage themselves under the Bill, instead of the

  657
  genuine leaseholders whom the Bill is designed to help. I am concerned about some of the effects of the new clause, especially when one considers the other hurdles to be negotiated under the Bill, particularly the two-thirds test.
  The terms of the new clause are somewhat less onerous than a similar clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), which was defeated in the House. It follows the same principle, however, and I remember saying on that occasion in February that my hon. Friend's proposed new clause could emasculate the Bill.
  I have a number of concerns that I should like to raise, particularly in the context of my constituency, and in similar constituencies along the south coast. As I said in a previous debate, I am concerned about the effects of the new clause on holiday homes. Eastbourne is a popular place in which to buy such properties, and they are often purchased by perfectly ordinary people who are in no sense property speculators.
  It is also important to consider the effect of the new clause on flats that are rented out for a short period or owned by people who are temporarily working abroad. Of great importance for somewhere like Eastbourne, where 30 per cent. of the population are of retirement age, is the position of retirement homes. Many people put their savings into such property in advance and anticipation of their retirement and, for a time, it is not regarded as the principal place of residence.
  It is also important to consider the necessary and natural movement of people within a block of flats. That may be a more important factor in the London area, where the population is subject to greater shifts, but any block of flats is subject to a turnover of residents. In some cases, that would make for a fundamental mathematical problem in reaching the qualifications under the Bill, particularly when they are to be overlain by a new residence qualification. It is also important to consider the knock-on effect of such a proposal. That qualification, apart from making it impossible for particular individuals to qualify for enfranchisement, makes it more difficult, if not impossible, for others in a particular block of flats to qualify. Such individuals might well qualify in every other respect under the Bill.
  I do not wish to hinder the progress of this important Bill; the sooner it is on the statute book the better. I wonder whether any research has been carried out, however, on the numbers likely to be directly affected by the new residence qualification. When the operation of the Bill is reviewed, as I am sure that it will be in due course, perhaps my right hon. Friend will undertake that, whenever that may be, that review will consider the effect of the new clause specificially, as well as other aspects that have been mentioned, such as the low rent test.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: I, too, would like to raise doubts about the impact of this clause, and follow the comments of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who rightly expressed concern that the impact might be to make it difficult, in certain circumstances, for leaseholders to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill.
  On Report, I highlighted the phenomenon that was noticed in parts of Kensington, where one particular landlord, Smith Charity, had been involved in the practice of letting an increasing proportion of its properties to companies as a deliberate block.
  658
  I put it to the Minister that there is an obvious risk that landlords who seek to frustrate the intentions of the Bill —there is no question but that many large estates and others are deliberately seeking to prevent the Bill from having the effect that most hon. Members wish to see, which is for leaseholders to have the opportunity of enfranchisement—would naturally, as a result of this amendment, have an incentive to consider letting a significant proportion of the properties that become vacant in blocks of flats to companies, to ensure that the 50 per cent. threshold could not be met. That is an obvious loophole, which I fear may be exploited to frustrate the intentions of the legislation.
  I therefore ask the Minister—adding to the comments of the hon. Member for Eastbourne—whether he will give thought to how the working of this provision is to be monitored, and what steps he intends to take to ensure that, if he receives representations from leaseholders in certain areas that their wish to enfranchise is being frustrated by the effect of this provision, this matter will once again come up for review. While we understand the perfectly reasonable wish to ensure that the benefits accrue only to bona fide leaseholders, the effect of this provision could be to frustrate some of them. I hope that the Minister will respond to this point.
  I also ask him to be more specific about the numbers. If I remember correctly, he said in his opening remarks that the clause would disfranchise only a limited number of blocks. What number does his Department expect to he ruled out as a result of this provision? Will he go a bit further and tell us—as he and his colleagues have not done in the earlier stages of the Bill's passage through the House —how many leaseholders they expect to benefit from the Bill and enfranchise their homes in the course of the next few years? The Government have been strong on expressions of good intention about this Bill but very weak indeed on any forecast.
  I know that the Minister will say that it is up to the leaseholders to decide, but in any matter of policy the Government have to make an estimate of the likely effect of what they are doing. Clearly, if there were no interest at all, it would be a waste of Parliament's time for us to be discussing all these very detailed, complicated and tortuous provisions. Some of us who sat on the Committee considering the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 may wonder whether our time was well spent then, given the very limited take-up of that piece of legislation.
  So I put it to the Minister that he owes the House some indication of the level of take-up that can be expected. Obviously, it will not be the full 750,000, but can we expect half that total? Can we expect 375,000 households to be seeking to enfranchise in, say, the lifetime of this Parliament, or will it be nearer 100,000 or fewer than that?
  Without some indication of the extent to which the provisions of this Bill are likely to be taken up, we have to express some scepticism about whether the good intentions which the Government have expressed with regard to these measures will work through in practice to the benefit of leaseholders. We fear that the complexity of the legislation and the obstacles that undoubtedly exist, which will be to some extent compounded by this residence test, will deter bona fide leaseholders who want to buy the freehold of their homes, and prevent them from doing so.
  I hope that the Minister will give us some answers on these points.
  Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful for this opportunity to intervene briefly. I have no wish to take up the time of the House for too long, being one of those who are anxious to see the Bill on the statute book.
  At the outset, I offer my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his appointment to the Privy Council. I sometimes think that, for his stewardship of this Bill alone, he qualifies for that privilege and honour.
  I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who put the case very well.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) referred to the briefing material that many of us have received from the Leasehold Reform Co-ordinating Committee, which quite rightly put the case for reducing the residence qualification to the absolute minimum. Many of my constituents agree with that. Nevertheless, this Bill, as it affects leasehold reform, is controversial in both this place and the other place, and compromises inevitably have to be accepted.
  I hope that this amendment will succeed, although I doubt it. I hope that the Government will feel that they can continue actively to monitor the impact of this residence qualification and, if it should prove an obstacle to the intentions of the Bill as a whole, will take the opportunity on some future occasion to rectify the matter.
  Many of my constituents live in apartment blocks in the centre of London, in the city of Westminster, where there is a stable community, while others may live in apartment blocks where there is greater mobility. It is among the latter that the problem may arise, and that is an area to which I hope that we shall return on a future occasion should there be genuine difficulty.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I begin by reminding the House of two points that I made when the Bill was before it on Report stage and Third Reading.
  First, I remind the House that I am an owner of rented property, although I am advised that none of it falls within the provisions of this Bill.
  Secondly, I repeat what I said on Third Reading: that, in the 28 years that I have been in this House, I can recall no piece of legislation that makes me more ashamed of what my party proposes than this wretched, miserable Bill. It is a totally lamentable Bill. To tear up agreements freely entered into by people, without duress, and to have the element of confiscation that this Bill has, is entirely against the philosophy of the party that I have represented in the House for all those years.
  I am enormously unhappy about this, and I could not disagree more with my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler).
  However, I have to accept that amendment No. 7 is a modest improvement to the Bill. It does not make the Bill acceptable, in my view, but it is a modest improvement, and I hope very much that the House will accept it.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I intervene very briefly to say how much I agree with the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). This is a reprehensible piece of legislation. One of its worst features is the invitation to speculation that no residence qualification would have brought. Therefore, I look upon it as a distinct improvement to the Bill that there now has to be a personal residence qualification. Those who take a
  660
  different view from the Government are told that the Government made a manifesto commitment, but that commitment applied to occupied flats and was designed to help individuals. It was not intended to encourage speculation. Therefore, I believe that the provision is an essential safeguard, and I am extremely happy to see it before the House.
  5 pm
  Mr. Dudley Fishburn: I shall distance myself a little from my rural hon. Friends, who find the legislation reprehensible. I have been in the House for five years, and no other piece of legislation has caused me greater pleasure. I have greeted no other legislation more willingly. It is entirely in keeping with a Conservative party which believes in wider home ownership and, above all, in practical forms of law. Our philosophy is not to believe that, in the 21st century, we should have 18th-century forms of tenure.
  The Bill comes before the House with 270 Lords amendments. This afternoon and in the next months or indeed years, we cannot be fully aware of what those amendments will mean for the legislation. Therefore, I add my voice to those who hope that the Department of the Environment will officially monitor the Bill's progress over the coming years and conduct a proper review in two or three years' time. In that way, should the Bill prove to be unsatisfactory in giving the widest form of leasehold enfranchisement, the Government of the time will be able to widen it.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I want to say how much I support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin). The Bill is a reprehensible piece of legislation which amounts to confiscation. If I freely enter into an agreement with someone, why should someone else have the right to say that that agreement was bad—irrespective of whether I entered into it or my parents, grandparents or great-grandparents did so?
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the honour bestowed on him in the recent honours list. It is thoroughly well deserved as he has a great knowledge of housing. However, I have made representations to him on the specific subject of the residency tests. As a chartered surveyor and property owner, I believe that it would be wrong if someone could enter into property ownership on the basis of speculation—whether they be a foreign-owned company or a foreign individual—so that they bought leasehold property with a view to making a profit out of the landlord.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—I want to be sure exactly what he is saying. The Government have always claimed that theirs is the party of leasehold enfranchisement. If that is so, it runs contrary to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is saying that any contract entered into now or in the past should be enforced. He is saying that all previous leasehold enfranchisement legislation should not have been passed by the House. If I understand him correctly, his approach is at great variance with that of the Government Front-Bench team.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: All previous legislation has been freely debated in the House—much of it was passed by the Labour party. Had I been a Member of Parliament at that time I would have argued against it as hard as I could. Acts such as the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 are abhorrent.
  I welcome the amendment. I do not think that it makes a bad Bill good, but it brings an element of fairness in abolishing some of the property speculation which would have been totally abhorrent.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Surely what is lamentable—a word which has been used over frequently in the past few minutes by some Conservative Members—is the idea that contracts on leasehold between tenant and leaseholder are based on an equal standard. It is impossible to obtain a freehold on flats, certainly in London. A freeholder holds all the cards in his or her hand, and has played those cards in a way that has had a deleterious effect on tenants.
  Hon. Members have given examples of why someone should be able to be a tenant even if not currently resident in a leasehold flat. However, mention has not been made of the fact that, in the desperate recession which the country has been enduring in the past few years, families who have outgrown the size of their flats have had to move out of their homes to find a smaller place that they can afford and rent out their flats. The measure could make such families ineligible for enfranchisement.
  I find it extraordinary that Conservative Members should put the housing needs of visiting business men, academics or diplomats above the needs of residents and nationals of this country, particularly in our capital city. The opportunities to obtain decent. affordable housing in this already overpressed capital are constantly decreasing. The Government have reneged on their manifesto commitments on leasehold enfranchisement. The House should vote against the measure, which does not work in the best interests of democracy and the commitment of political parties. It betrays the Government's manifesto. Most importantly, it betrays the thousands of people who are looking to the Bill to enable them to say that their home is their own.
  Sir George Young: I thank the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and my right hon. and hon. Friends for their kind words on the recognition that I have recently received. In these meritocratic days, it is nice to have an appendage to my name that has been earned, not inherited.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, West started by chiding the Government for accepting an amendment that would disfranchise leaseholders. He has just marched his hon. Friends—though not many of them—through the Lobby to do just that. He insisted on dividing the House on an amendment which, had it been carried, would have disfranchised a large number of leaseholders and taken away the rights that they hoped the legislation would afford them.
  The hon. Gentleman also said that the vast majority of flats were owned by ordinary people who live in them. He is right. That partly answers the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). I should be surprised if the residence tests had a major impact in his constituency or other constituencies on the south coast.
  662
  There is provision for enabling leaseholders who are temporarily in residence abroad to participate in enfranchisement. The leaseholders of retirement homes would not be able to be participating tenants until they had moved into and occupied the retirement homes. However, it would need only 50 per cent. of the remaining participating tenants in the block to be residential. The hurdle is a little higher, which is why the provision was welcomed by some of my hon. Friends.
  We have been urged to keep the matter under review. We are setting up an advisory organisation to help leaseholders achieve their entitlements under the legislation. I have no doubt that that organisation and others will let the Government know of the legislation's progress. I would hesitate to commit myself or my successors to more legislation on the subject. It is difficult to think of any more difficult legislation to pilot through the House than legislation on leasehold reform. My reasons for saying that have become manifestly clear in the past minutes.
  We have made no estimates of the numbers who might benefit from the Bill. The Government's role is to give people entitlements and rights. It is entirely a matter for them how they exercise those rights. Therefore, we have set no targets for enfranchisements.
  Mr. Battle: We appreciate the Minister's difficulty to a large extent. He has promised us a review, but it would be better to get the legislation right from the outset. In the other place, the Minister said:
  "1 strongly believe that a residence condition for qualification for collective enfranchisement in flats would not be fair … it would substantially reduce the number of blocks in which collective enfranchisement could take place … In fact I am convinced that a residence test for participation in collective enfranchisement would render unworkable this part of the Bill … We would end up with a worthless, discredited piece of legislation and our declared policy would not be delivered."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 March 1993, Vol. 543, c. 954–55 ]
  Is that not Government policy? Is not the Minister saying that the Bill will not deliver the Government's intentions?
  Sir George Young: I hope to come in a moment to the particular residency test that we are introducing, which, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, is substantially different from some of the earlier tests that were put before this House and another place. My own view is that the new residency test will not substantially disfranchise a large number of people. As has been said, flat owners move frequently, but only half of the participating tenants have to satisfy the test. Further, it is a 12-month rather than a three-year test, for precisely that reason.
  In reply to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) I shall simply repeat what Lord Williams of Elvel said in another place on behalf of the Labour party:
  "I say to the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, that our reaction to the amendment is that we agree with anything which is against absentee landlords and artificial persons but as regards residents, we have had our doubts about 'the last twelve months'."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 May 1993; Vol. 545, c. 1259.]
  So, in another place, there was some support for the insertion of a residency test before enfranchisement becomes possible.
  I should like to turn now to the heart of the reservations raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne. My right hon. and learned

  663
  Friend the Home Secretary, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, said that we did accept that there is some logic in the argument that only long leaseholders who actually live in their flats should be able to take control of the building and do something about the inevitable decline in the value of their asset, but we foresaw difficulty with the practicalities.
  Our view was that a residence test for collective enfranchisement which disqualified either buildings or individual tenants would mean that in too many blocks the right of tenants to buy out their landlords would not be exercisable, so the overall policy could not be achieved. We did not apply that argument to individual lease renewal, about which there has been no debate this afternoon.
  Our original objection to a residence test was that the requisite majority of tenants to trigger collective enfranchisement would, in practice, be hard to attain. That is because the turnover of lease ownership means that at any one time a significant proportion of long leaseholders in a block would not have lived in it long enough to become qualifying tenants. Further, individual blocks could move into and out of eligibility frequently, making it harder to find an opportunity to claim.
  In another place, my noble Friend Lord Boardman found a way round this difficulty. His amendment, which was accepted in another place and is before the House today, applies a test to participating tenants only. It requires that not fewer than half of those who sign the initial notice meet the residence condition. Thus, the difficulty over the disqualification from enfranchisement of whole blocks of flats, because not enough of the leaseholders have lived in their flats for long enough to allow the number of qualifying tenants to pass the two-thirds threshold, is neatly bypassed.
  The residence conditions differ somewhat from those that we have introduced for lease renewal, because of the different circumstances. There are alternative tests. First, there is occupation of the flat, or part of it, as an only or principal home for the preceding 12 months. Secondly, occupation for periods amounting to three years out of the last 10 will suffice. Tenants may choose what for them is the easier. The second limb of the test means that people who have recently let out their flats—for example, because they have gone abroad for a period—will not be denied the opportunity to join in collective enfranchisement. Occupation does not have to have been under the qualifying lease. Thus, for example, someone who has lived in a flat owned by his or her parents and has recently inherited the long lease will be able to participate.
  These amendments represent a sensible compromise between two conflicting points of view, both of which have been expressed in this debate. They will not disfranchise many blocks, but, as I said earlier, they will exercise the spectre of control by an absent minority. Politics is the art of the possible. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North said, compromise is sometimes necessary. In my view, these amendments represent an acceptable compromise.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 agreed to.

Clause 7

  LEASES AT A LOW RENT
  Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 8, leave out lines 20 to 25 and insert—
  ("(b) where—
  (i) the lease was entered into either on or after 1st April 1963 but before 1st April 1990, or on or after 1st April 1990 in pursuance of a contract made before that date, and
  (ii) the flat had a rateable value at the date of the commencement of the lease or else at any time before 1st April 1990,")
  Sir George Young: I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 88.
  Sir George Young: These amendments will ensure that where a property never acquires a rateable value it shall be treated as if it were a lease entered into after April 1990. The test that applies to these leases is that the ground rent must not exceed £1,000 in Greater London or £250 elsewhere.
  Amendment No. 10 relates to flats, and amendment No. 88 deals with houses. They will improve the test by ensuring that it can be applied to all properties, and I commend them to the House.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Battle: The language in which the Minister presents his case is interesting. He says that the amendment will improve the test. In other words, it will firm up the test and make it more difficult for people to get through. Thus, the Government are once again ensuring that fewer people than was suggested will be enfranchised. It is worth recalling that the original consultation document published by the Government contained no suggestion of any low rent test. Such a test has crept in via the Bill, and the Government are now accepting it, as it were, as law. The Minister's comment that he is improving or strengthening the test suggests to me that very many more people will be disfranchised.
  Sir George Young: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too carried away, let me make the point that the amendments were put forward on behalf of leaseholders. Without them, certain properties would simply be ineligible for enfranchisement because they have no rateable value. The amendments will therefore benefit leaseholders.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 32 agreed to.

  Clause 17

    RIGHT OF REVERSIONER TO REQUIRE EVIDENCE OF TENANT'S RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE
    Lords amendment: No. 33, in page 23, line 39, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
    ("(3) Where—
    (a) the nominee purchaser fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (1) in the case of any person within the period mentioned in subsection (2), and
    (b) The initial notice would not have been given in accordance with section I 1(2)(b) if—
    (i) that person, and
    (ii) any other person in the case of whom a like failure by the nominee purchaser has occurred.
    had been neither included among the persons who gave the notice nor included among the qualifying tenants of the flats referred to in that provision, the initial notice shall be deemed to have been withdrawn at the end of that period.")
    Mr. Baldry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment is technical. It deals with the issue of deemed withdrawal of the initial notice where the nominee purchaser cannot deduce title to the property of any participating tenant. Without the amendment, failure to deduce the title of the lease of any participating tenant would cause the deemed withdrawal of the initial notice, which might prove rather harsh.
    The amendment was proposed by the Law Society and the Leasehold Reform Co-ordinating Committee. It seems to make sense. It makes the procedures on enfranchisement fairer.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 88 agreed to.

  Clause 62

    PRICE PAYABLE BY TENANT ON ENFRANCHISEMENT BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 59 OR 60
    Lords amendment proposed: No. 89, in page 65, line 17, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 18 and insert
    ("be determined in accordance with subsection (IA) above; but in any such case—
    (a) if in determining the price so payable there falls to be taken into account any marriage value arising by virtue of the coalescence of the freehold and leasehold interests, the share of the marriage value to which the tenant is to be regarded as being entitled shall not exceed one-half of it; and
    (b) section 9A below has effect for determining whether any additional amount is payable by way of compensation under that section;
    and in a case where the provision (or one of the provisions) by virtue of which the right to acquire the freehold arises in section 1A(1) above, subsection (1A) above shall apply with the omission of the assumption set out in paragraph (b) of that subsection."")
    Motion made and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Baldry.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 90 and 265.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Pike: We want to break the run and have a debate on this group of amendments, which cover important issues.
    The Leasehold Enfranchisement Association and the Consumers Association are concerned about the part of the Bill affected by the amendments, and we must force the Government to explain exactly why the amendments should be accepted. We do not think that amendments Nos. 89 and 265 are necessary, but the Government may be able to convince us differently about amendment No. 90.
    We have discussed the extension of rights of leasehold
    house owners and flat owners. The Bill updates previous legislation, especially the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made his position clear, but I am sure that
    666
    the Government would not like to oppose leasehold enfranchisement. When the hon. Gentleman made his maiden speech, I said that I hope that he would be an improvement on his predecessor, who held strong views on some issues. I hope that the view that he has expressed in this debate is not typical, because we strongly disagree with it and the Government have a different view on the way to proceed with leasehold enfranchisement.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not opposed to hon. Members having strong views. One can hold strong views and still support one's Government. I oppose the leasehold enfranchisement in part I of the Bill, but I strongly support parts II and III.
    Mr. Pike: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. However, the Conservative party's election manifesto contained a clear commitment to extend leasehold enfranchisement. The hon. Gentleman disagrees with that, and I accept that he is entitled to do so. However, I hope that he made his electors aware of the fact that he did not agree with his party on that issue.
    Amendment No. 89 seems to put more restrictions on house owners than the Bill intends. Perhaps the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury thinks that that is an improvement, but we have considerable reservations. Under the Bill as drafted, benefits to house owners are limited and do not give them any right to lease extensions, which people enfranchised under the 1967 Act have, and which flat owners will have under the new legislation.
    Since the Bill left the House, Ministers have made a series of concessions to its opponents, and they tend to penalise an already disadvantaged group of leaseholders. The leaseholders who are affected will have to pay for enfranchisement under the more costly of the two formulae in the 1967 Act. The Bill has been amended by the other place to make the formula even more disadvantageous for leasehold house owners.
    First, there will be a 50 per cent. minimum share of marriage value. That does not apply in other parts of the Bill. Secondly, severance costs must be paid, and that does not apply to other people covered by the Bill. Thirdly, the assumption that the tenant has any right to remain in the building at the end of the lease is removed, thus further increasing the price that is payable.
    The amendments would give leasehold house owners the worst of all worlds. They certainly gain fewer rights at higher cost than other groups. I share their view that they have been singled out as sacrificial victims to appease the landlord lobby in the other place. That is why it is right to debate these important issues.
    The points that I have been making were mainly those of the Consumers Association and I shall now deal with what the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association says about amendments Nos. 89 and 262:
    "Amendment Number 89 … if allowed to stand—would effectively deny enfranchisement rights to virtually all long-term house-leaseholders. We feel … that the minority of house-leaseholders becoming eligible under this legislation have been used as a sacrifice for other parts of the Bill."
    The Government have tried to hold firm against strong opposition. We all know what happened to the Duke of Westminster as a result of the legislation. The Government were under strong pressure and felt that they had to make a concession to get people to go along with the main drift of the Bill on enfranchisement of flats and not destroy it beyond recognition.

    667
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said, we debated at great length the low rent test and other measures that are unnecessarily restrictive and do not give the freedom to buy that people should enjoy. Some people think that the Bill goes too far, and in the other place there were moves to restrict it even further. It is our view and that of others, particularly those affected, that, to ensure that this part of the Bill was not completely destroyed, the Government made the concession on house owners. That was the wrong decision to take. I hope that the Minister will take seriously the concern that is expressed about Lords amendment No. 89.
    The first part of the amendment deals with the marriage value and the second with the removal from the valuation calculations of the assumption that the tenant has a right to occupancy at the end of the lease. Those are both important factors, and their removal will make the Bill worse than the one that left the House of Commons a few months ago.
    The special valuation base defined in the Leasehold Reform Act, as amended in 1974, has been operating for 20 years as the established formula for assessment of the cost of enfranchisement for houses, and there is now a large body of case law. From the first, the Government have repeatedly stated that houses brought into eligibility for enfranchisement by the reform would be valued on the same basis as those previously made eligible. The Minister has assured us of that at several stages in Committee and on Report.
    The 1974 formula is already heavily loaded against the leaseholder because of the unequal professional representation in early cases. The first case, the landmark Norfolk case, where the tenant represented himself against the landlord represented by Nigel Hague QC, now a judge and the author of the standard work on the subject, and the Grosvenor Estates' long-time solicitors Boodle Hatfield, resulted in a precedent award of 275 per cent. in the profit to the landlord. That was the old issue of profit and value and the old difficulty of assessing what the value should be as a result of the apportionment and the concept of marriage value, which we have debated so much in our consideration of the Bill.
    The concept of marriage value has arisen out of the Leasehold Reform Act, but no set provision was made for it in the 1974 formula, and its apportionment has been a matter of negotiation, although 50 per cent. to each party has been the normal division. The new amendment will mean that the landlord must receive at least half the marriage value. That underlines the bottom point below which one cannot go. In that respect, there is a reduction in the rights of, and in the justice that should be done to, the person applying to buy the freehold of the property.
    There is then the removal of the assumption of right for security of tenure—another important issue. The 1974 formula contains the assumption that the occupying leaseholder has a right to tenancy at the end of his lease. In some cases that will happen, but in others it will not, but a legal assumption of that sort follows frequently used legal practice. It is an extremely important principle in the way in which the value of the property is assumed and arrived at. Lords amendment No. 89 will remove the assumption of security of tenure at the end of the lease.
    668
    Houses will be valued in an arbitrary way, according to whether, by chance, that right is there. We believe that to be an unfair change.
    The Leasehold Enfranchisement Association considers that market value as a basis for the assessing of cost of enfranchisement can be acceptable only when modified by recognition of the moral right of the occupying home owner. I hope that the Government are prepared to recognise that right, which should not be ignored. It is established by an important principle that has existed for a long time and is understood, but will be removed by the amendment.
    5.45 pm
    Never before in the history of leasehold enfranchisement have assessments of costs been worked out on the basis that the resident home owner has no right, moral or otherwise, to security of tenure at the end of his lease, and the resulting figures could prove impossible for most leaseholders, particularly long-term leaseholders whose lease terms are now short as a result of the years that they have been in the property.
    Most larger houses were not given Rent Act protection in 1954, because they were not considered to be in short supply, but that was because many were still in various degrees of dilapidation or dereliction after the war, and conditions were still such that people had to have courage to take them on and restore them. The situation is different now, a number of years on, and that is an extremely important point.
    As to the lease extension rights for house leaseholders, a 50-year extension of lease was an alternative option for qualifying leaseholders under previous legislation, but again, that right will be removed by the Bill. That was done quite openly from the beginning, as is shown by the Government's early proposals. It was hoped that an amendment would be tabled that might restore the right, and we certainly debated many of the issues. However, when taken with Lords amendment No. 89, not only will there be no improvement in the position of house-leaseholders, but their situation will be worsened.
    I do not believe that that is what the Government intended to do, but as we, the Consumers Association and the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association view it, that is the reality. If the Government do not change their mind, they will have to be prepared to be told that they got it wrong. The move would be discrimination against a minority group of house leaseholders who were not previously eligible for enfranchisement, who were discriminated against in 1967 and again in 1974 by being denied rights given to other similar leaseholders.
    I have always said, in good faith, that the Government's intention was to get rid of leasehold as a form of tenure. They have said both that, and that it must be done on a basis of equity and fairness rather than through seizure, which is what some Tory Back Benchers have claimed. We accept that it must be done on a fair basis. I hope that the Minister will accept our view that, no doubt inadvertently, something done in the other House is taking us backwards. We do not want that. The Government should not be asking us to agree to Lords amendments Nos. 89 and 265.
    I should like to press the Minister a bit further on injurious affection and the changes to that which will result from Lords amendment No. 90. As the amendments were moved formally, we have not heard exactly why amendment No. 90 is considered necessary. The Leasehold

    669
    Enfranchisement Association is not fully convinced, although it might find the amendment acceptable if the Government stated clearly that they did not intend injurious affection to apply to urban houses.
    We may, of course, be wrong in assuming that those speaking on behalf of rural interests are too inclined to talk engagingly of dower houses and long leaseholds This, however, is almost entirely an urban problem; dower houses are not an issue. It is understood that the Government do not intend injurious affection to have any practical application to urban houses, but the agents of a major London landlord are already reported to have spoken of "crippling loadings" in respect of the first household to attempt enfranchisement.
    People outside are worried about what may be done to prevent enfranchisement and extensions; they are concerned about the interpretation of certain provisions. The Minister is in the legal profession, and will know—as we all do—that skilful lawyers spend a good deal of time trying to find loopholes in legislation. I am no supporter of the Government, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt: even they may not want the legislation to be interpreted as it will be interpreted by some devious, scheming lawyers who see an opportunity to make money by protecting dukes who do not want leaseholders to have the chance of enfranchisement or extensions.
    Unless the Minister can convince us that our fears are unjustified, we intend to press amendment No. 89 to a Division; if it falls, amendment No. 265 will automatically fall with it. As for amendment No. 90, I wish to hear what the Minister has to say, and, if necessary, to seek the House's permission to speak later. We are not sure what the Government intend; if we receive the assurances that we and the people seek about its interpretation, we may be prepared to let it pass. However, we are nearing the final debate on enfranchisement and extensions.
    The Government are finding it difficult to convince some of their own Back Benchers of the equity of their proposals, and many Conservative Members support the Opposition's views. The Minister must do some convincing if we are not to press amendment No. 89 to a Division, because we believe that it would worsen the position of house owners.
    Mr. Fishburn: The many leaseholders who live in London, and who live in houses rather than flats, feel cruelly let down by this aspect of the legislation. They do not feel let down by what was done on Second Reading, in Committee or on Third Reading; they feel let down by amendments Nos. 89 and 90, which were added in another place, without warning, despite the months—indeed, years —of debate on leasehold reform.
    That debate began in a number of inner-London constituencies, under the aegis of my predecessor, Brandon Rhys Williams. The aim was precisely to enfrachise leaseholders who owned houses rather than flats. In the intervening years—quite properly—legislation has been introduced to enfranchise flat owners: that will change the face of London dramatically for the better over the next 10 years or so. It will give the right to own their flats to people who are now trapped in a second-rate form of home-ownership, with dwindling leasehold rights.
    But lo and behold! Because of these amendments, those who originally crusaded for leasehold enfranchisement will be left out in the cold. The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 allowed house owners—people who owned individual
    670
    houses on leasehold—to enfranchise themselves, under a formula set out in the Act. As the Bill was going through the House, at the last minute a certain number of householders were artificially excluded in a deal between the Labour Government, as they then were, and the big London landlords, as they then were and still are. Anyone whose house had a rateable value of more than i1,500 a year was artificially excluded from the legislation.
    Until these amendments were agreed in another place, it was the Government's intention, and the hope of tens of thousands of Londoners who live in leasehold houses, that enfranchisement would be possible on the terms that the 1967 Act would have allowed had it not been for that artificial exclusion. Many of those Londoners are my constituents.
    London as a whole was right to look forward to such a possibility: as we have seen in the past, leaseholders who enfranchise themselves and become freeholders rapidly improve their houses, bringing about new investment and improving neighbourhood amenities and architectural features. Certainly, all the houses in my constituency of Kensington whose owners have enfranchised themselves in the past 10 or 15 years have added enormously to the quality of the area, by virtue of the fact that those who live in them also own them. Now, thousands will not be able to enfranchise themselves because the rateable value of their homes is more than £1,500. That will lead to continuing urban squalor—and, I fear, growing urban squalor in my part of the world.
    Amendment No. 89 effectively disfranchises those thousands of people, for two reasons. First, there is now a provision on the face of the Bill that no leaseholder in a London house should be able to expect more than half the marriage value of the property if he wishes to enfranchise. That effectively means that the cost of enfranchisement will be vastly more than it would have been under the 1967 Act. We may be talking of not a fraction, but a quantum leap of two, three or four times the actual cost.
    Such a provision has never been on the face of the Bill before. We know that it was put there to buy off a well-mounted public relations campaign in another place, not because it was the Government's original intention.
    My fear, to which I should like the Minister to respond, is that the lawyers who will fix at tribunals the price of houses to be enfranchised will take the amendment merely as a starting point. Instead of the marriage value not exceeding 50 per cent., leaseholders who seek to enfranchise will have to pay more than 70, 80 or 85 per cent. of the marriage value when they buy the freehold from the residual freeholder, who has already received much of the property's worth when he sold the long lease in the first place.
    The second reason also stems from amendment No. 89. When the tribunal seeks to ascertain the worth of a house that a leaseholder wishes to enfranchise, it will assume that the house will be empty at the end of the lease, with no statutory tenancy and no moral right of residence. That provision, tacked on to amendment No. 89, overturns the rule of thumb, indeed the rule of law, that we have come to expect in housing in the previous generation. It does so not only as a last-minute thought but with extraordinary high-handedness.

    671
    6 pm
    Taken together, these two reasons mean that thousands of Londoners with leasehold properties will not be able to take advantage of the Bill's provisions to buy their freeholds. That is a great shame, which will be keenly felt by many of my constituents. Anything that the Minister could say now to dispel the fear that tribunals will use the amendment to increase the cost to those seeking enfranchisement will be greatly welcomed.
    Amendment No. 90 contains the legal jargon of injurious affection. That concept was agreed in this House rather than in another place, but it was intended to apply to country estates and, in that context, I regard it as a welcome and sensible move and exactly the type of amendment that legislation should receive as it passes through this House. It was a sharpening and an improvement, but, in the brief six weeks since the commitment was given, the lawyers have been at work. They say that they will use amendment No. 90 to ensure that the enfranchisement of houses on contiguous estates throughout London, and Kensington, will be stymied. They will claim injurious affection and state that something which was a sensible concession to country estates should apply in the heart of our capital city. Anything that the Minister can say to rebut not me but those lawyers will be greatly appreciated.
    If amendments Nos. 89 and 90 are passed and if we receive none of the assurances that I seek, thousands of my constituents will feel greatly let down after a long campaign, and leaseholders of houses in central London will not be able to enfranchise.
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) is right to express alarm and concern about the implications of the amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) rightly said, they will damage the prospects of substantial numbers of leaseholders of houses who were among the few who did not benefit from the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and who looked forward to enfranchisement on similar terms to those that applied to leaseholders under that Act.
    As has been said, there was no hint in earlier debates in the House or in Committee that a proposal such as that embodied in these amendments would be incorporated in the Bill. Indeed, to my knowledge, the Government have given no justification for the introduction of these concepts, extending to the provisions of the 1967 Act the concepts of the marriage value and compensation, or injurious affection, which were devised by the Government for the rather different conditions applying to flats and which were the basis of this legislation. There is no common sense, logic or justification in applying the two concepts of marriage value and compensation, or injurious affection, to houses. The consequences of doing so will be dramatic and devastating to many leaseholders.
    Let us consider the practical implications of amendment No. 90, which deals with compensation. It states that the freeholder may claim compensation for
    "such amount as is reasonable"—
    there is no limit; it is a wholly open-ended phrase—
    "to compensate him for that loss or damage."
    Such loss or damage means
    "any diminution in value of any interest"—
    again, an open-ended phrase—
    "of the landlord in other property"—
    not only in the one property but any other property—
    672
    "resulting from the acquisition of his interest in the house and premises".
    The amendment goes very wide and will allow any landlord trying to frustrate the wishes of a leaseholder seeking to enfranchise to use the services of a skilful lawyer to put a major obstacle in the way of the leaseholder, as the hon. Member for Kensington said.
    However, that is not the end of it. The amendment also states that loss or damage shall mean
    "any other loss or damage which results therefrom to the extent that it is referable to his ownership of any interest in other property."
    They are extraordinarily wide concepts, which will allow leaseholders to be confronted by lawyers demanding substantial sums in compensation, relating to various claims which may or may not be justified.
    I accept that there may be consequences for landlords who are used to managing a block of flats if some properties within that block are enfranchised. There could be knock-on consequences for the management of the block, but houses are self-contained dwellings, which is an entirely different matter. They should not be subject to the curious concept of compensation.
    The amendment is very broad, and the broadest of all the elements, and that which I believe will be the most damaging, at least in London, is the provision relating to the loss of development value. The Bill incorporates not only the curious concept of payment for such amount as the landlord believes is owing to him as compensation because of enfranchisement but the explicit provision that loss shall include the loss of development value. It is defined as value
    "attributable to the possibility of demolishing, reconstructing, or carrying out substantial works of construction"
    on the property.
    One can envisage a landlord, faced with a leaseholder seeking enfranchisement, saying that, if he could develop a particular property, he could replace it with a substantially more valuable one on the same site. The amendment contains no requirement that the landlord should have obtained planning consent for such development. It is sufficient for the landlord to claim merely that he might have had an opportunity to develop a property and thereby greatly enhance its value. The hypothetical loss of development value could then be charged to the leaseholder seeking enfranchisement, thus making it impossible for the leaseholder to exercise the right of enfranchisement.
    Those serious implications go the the heart of the process of enfranchisement. Ministers must be only too well aware that the amendments would make it impossible for certain leaseholders in houses to exercise their rights. Leaseholders would be confronted not only with the obstancles that we already know exist in the Bill but with a powerful financial deterrent that their landlord can exercise against them.
    It seems extraordinary, given Ministers' protestations about their wish to extend enfrachisement, that, under the amendments, they are deliberately seeking to place serious obstacles in the path of those seeking enfranchisement.
    I do not know what justification Ministers will advance. We may be told that it is neat and tidy to apply the same concepts to houses as those that apply to flats. That is the only respectable argument that I can think of, because I have heard no other argument in favour of those provisions.

    673
    In Committee, we argued time and again for consistency between the eligibility criteria for people seeking enfranchisement under the Bill and the eligibility criteria of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Time and again, Ministers told us that the circumstances were different and that the 1987 Act did not apply in the same circumstances as the proposals in the Bill and, therefore, it was not appropriate to have absolute consistency in the rules. By their own arguments in Committee, they have destroyed any possible case for introducing the two amendments, which would have such a damaging impact on leaseholders in houses.
    The case against amendments Nos. 89 and 265 is overwhelming and I should be surprised if Ministers could advance any convincing arguments in their favour. I hope that they will have the decency to recognise that a serious mistake has been made in the other place and that the amendments should be negatived to ensure that leaseholders in houses are not prevented from taking the opportunities for enfranchisement that Parliament is ostensibly seeking to grant.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am sorry to detain the House for a minute or two longer on amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 265. I had not intended to speak, but my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) made some points that should not go unanswered.
    Amendments Nos. 89 and 265 deal with marriage value —when the lessor and lessee's interests are put together and the value of the whole is greater than that of the two parts. Both hon. Members should recognise what is happening in the market. At the moment, if a lessee went to his landlord, the lessor, wishing to buy his interesi out, the landlord, if he were so minded, would agree, and I, as a chartered surveyor, would have no difficulty in valuing the unexpired portion of the lease. They would then negotiate the marriage value and what portion of the property should go to the lessee and what portion should go to the lessor.
    6.15 pm
    In the present market, almost universally, 75 per cent. or more of the marriage value goes to the lessor. As we are introducing legislation to allow the lessee, in certain prescribed circumstances, to oblige the landlord, the lessor, to allow himself to be bought out, it seems quite reasonable that should there be a minimum of 50 per cent.— after all, that is some way below what happens in the market.
    Amendment No. 90 deals with injurious affection. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) did not have a clue what the words meant, let alone what he was speaking to, so let me try to explain. It is a universal principle of all compensation law that where somebody's property is acquired compulsorily, there should be full compensation for the injurious affection—the diminution in the landlord's remaining property. The hon. Member for Greenwich read out the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which do not differ from other statutory provisions on compensation. It is wholly consistent with all other property law.
    Mr. Raynsford: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is no such concept in the 1967 Act, which has worked perfectly well and successfully for 25 years or more? An entirely alien concept is now being introduced.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has played into my hands. I told the hon. Member for Burnley that, had I been here in 1967, I would have argued as hard as I could to ensure that that legislation was defeated. It was a totally unfair Act.
    In those circumstances, consistent with all other property legislation where the landlord's property has been diminished, the Bill should make proper provision for injurious affection. That applies particularly to rural estates and where an estate village, in unique and rare cases, has been in the ownership of the same family since Domesday. This is part of our cultural heritage.
    Mr. Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman says that this is part of our heritage. That may or may not be so, but is not his real concern that it is part of his wealth?
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Gentleman is casting a personal aspersion on me, he should withdraw it. If he is casting an aspersion on landowners in general, perhaps he will make himself clear.
    Mr. Straw: I was referring to both—the hon. Gentleman's landholding, the landholding of other owners and the way in which they have sought unjustifiably to influence the outcome of the Bill.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Member for Bolton—
    Mr. Straw: Blackburn.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is casting personal aspersions against me, I should say that I have declared an interest as a chartered surveyor and a landowner. I do not believe, however, that any of my property holdings come within the scope of the Bill. If he is casting personal aspersions against me, he should withdraw them, but if he is casting aspersions against property owners in general, I should tell him that many hundreds of thousands of property owners are lessors, some of whom have only two properties.
    I know that almost all the investments of one hon. Member are in one leasehold property, which will now be enfranchised. [ Laughter.] The hon. Member for Blackburn may laugh, but I do not understand why the Labour party wants to make legislation that inhibits privity of contract. I cannot understand why it does not want anybody who makes a free agreement to do whatever he or she wants.
    Mr. Straw: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously advancing the proposition that contracts should be exclusively the domain of those who are parties to them and that the community should have no interest in their outcome, even if it affects the community?
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Of course, there will be circumstances where the community has an interest, but this is not one of them.
    I have already been lured into making remarks well outside the scope of the amendments. That is not entirely and exclusively my fault. I have been led down a path of temptation that I could not resist.
    It is wholly right, and consistent with other property legislation, that where a property owner's interest is acquired, as it were, compulsorily, he should be compensated for the full diminution in the value of his property.

    675
    Does the hon. Member for Greenwich think that it would be right for a landlord with potential investment value to have his property acquired compulsorily and get nothing from the potential investment? If that is what he is saying, it is totally unfair.
    Mr. John Fraser: My constituency contains a large number of leasehold properties, including some parts of the Dulwich college estate. I have fought all my parliamentary life for better rights for leaseholders, and I was proud to be associated with the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. Of course, that Act was opposed by the then Conservative Opposition, and was described by John Boyd-Carpenter as "Rachmanism in reverse." The spirit of Boyd-Carpenter lives on on the Government Benches.
    The hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) argues that we shall be messing with privity of contract. But one of the reasons why Parliament exists is to disturb, in the interests of justice and fairness, arrangements between one party and another which, very often, have resulted from unequal bargaining power. It is perfectly proper for Parliament to intervene to give security of tenure—that is interfering with privity of contract.
    No business man or woman on the Government Benches protests against the interference with privity of contract when the security of business people is involved. They protest only when residential tenants—usually those at the bottom of the scale—are involved. There is every reason why hon. Members should try to interfere with privity of contract. That is the intention of those on the Opposition Front Bench.
    I now turn to marriage value. When the 1967 Act was introduced, it was not thought that marriage value would enter into it; the price paid by the tenant would be the price on the open market. Let us transfer the principle of marriage value to the example of a severely ill person going to a chemist to have a prescription dispensed. The transferred principle would mean that the chemist would charge the sick person a greater amount of money because he was in greater need of the prescription than someone else in the marketplace. The same principle would apply to a private doctor charging a higher fee to someone who was seriously ill and needed to be seen than to other patients. It would mean charging more for a meal to someone who was starving than to other people. That is marriage value.
    The reason for leasehold reform legislation was to deal with the exploitation of tenants, usually people whose home—their most important possession—was dependent on the absence of their rights under leasehold law. That is why there was interference on these matters, and why the 1967 Act assumed that there was no such thing as marriage value.
    Marriage value is demanding with menaces—I am told I must not use the word "blackmail" any longer, as it is politically incorrect--from people who arc in the greatest need. That is why marriage values should not apply either to houses or to flats. I can see that there is a problem with regard to flats when a few people extend the leases and there is not general enfranchisement. There is a trade-off in those circumstances.
    The amendments make things much worse by placing the matter compulsorily on the agenda for negotiation by saying that the tenant may not have more than half the
    676
    value. That seems to be influencing the negotiations in a way that was not intended either by those who have campaigned for the legislation or by the Government when they introduced the Bill in the first place.
    I wish to talk briefly about injurious affection, which is a principle acknowledged in compensation law. I believe that landlords are now behaving in a way that was not thought to be normal behaviour for landlords some years ago. I have been surprised at the behaviour of Dulwich college—a charity—over the past few years. The college used to behave in a benign and neighbourly way. There was a sort of give and take, and the college seemed to take a charitable view of the needs of leaseholders. In the past few years, the attitude has changed in the same way as it has with institutional landlords.
    In some cases, those landlords demand the very last penny that they can get out of their tenants, whether they are business or residential. There is row after row of empty shops and premises in and around my constituency because of the high rents now being demanded by Dulwich college. If I take what I can see around my constituency as an indicator of how the college would use injurious affection, I can only conclude that it will be a very injurious affection, not for the college but for those who seek to exercise the rights given by Parliament.
    I am deeply disturbed by and unhappy with the amendments. They were not intended in the first place by the Government and they entrench—particularly with regard to marriage value—the principle of being able to demand more from those who are in need than from those trading in the normal marketplace. I hope that, even at such a late hour, the Government will change their minds.
    Mr. Baldry: I hope that I can reassure the House. When moving the motion, I did not appreciate that the amendment had provoked such passion outside the House. If that had been made clear to me, I would have explained the amendments in greater detail, because a number of comments that we have heard have been somewhat wide of the mark. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has said that the Opposition intend to press for a Division, and I suspect that very little of what I am to say will deter them from that intention.
    I shall try to explain what the matter is about. First, the amendments specify that a landlord should receive at least half of any marriage value. I accept the assertion by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) that marriage values were not in the 1967 Act. The legislation on houses was different, because high-value houses were excluded from the 1967 Act and are included in this legislation for the first time. That is why, in part, we have marriage values, and they were debated at length in Standing Committee. The Government take the view that it is fair that the marriage value should be shared. If other hon. Members do not consider it fair, of course they will vote accordingly. We believe that it is fair, and it will normally be applied equally between parties. This floor is a useful safeguard where there may not be a willing seller.
    Mr. Raynsford: The Minister conceded that the concept of marriage value was not regarded as appropriate in the 1967 Act. The distinction that he drew was between the provisions in the 1967 Act and the current extension to high-value properties. Will he tell the House what the logic is for having marriage value applying to high-value houses but not to low-value houses?
    Mr. Baldry: There are two changes in the proposals —first, relating to flats and, secondly, relating to high-value houses. in those circumstances, time has moved on and it would be fair and equitable for marriage value to apply to high-value houses and to flats. The background to the 1967 Act was somewhat different from the background to the current proposals. Another difference between the Bill and the 1967 Act in the current proposals is embodied in the amendment relating to compensation for the severance price. The House has heard some fairly extreme examples of what might happen.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) should recall that the then Secretary of State for the Environment announced on Report that severance would be available for newly enfranchised houses. My hon. Friend will recall that that was because of a number of Back-Bench concerns about valuation.
    The amendment arises because there are circumstances in which a real loss in the value of property remaining in a landlord's ownership may occur because of the disposal by enfranchisement. Again, we are dealing with high-value houses. The situation is unlikely to occur with low-value houses. Severance was not provided for in the 1967 Act and was unlikely to be appropriate for low-value houses. The impact of the loss on higher-value houses on a whole estate might be significant. The hon. Member for Burnley gave the good example of a dower house on a country estate, where an island of property under different ownership might be created.
    The concerns that that rule somehow might apply in urban situations and that landlords might use that as preventing enfranchisement are somewhat wide of the mark. First, the landlord must satisfy a leasehold valuation tribunal that there is a real loss to some other property in his ownership. A landlord cannot simply add a penalty. He will have to show that some other third party would actually pay less for the other property, separately, than for the combined property. That seems to be only fair and equitable.
    The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) cannot have it both ways. If he argues that there is no loss to the landlord, the amendment does no harm. However, if there are cases where there may be a loss to the landlord, it is only right that there should be compensation and that the landlord should have the opportunity of arguing, the point before a leasehold valuation tribunal.
    6.30 pm
    Amendment No. 265 disapplies the assumption that tenants will have security of tenure at the end of their leases. Tenants of higher-value houses, which will now be able to be enfranchised, do not normally have security of tenure. Indeed, the assumption, if that were allowed to continue, would artificially decrease the value of the landlord's interest. Where the tenant has the right, amendment No. 265 will not affect the valuation. The amendment simply reflects the truth. The facts speak for themselves. I cannot see how one can object to a situation where the facts speak for themselves. We are fairly reflecting the truth of the situation.
    Mr. Pike: As a result of amendments Nos. 89 and 265, will not the householder enjoy a worse position?
    Mr. Baldry: Parts of this afternoon's debate have tended, on both sides of the House, to become a spat, or a scoreboard with tenants on one side and landlords on the
    678
    other. That is not how we on the Treasury Bench view the Bill. We want legislation that is fair and equitable to all parties in all regards. I believe that amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 265 are useful to ensure that the valuation of newly enfranchisable houses is equitable and in line with that for flats. For those reasons, I commend the amendments to the House.
    Mr. Battle: The Minister has revealed a further example of the Government effectively caving in to the pressure of the landlord's interests which was placed on the Government in another place. That is what it boils down to.
    I remind the Minister of one letter of the many that I have received which was addressed to the Minister. It states:
    "I understand that the above mentioned bill will go next Monday back to the House of Commons.
    I strongly hope that the Government will reject in the House of Commons the amendments No. 89 and 90 proposed by the House of Lords in particular;
    a) injurious affection (loss which might be incurred to a landlord other property by enfranchisement of a particular house)
    b) removal of the assumption of right to security of tenure
    c) apportion of marriage value
    All these amendments have been clearly proposed in the House of Lords for the exclusive benefit of the Landlords with the effect of making the enfranchisement process for houses extremely expensive.
    Already the 1974 formula which should apply, as in the Government manifesto, gives the landlord a very high compensation, adding these further 3 new factors would be punitive for the tenant and against the entire scope of the legislation.
    I was born in my present home and have lived there all my life and therefore very much hope that you will not adopt these three final amendments."
    I believe that that person speaks for many people who expect to get leasehold enfranchisement, but who now realise that, with the Government's acceptance of amendments Nos. 89 and 90, that will not happen.
    When Conservative Members push the Government even further by appealing to what we might describe as their version of the inviolability of the private contract, I submit to them, as many of my hon. Friends pointed out during the debate, that long lease contracts were never fair contracts because of the unreasonable assumption that the property "sold" or provided by the leaseholder would be handed back again for nothing, in perfect condition, at the end of the lease.
    The lease periods concerned, sometimes 999 years, are also too long to be undertaken without a reasonable possibility of statutory change during that period. It is also possible for landlords to exact unfair contracts because of the local housing monopolies that they control. In other words, there was never any true freedom of choice for people entering such contracts if they wanted to live in a particular place. There is an inequality of bargaining power. In the leasehold area, private individuals seeking to buy a home via what is known as arm's-length negotiations are up against a scale of resources, both financial and professional, which makes any suggestion that it is an equal contract absolutely laughable.
    Long-lease contracts were never fair. Unnatural property price inflation has escalated that imbalance. I suggest that landlords might have put their own house in order. However, they have not chosen to do that, and that is precisely why there is a demand for this legislation.

    679
    I refer the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) to an article in The Times on 10 March 1993. In an editorial headed
    "Leasehold reform should not be opposed by Conservatives",
    the article stated:
    "For Tories who believe in the sanctity of private contracts, therefore, the measure"—
    the leasehold reform in the Bill
    "is a crypto-socialist attack on Locke's most sacred principles and an affront to the rule of law.
    Appealing to these arguments may be to the defenders of the free market, the lordly rebels are being intransigent in their principled resistance. In practice, no society can afford to treat private contracts of private property as absolutely inviolable. In markets in which ownership is highly concentrated, governments rightly interfere with the untrammelled enjoyment of private property in the name of competition. Land ownership in central London has been a case of monopoly power, especially during the mid-Victorian period when Britain's system of long leasehold tenure became the norm.
    For better or worse, the principle of forcing freeholders to sell their property to long leaseholders was established, by the 1967 Leasehold Reform Act. That law excluded flats, but only for reasons of administrative complexity. the new bill merely removes that anomaly. Parliament must ensure that the compensatory mechanism which accompanies it is just and carefully regulated."
    With respect to the amendments, the Government are asking house lessees to pay the price and they are stepping back. In other words, the Government accept the need to tackle the anomaly in relation to flats, but they will do that at the expense of people with long leases on their houses. That is an unacceptable watering down of the Bill. In effect, the increasing cost of enfranchisement in relation to houses would be such that it could no longer be said that effective enfranchisement rights were being offered.
    The three additional valuation factors to which we have referred in the debate—injurious affection, the removal of the assumption of the right to security of tenure and the
    apportionment of marriage values—which have been loaded on to what house leaseholders will be made to pay on enfranchisement, seem to be grossly discriminatory. Householders, who were effectively excluded from the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, are now being discriminated against in the Bill.
    It seems that the Bill has been retitled the "Leasehold Reform" Bill, but the effect of that has been to cover up the removal of enfranchisement rights. In practice, we have a weaker, shabby Bill that will not deliver to leaseholders the rights to which they think that they will be entitled. The way forward for the Government is not to accept the Lords amendments. In the long run, the way forward would be to accept our proposals on commonhold. I look forward to those proposals coming before the House. They are the real way forward, but I am worried that that might
    not be on the agenda.
    In the other place, Lord Strathclyde, speaking for the Government, said:
    "my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor may or may not introduce that system in the future because it is fiendishly complicated and may require more thought"— [Official Report, House of Lords, 15 March 1993, Vol. 543, c. 1264.]
    The Government have had plenty of time to bring forward a commonhold Bill. That would have cut through much of the morass into which the Government have dug themselves with the present proposals.
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:-
    The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 181.

    Division No. 295]

    [6.40 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Alexander, Richard

    Evans. Roger (Monmouth)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Evennett, David

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Faber, David

    Amess, David

    Fabricant, Michael

    Arbuthnot, James

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Forman, Nigel

    Ashby, David

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Forth, Eric

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Baldry, Tony

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    French, Douglas

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Gale, Roger

    Bates, Michael

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bellingham, Henry

    Garnier. Edward

    Bendall, Vivian

    Gill, Christopher

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Goodlad. Rt Hon Alastair

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Booth, Hartley

    Gorst, John

    Boswell, Tim

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Greenway. Harry (Ealing N)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Bowis, John

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Brazier, Julian

    Hague. William

    Bright, Graham

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Hamilton. Neil (Tatton)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Burns, Simon

    Hannam. Sir John

    Burt, Alistair

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Butcher, John

    Harris, David

    Butler, Peter

    Hawkins. Nick

    Butterfill, John

    Hawksley, Warren

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Heald. Oliver

    Carrington, Matthew

    Heathcoat-Amory. David

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hendry. Charles

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Churchill, Mr

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Clappison, James

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Horam, John

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Coe, Sebastian

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

    Colvin, Michael

    Howell. Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Congdon, David

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Conway, Derek

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Coombs. Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Cope, Fit Hon Sir John

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Cormack, Patrick

    Jack, Michael

    Couchman, James

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

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

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Jessel, Toby

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jones. Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Day, Stephen

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Devlin, Tim

    Key. Robert

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    King. Rt Hon Tom

    Dover, Den

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Duncan, Alan

    Knapman, Roger

    Dunn, Bob

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Knox, Sir David

    Eggar, Tim

    Kynoch. George (Kincardine)

    Elletson, Harold

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Lawrence. Sir Ivan

    681

    Legg, Barry

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Lidington, David

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Lightbown, David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lord, Michael

    Shersby, Michael

    Luff, Peter

    Sims, Roger

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Maclean, David

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Soames, Nicholas

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Madel, David

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Malone, Gerald

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Mans, Keith

    Spring, Richard

    Marland, Paul

    Sproat, Iain

    Marlow, Tony

    Steen, Anthony

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Stephen, Michael

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stern, Michael

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Stewart, Allan

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Streeter, Gary

    Merchant, Piers

    Sumberg, David

    Milligan, Stephen

    Sweeney, Walter

    Mills, Iain

    Sykes, John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Thomason, Roy

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thurnham, Peter

    Nelson, Anthony

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

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

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Tredinnick, David

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Trend, Michael

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Norris, Steve

    Viggers, Peter

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Walden, George

    Ottaway, Richard

    Waller, Gary

    Paice, James

    Waterson, Nigel

    Patnick, Irvine

    Watts, John

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Wells, Bowen

    Pawsey, James

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Whitney, Ray

    Pickles, Eric

    Whittingdale, John

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Wilkinson, John

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Willetts, David

    Redwood, John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Wood, Timothy

    Richards, Rod

    Yeo, Tim

    Riddick, Graham

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Mr. Andrew MacKay.

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Ainger, Nick

    Betts, Clive

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Blair, Tony

    Allen, Graham

    Blunkett, David

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Armstrong, Hilary

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

    Austin-Walker, John

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Burden, Richard

    Barnes, Harry

    Caborn, Richard

    Barron, Kevin

    Callaghan, Jim

    Battle, John

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Cann, Jamie

    Benton, Joe

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Clapham, Michael

    682

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    McAllion, John

    Coffey, Ann

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Corbett, Robin

    McCartney, Ian

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    McFall, John

    Corston, Ms Jean

    McLeish, Henry

    Cryer, Bob

    Madden, Max

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Mahon, Alice

    Darling, Alistair

    Mandelson, Peter

    Davidson, Ian

    Marek, Dr John

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Martlew, Eric

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Maxton, John

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Meacher, Michael

    Denham, John

    Michael, Alun

    Dewar, Donald

    Miller, Andrew

    Dixon, Don

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Dobson, Frank

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Dowd, Jim

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Mudie, George

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Mullin, Chris

    Eastham, Ken

    Murphy, Paul

    Enright, Derek

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Etherington, Bill

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    O'Hara, Edward

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Fisher, Mark

    Patchett, Terry

    Flynn, Paul

    Pendry, Tom

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Pickthall, Colin

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Fraser, John

    Pope, Greg

    Fyfe, Maria

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    George, Bruce

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Prescott, John

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Gordon, Mildred

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Randall, Stuart

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Grocott, Bruce

    Reid, Dr John

    Gunnell, John

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Hall, Mike

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Hanson, David

    Rooker, Jeff

    Harvey, Nick

    Rooney, Terry

    Henderson, Doug

    Rowlands, Ted

    Heppell, John

    Salmond, Alex

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Hinchliffe, David

    Short, Clare

    Hoey, Kate

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

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

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Spellar, John

    Hutton, John

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Illsley, Eric

    Straw, Jack

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Turner, Dennis

    Jamieson, David

    Tyler, Paul

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Vaz, Keith

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Wardell Gareth (Gower)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Watson, Mike

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Jowell, Tessa

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Keen, Alan

    Wise, Audrey

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Worthington, Tony

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Leighton, Ron

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lewis, Terry

    Mr. Alan Meale and

    Litherland, Robert

    Mr. Gordon McMaster.

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Question accordingly agreed to
    Lords amendment No. 89 agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 90 and 91 agreed to.

  New clause

    PROPERTY TRANSFERRED FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT ETC.
    Lords amendment proposed: No. 92, after clause 62 insert the following new clause—
    ("After section 32 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 there shall be inserted—
    32A.—(1) A notice of a person's desire to have the freehold of a house and premises under this Part shall be of no effect if at the relevant time the whole or any part of the the house and premises is qualifying property and either—

    (a) the tenancy was created after the commencement of Chapter III of Part I of the Housing and Urban Development Act 1993; or

    (b) (where the tenancy was created before that commencement) the tenant would not be entitled to have the freehold if either or both of sections 1A and 1B above were not in force.

    (2) For the purposes of this section the whole or any part of the house and premises is qualifying property if—

    (a) it has been designated under section 31(1)(b), (c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (designation and undertakings relating to conditionally exempt transfers), whether with or without any other property, and no chargeable event has subsequently occurred with respect to it; or

    (b) an application to the Board for it to be so designated is pending; or

    (c) it is the property of a body not established or conducted for profit and a direction has been given in relation to it under section 26 of that Act (gifts for public benefit), whether with or without any other property; or

    (d) an application to the Board for a direction to be so given in relation to it is pending.

    (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above an application is pending as from the time when it is made to the Board until such time as it is either granted or refused by the Board or withdrawn by the applicant; and for this purpose an application shall not be regarded as made unless and until the applicant has submitted to the Board all such information in support of the application as is required by the Board.
    (4) A notice of a person's desire to have the freehold of a house and premises under this Part shall cease to have effect if—

    (a) before completion of the conveyance in pursuance of the tenant's notice, the whole or any part of the house and premises becomes qualifying property; and

    (b) the condition set out in subsection (1)(a) or (as the case may be) subsection (1)(b) above is satisfied.

    (5) Where a tenant's notice ceases to have effect by virtue of subsection (4) above—

    (a) section 9(4) above shall not apply to require the tenant to make any payment to the landlord in respect of costs incurred by reason of the notice; and

    (b) the person who applied or is applying for designation or a direction shall be liable to the tenant for all reasonable costs incurred by the tenant in connection with his claim to acquire the freehold of the house and premises.

    (6) Where it is claimed that subsection (1) or (4) above applies in relation to a tenant's notice, the person making the claim shall, at the time of making it, furnish the tenant with evidence in support of it; and if he fails to do so he shall be liable for any costs which are reasonably incurred by the tenant in consequence of the failure.
    (7) In subsection (2) above as it has effect for the purposes of subsection (1) above—

    (a) paragraphs (a) and (b) apply to designation under section 34(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Finance Act 1975 or section 77(1)(b), (c) or (d) of the Finance Act 1976 as they apply to designation under section 31(1)(b),(c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984; and

    (b) paragraphs (c) and (d) apply to a direction under paragraph 13 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975 as they apply to a direction under section 26 of that Act of 1984.

    (8) In this section—
    "the Board" means the Commissioners of Inland Revenue;
    "chargeable event" means
    —

    (a) any event which in accordance with any provision of Chapter II of Part II of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (exempt transfers) is a chargeable event, including any such provision as applied by section 78(3) of that Act (conditionally exempt occasions); or

    (b) any event which would have been a chargeable event in the circumstances mentioned in section 79(3) of that Act (exemption from ten-yearly charge)."")

    Read a Second time.
    Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (a), in subsection (7) leave out
    'as it has effect for the purposes of subsection (1) above'.—[Mr. Baldry.]
    Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Lords amendments, Nos. 93 to 152 agreed to.

  New clause

    PROPERTY WITHIN CATHEDRAL BOUNDARY
    Lords amendment proposed: No. 153, after clause 85 insert the following new clause—
    (". There shall be no right under Chapter I or II to acquire any interest in or lease of any property which lies within the precinct boundary of a cathedral church, within the meaning of the Cathedrals Measure 1963.")
    Read a Second time.
    Amendment made to Lords amendment: (a), leave out from `which' to end and insert
    'for the purposes of the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990 is within the precinct of a cathedral church.'.—[Mr. Baldry.]
    Lords amendment, as amended, ageed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 154 to 169 agreed to.

  New clause

    RIGHT TO INFORMATION
    Lords amendment: No. 170, after clause 110 insert the following new clause—
    (". After subsection (2) of section 104 of the 1985 Act (provision of information about tenancies) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(3) A local authority which is the landlord under a secure tenancy shall supply the tenant, at least once in every relevant year, with a copy of such information relating to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(b) and (c) as was last published by it; and in this subsection 'relevant year' means any period of twelve months beginning with an anniversary of the date of such publication."")
    Read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[ Sir George Young.]
    7 pm
    Mr. Battle: The amendment deals with the right to information. It concerns, in particular, the public sector and the Government's intentions in providing such information.
    The proposed new subsection refers to section 104 of the Housing Act 1985, which deals with the provision of information about a tenancy. Does that mean that that information will simply be limited to the right to buy, or will it include information about the Government's proposed rents-to-mortgage scheme, which also forms part of the Bill? The relevant section of the 1985 Act

    685
    provides that when a tenancy is created, a local authority should give tenants information about changes to the tenancy. I hope that the information provided under the proposed subsection is not just confined to that about right to buy, but includes information about the Government's rents-to-mortgage scheme.
    The Government have tried recently to boost the flagging right-to-buy programme by publishing another booklet that, set out that programme in fine detail. I understand that, this year, the Government have already spent £1. 4 million on publicity. The latest publicity stunt will not help council leaseholders who exercised the right to buy but were not properly informed at the time of how they would have to manage and pay the lease. I remind the Minister that some 70,000 council leaseholders in London alone face massive repair bills. They are unable to sell their flats and now feel that they were not properly informed by the Government when they pushed the right-to-buy programme.
    Ministers' energies would be better spent tackling the huge need for homes to rent rather than simply trying to create a demand where one virtually does not exist.
    It might be helpful if, under the terms of right to information, Ministers gave an undertaking to the House that the relevant costs of providing such information would be fully met and that the provisions would be reviewed if, in the future, authorities could prove that meeting them was more onerous than the Government expected.
    Many believe that the rents-to-mortgage scheme is not relevant to current circumstances. In Committee, the Minister often quoted me as saying that the scheme was irrelevant. I cannot claim ownership of that description; it should be claimed by Mr. Steve Wilcox, who wrote in Roof magazine in the September-October 1992 edition that the scheme
    "will appeal to a limited number of tenants who cannot afford right to buy but are not in receipt of housing benefit."
    In other words, the proposals for rents to mortgages, announced in July and based on pilot schemes in Scotland, new town Basildon and Milton Keynes, have not achieved anything near what the Government suggested. There is no real market for the scheme because rents are already at levels where many tenants could, if they so wished, buy under the right-to-buy scheme, with mortgage repayments no higher than their current rents. The scheme is still being sold by the Government, however, as a means of avoiding "future rent increases".
    All that the rents-to-mortgage scheme will do is highlight the financial squeeze on local authorities by claiming projected large increases as if they were an inevitable consequence of continued council ownership. It will not spell out the lack of resources to invest in the necessary repair and improvement of local authority stock.
    Inside Housing magazine of 30 October 1992 described the scheme in an article entitled, "Rents to mortgage too obscure", which stateds:
    "Difficulty in understanding rent to mortgage has been one of the main reasons for tenants not taking up the scheme, the Scottish Office has conceded."
    That was conceded in the Scottish Office publication, "The Rent to Mortgage Scheme in Scotland". The article continued:
    686
    "An Official Report into local authority and Scottish Homes rent to mortgage pilots claims success for the scheme … in attracting purchasers who otherwise would not have been able to purchase their homes.
    But the report says the main reasons why tenants did not continue with a rent to mortgage purchase after expressing interest included fear of unemployment and difficulty understanding the scheme."
    I can understand why people's fear of unemployment makes them unwilling to be pushed any further to purchase property.
    Perhaps provocatively—although this is an expression that has been echoed by most people with experience and knowledge in the housing field—I have to say that in 69 per cent. of the housing stock in Britain, owner-occupation is proving untenable. Twenty-one per cent. of the stock is still with local authorities. The private rented sector still stagnates, despite the Government's efforts to revivify it, at 7 per cent. Housing associations, of which the Government demand so much, represent a mere 3 per cent. of the housing stock.
    I put it to the Minister that housing associations, with only 3 per cent. of the stock, can go hardly any way towards meeting the needs of people for housing to rent. The Institute of Housing suggests that there need to be 100,000 new dwellings a year provided in Britain. The Government are providing 53,000 dwellings at best—that is just over half, and the figure is projected to go down next year, and down again the following year.
    When it comes to providing information, why are the Government obsessed by a single track? Why do they not recognise people's need to rent? The Minister claims to speak of rights. Why could he not recognise the right to rent, and include that in the information to which this clause and the amendment refer?
    I suggest, as we did in the Standing Committee on the Bill, that, instead of a rents-to-mortgage scheme, what is most needed in the present context is a scheme that takes people from mortgages to rents. That way perhaps we would not be in the ludicrous position whereby people faced with repossession lose their home and may go into a hostel or other housing accommodation. Then along comes a housing association with a housing market package, buys the property and suggests to the local authority that it can put a homeless person into it.
    The difficulty is that people might nor get back into the home which belonged to them and which they built up. Why not leave the family in their home and convert their mortgage into rent? That could be done with a bit of arithmetic, and would make far more sense than the Government's proposals for turning rent into mortgages.
    There are great difficulties in understanding the rents-to-mortgage scheme. I will not take the House through them now, but the arithmetic and the exclusion of people on housing benefit—to mention but two points—mean that the scheme is not only little understood but creates real dangers. Private lenders have first charge on the property and, if those low-income owners fall behind on what will then be described as their rent—that is, their mortgage—they will find that the property can be repossessed. That ought to be spelt out plainly in the information to tenants.
    I suggest to the Minister that, in the booklets or information passed back to tenants, he should spell out that shared ownership, which the rents-to-mortgage scheme is effectively now to replace, offered tenants a better and a more secure deal.

    687
    The Institute of Housing, in its response to the Department of the Environment consultation paper on the rents-to-mortgage scheme said that it was the wrong scheme at the wrong time, that it was ill conceived and inappropriate, and that the eventual take-up would be minimal. We concur with that view and urge the Government, when it gives information to tenants, not to keep pressing its single-tenure obsession. We need flexible tenure in Britain so that people can move within their lifetimes from renting to owning and back to renting, perhaps part-sharing or part-owning. They should not be locked into a form of tenure. Over the past 14 years, by pushing owner-occupation, the Government have developed, not a two-way flow and a flexible tenure, but a one-way street to owner-occupation, which is proving to be a cul-de-sac of repossession for far too many people.
    I suggest that, as we set out in our document only last Friday, flexible tenure is what is needed in Britain, not a lock-in to owner-occupation. If the Government were to give tenants fair information on their real rights, they would include the right to rent, set out all the options, and, as it were, open up flexibility of tenures in Britain. They should not continue—as I believe that the Minister does not really want to, because he does occasionally make comments to the effect that we need to develop the rented sector as well—on the present course, in which the system is clogged up and homes are empty while people are homeless.
    7.15 pm
    Sir George Young: I will begin by answering a question that the hon. Gentleman posed at the outset of his speech.
    Yes, the amendment will require local authority landlords to reissue annually the information, not just about the right to buy, but about other statutory rights. Local authority tenants already have the right to rent; they are secure tenants, and when they take out a lease from their local authority their rights are set out quite clearly.
    The hon. Gentleman touched on two groups of people, the first being leaseholders in high-rise flats, who sometimes find it difficult to sell because the incoming purchaser finds it difficult to get a mortgage.
    My hon. Friend and I are continuing to have discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders to see whether we can find a way through this problem, which, although not widespread, is a real problem for the people concerned.
    Mr. Battle: I am grateful for the Minister's response on that point. It is the response which he gave us some five months ago. I appreciate that he is meeting the Council of Mortgage Lenders, but can he assure me that he is also meeting local authorities, many of whom feel that, at the end of the day, it will be up to them, particularly in tower blocks, to take back the properties and turn people's mortgages into rent, in order to solve that problem?
    Sir George Young: The answer is yes, because the local authorities are the freeholders of these blocks of flats and have an interest in any difficulties that may face the leaseholders living in them. Those discussions are continuing.
    The bulk of the hon. Gentleman's remarks were about the rent-to-mortgage scheme. Once again, we saw the hon.
    688
    Gentleman sitting very firmly on the fence. He does not want to condemn the rent-to-mortgage scheme in case it turns out to be a wild success, like the right-to-buy scheme, but he finds it impossible to endorse it. I find that slightly strange, because only last week the Labour party put out a document entitled "Labour's charter for flexible tenure", and one of the things it says is:
    "We want to see the end to the old division between rented and owner-occupied housing. There should be circumstances where people can change tenure without having to change their home."
    That is exactly what the rent-to-mortgage scheme ensures. I cannot understand why someone who is in favour of flexibility of tenure finds it impossible to endorse the rent-to-mortgage scheme.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that we have made no forecasts of the take-up of this scheme. We are in the business of extending choice and opportunity to local authority tenants. It is then up to them to decide whether they want to take the opportunity that we have made available to them under the rent-to-mortgage scheme.
    I take it from what the hon. Gentleman says that he has no particular objection to amendment No. 170, which simply requires local authorities to set out annually to tenants their statutory rights, so I hope that the House can now approve the amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments 171 to 173 agreed to.

  Clause 113

    PROVISION OF HOUSING WELFARE SERVICES
    Lords amendment: No. 174, in page 115, line 44, at end insert—
    ("(4) The powers conferred by this section shall not be regarded as restricting those conferred by section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 (powers to incur expenditure for purposes not authorised by any other enactment) and accordingly the reference to any other enactment in subsection (1)(a) of that section shall not include a reference to this section.")
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Sir George Young.]
    Ms Ann Coffey: The Minister will remember the discussion in Committee about the effect of immediate transfer of the cost of warden services from the housing revenue account to the general fund, and the effect that that might have on the provision of those services.
    I want to explore further some of the difficulties of the original clause by reference to the situation in my constituency.
    Stockport provides a warden care call service to its tenants which is currently being converted to a speech-based telephone system. That scheme is provided to 1,783 council tenants, of whom 1,341 live in group schemes—special accommodation for the elderly. Wardens monitor and respond to calls and visits. All tenants are visited weekly and 15 per cent. of tenants are visited daily. This year there is a demand for a further 12 schemes for a total of 218 elderly people. The number of elderly people is increasing, and they often live alone—the care call offers them safety and peace of mind. Demand for the care call service is likely to increase.
    At present, the cost of warden services is mainly provided through the housing revenue account. There are

    689
    differentials in rent multipliers because the accommodation with access to the care call warden system is special accommodation, but the differentials do not fully reflect the cost of the provision. It seems that, from 1 April 1994, the Government intend to transfer from the housing revenue account to the general fund the cost of essential care services managed by the housing wardens. The definition of essential care is assistance with personal care, feeding, dressing and getting up. In Stockport that is unlikely to be a significant cost of the housing wardens service.
    What is not clear at present is what, when or whether the Department of the Environment may issue regulations that would effectively lead local authorities to meet the cost of warden and care alarm services, which are not defined as essential care, through a service charge with the rent. The question is whether such a service charge would be eligible for housing benefit.
    In general, the charge will qualify for housing benefit only if it is an essential requirement of the accomrnodation. If some degree of choice for tenants is involved, that service charge may not be eligible for housing benefit. If it is not, it will mean that the cost of the warden service will transfer to the general fund because certain tenants, including the elderly and frail, will not be able to afford the service charge. Clearly the authority will have to provide that service. If it cannot do so through the housing revenue account and tenants have no access to housing benefit, the cost will have to be provided through the general fund.
    The issue caused me much concern because, as the Minister must realise, social services departments are under extreme pressure to cut their budgets in the forthcoming year. I would be concerned if, either directly or indirectly, the cost of those services was transferred to the general fund. That might well result in the dimunition of the provision of the present service to elderly people at a time when there is a growing elderly population, we are seeking to keep more people in the community and a crucial part of community care is the accommodation that those people are offered.
    I appreciate that there is a long-standing argument about what constitutes housing welfare and what degree of responsibility a housing authority has to provide welfare to its tenants. The housing authority is not responsible merely for the maintenance of bricks and mortar—it must take into account the welfare needs of its tenants. Rightly or wrongly, over the years the welfare housing needs of elderly people have been met in countless authorities through care call warden services provided from the housing revenue account. Any sudden shift in responsibility for that provision would have disastrous consequences for the provision of care call and warden services to the elderly.
    When he considers the amendment—resulting provisions will be provided through regulations—I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the position of elderly tenants and social services departments. I hope that he will introduce regulations to transfer the cost over a period so that it is affordable for both the housing and the social services departments. He must also ensure that elderly people continue to receive the same level of provision as they have in the past. That provision is crucial for them and in great demand by them.
    Sir George Young: I can give the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms. Coffey) the assurance that she sought:
    690
    there is no question of there being a sudden shift in responsibility for those services. We are talking about a vulnerable group of people and important services. There will be no turbulence in the continued delivery of those services.
    Following the Ealing judgment, there was some doubt about whether local authorities had the powers, through the housing account, to pay for services. Clause 113 validates the status quo and gives local housing authorities the power to provide welfare services for their tenants. The amendment is merely a tidying amendment to ensure that the authorities can go on providing certain services for the private sector.
    The Government have been consulting and have received more than 200 representations. We are currently considering the outcome of that exercise. As the hon. Lady implied, the subject is complicated. It is not merely a question of deciding what constitutes a housing service and what constitutes a welfare service; it also involves the knock-on effect on housing benefit.
    The Government are not minded to take dramatic action, for the reasons outlined by the hon. Lady. A number of options are available to us. One option would be to wait until local Government responsibilities are reorganised and we move to unitary authorities. We could take that opportunity to clarify the division of responsibilities between housing services and social services.
    There should be no disruption to services to tenants. That principle will inspire us as we resolve the matter. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept my assurance.
    Question put and agreed to.—[ Special entry.]

    Clause 116

      MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 175, in page 116, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("there") in line 40 and insert
      ("At the end of subsection (3) of section 27 of the 1985 Act (management agreements), there shall be inserted the words "and shall contain such provisions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
      (1A) For subsection (5) of that section")
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Sir George Young.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 182 and 183.
      Mr. Straw: These amendments and amendment No. 181 involve compulsory competitive tendering for housing management. Therefore, it may be for the convenience of the House if I address my remarks to both groups of amendments. I hope that the Minister agrees. I congratulate him on his elevation to Her Majesty's Privy Council.
      One of the major contentions between the Opposition and the Government when the issue was discussed earlier was the fact that the Government proposed to enforce compulsory competitive tendering for housing management and to remove the tenants' right of veto which they possessed under section 27 of the Housing Act 1985. Under that Act, they had the power to veto a change in the

      691
      management of their housing. The matter was considered at great length in Committee, in the House and in their Lordships' House.
      With one exception—which is dealt with by Lords amendment No. 181—the Government stuck to their original position. They went through the rigmarole of explaining why a tenant's right of veto was no longer necessary and why, if it was necessary, the tenant's veto would be dealt with through other means. The Government did not offer much clarity over whether they wanted the veto or not.
      The Government first claimed—as Lord Strathclyde did in another place—that the veto was unnecessary because there was no proposal to change the landlord's or the tenant's basic rights under compulsory competitive tendering for housing, whereas there would be proposals to do so in the parallel cases involving housing action trusts or large-scale voluntary transfers.
      Our view, which I believe was widely shared in the other place, was that, in practice, a competitive tendering process that led to the management of housing responsibilities being transferred to a private company involved at least as substantial a transfer as a large-scale voluntary transfer—which usually results in transferring responsibility for housing management to the same people as before. In a sense, it is in practice a larger transfer than that which is occasioned under a housing action trust, where tenants now have the right to go back to the local authority at the end of the period.
      Having dealt with that point, Ministers in another place argued that the veto was unnecessary, as tenants were being given better rights to consultation and involvement. I am always very suspicious of such arguments. I am always suspicious when a categorical right is removed, when one hears weasel words from Ministers—even words as elegant as those that dropped from the lips of the now right hon. Gentleman. Ministers may admit that a specific right is indeed being taken away but say that anyone going through the small print will see that tenants may be consulted. The truth is that tenants will no longer have the clear veto right that they enjoy under the current law. We believe that that right should be continued.
      We believe that the determination to remove tenants' veto rights in respect of housing management—rights that are enjoyed in respect of compulsory competitive tendering and large-scale voluntary transfers—springs from the fact that the Government attach much more importance to the privatisation of public services than to the protection of tenants' rights.
      In these debates we have tried to flush out the rights to which Ministers give priority. Do the Government regard as more important the right of tenants to a say in the running of their estate or the right of private firms bidding for the management of local authority housing stock? If there is a conflict, does profit come far above the rights of tenants? I am not suggesting that this is necessarily the Minister's own view. Indeed, it is likely that, if he were in control of Government policy, he would have scarcely nothing to do with privatisation and the rest of the now-rotting Thatcherite agenda, to which he is tied. In fact, we saw his attitude when the lady was still in office. As a Minister, however, he has to support pernicious nonsense of this type.
      692
      7.30 pm
      Lords amendment No. 181 deals with management agreements and compulsory competitive tendering. The Government's concession is that the new clause imports into the Bill the provisions of section 27A of the Housing Act 1985, which previously had been removed altogether. At first glance, this is certainly progress and represents Ministers' recognition of the force of our argument. However, we still have very considerable anxiety about the operation of this provision, and I hope that he will be able to put our minds at rest.
      Our first anxiety concerns the breadth of the power being given to the Secretary of State under what will be section 27A(2) of the 1985 Act, which might be described as a Henry VIII provision. Subsection (2) provides:
      "The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that … the provisions of section 27A shall have effect with such modifications as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient."
      The Secretary of State is being given power to use subordinate legislation as a means of modifying a provision of an Act. Both Houses of Parliament have always been extremely reluctant to give a Secretary of State power to amend primary legislation by edict unless the circumstances are very clear.
      Some hon. Members will remember the debates on the provision that started out as clause 222—but ended up as something different—of the Education Reform Bill of 1988. In that case, the Secretary of State was given power to amend employment legislation very widely by regulation and without further notice to the House. In what respect is it intended that section 27A of the 1985 Act shall be modified? It is important that hon. Members know what is being talked about when they are invited to accede to Lords amendment No. 181.
      The second issue concerns the extent of management agreements and the application of section 27A to compulsory competitive tendering. My understanding of the proposed section 27AA is that the tenant's right of veto will operate in respect of management agreements. It seems to me that, where there is a voluntary arrangement for the management of a local authority's housing stock, it will be subject to a tenant's veto. Perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify something about which I am not clear. If there is a compulsory arrangement, will section 27A apply? In this context, I hope that the Minister will be able to define "management agreement" and say whether such an agreement includes the notion of a service agreement.
      The right hon. Gentleman will know that there has been some argument about this matter. My understanding is that Rutland and Brent have sought to evade the more stringent procedural requirements by defining as service agreements those that amount to management agreements. That practice is unacceptable to us, and I hope that it is unacceptable to the Minister. If, under Lords amendment No. 181, tenants are being given a right that some local authorities are able, with malign intent, to evade by means of such redefinition of agreements for the purposes of the veto, that will defeat the object and frustrate Government policy by the back door.
      I may want, with the permission of the Chair and the leave of the House, to return to this issue after the Minister's reply.
      Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has raised a number of issues—the tenant's

      693
      veto, compulsory competitive tendering for housing management, and some technical matters relating to Lords amendment No. 181. He drew on an article in the 21 May issue of Inside Housing.
      Mr. Straw: No.
      Sir George Young: That was certainly the source, although the hon. Gentleman did not refer specifically to it.
      The tenants' veto was a matter that we spent some time discussing in Committee. I do not thing that this issue has exactly set the country alight since January. Tenants now have a deeper understanding of what the Government plan to do. The veto question concerns the removal by the Bill of the requirement on the Secretary of State to withhold his approval of a housing management delegation if it appears to him that a majority of tenants in the area to which the agreement relates do not want to proceed with it. We must keep in mind the new environment in which housing management agreements are now being sought. Full consultation with tenants will be standard; tenants are increasingly involved, often seeking to manage their own homes. Local authorities are also actively looking for new ways to deliver services and looking to the private sector to help them with that.
      All these developments are good for housing management and, above all, for tenants, many of whom enjoy the benefits of improved and more cost-effective services. In addition, there will be housing management compulsory competitive tendering, which is, in effect, being introduced under the Local Government Act 1988. When a local authority intends to keep its housing management in-house, it will have to follow a competitive process.
      I was asked what would happen if there were a conflict between tenants' right to manage and CCT. The answer is that if tenants want to take over responsibility for management, that takes precedence. The local authority then does not have to pursue CCT. Tenants can take over responsibility for managing their estate—there is provision for a break clause in any existing agreement—so to that extent, they take precedence over CCT.
      The effect of CCT—
      Mr. Straw: I am grateful for that undertaking. Under the Bill, tenants have no right of veto over candidates in the competitive process—is that right?
      Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman is right, but there will be much more tenant involvement and consultation than at present. For instance, tenants will be consulted on specifications and they will be involved in monitoring the contract. We are trying to build a constructive, on-going, meaningful relationship between tenants and local authorities, rather than using the blunt instrument of a veto.
      Tenants will have rights to consultation on the terms of management agreements, including those resulting from CCT. Local authorities will have to consult tenants on the standards of service proposed—for example, on the specification for the delegation. The authority has to consider the tenants' representations before it can make any decisions on the terms—that is, before it can invite tenders. Tenants will be involved in monitoring a
      694
      contractor's performance, and the Secretary of State can also say in more detail how that consultation should be run.
      The Government's case is that this represents an extensive package of rights, which give tenants a good opportunity to influence the management of their homes in a positive and beneficial way. That is more meaningful than giving them a rather blunt choice between yes or no at the end of a process.
      Mr. Battle: What the Minister has said seems to give tenants some say after the event. Will they have the right to reject the choice of a managing agent who they are not convinced will properly manage their estate? Will they be involved at that primary stage?
      Sir George Young: No; tenants will not be able to impose a veto on the successful candidate after the process has been gone through, but they will have rights to consultation on the terms of an agreement, including those resulting from CCT—and they will be involved in monitoring the contract.
      I hope that anyone thinking of putting in a bid for a contract will contact the tenants' representatives and organisations to gain some insight into what they want and to build a constructive relationship with the tenants on an estate. The introduction of a ballot would be clumsy and ineffectual, and would provide no positive value for the quality of housing management. We want authorities to involve tenants in all stages of the process of selecting contractors, as far as practicable.
      The Bill provides for tenants to be consulted on drawing up the contract specification and the identity of the contractor, and to be involved in monitoring his performance. It will be open to authorities to involve tenants in helping to choose the successful contractor, subject to the usual requirements of commercial confidentiality, and we shall encourage them to do so. That is as far as I can go to meet the hon. Gentleman's point.
      CCT for housing management is about improving the quality of life for people on our council estates. As housing management is exposed increasingly to the disciplines and business practices of the private sector, the fresh wind of competition will blow through estates up and down the land, raising standards and improving value for money.
      Of course, it is true that local authority housing management has improved in recent years, but there are still too many estates where management breakdown is evident, with empty properties boarded up for long periods or taken over by squatters, and with common areas displaying numerous signs of neglect—lifts not working, rubbish chutes blocked, vandalism, litter and graffiti.
      This grim picture is all too familiar. Tenants are not getting the deal they deserve. We are determined to ensure that the standards in the worst authorities and on the worst estates are raised to those of the best. It can be done. Some local authority services have been subject to CCT for more than 10 years. The improvement in the standard of service delivery has been plain for all to see; so have the savings in costs—6 per cent. across the board. It would be wholly wrong to deny the benefits of competition to housing management—
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister give way?
      Sir George Young: Yes, when I get to the end of this moving passage.
      The experience of the Conservative-controlled London borough of Wandsworth underlines the point. It has already put its housing management out to competition, and its tenants and council tax payers have reaped the benefits. If one of the best-run and most tightly managed authorities in the country can achieve significant savings, I invite hon. Members to think what others can do.
      Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way after that moving passage. He has shown his commitment to Wandsworth; but will he tell us what representations he and the Department have received from tenants all over the country who have said that they want to retain the ultimate right of veto because, without it, they cannot say no to an unsatisfactory contractor? Why will he not accept that tenants should have that right; why will he not give it to them, to ensure that they have real power instead of this charade of consultation?
      Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman asked Ministers the same question several times in Committee and on Report. He knows the answer perfectly well: we do not think that it would be right for tenants to be able to veto the improvement in standards that we want. There is often a rather cosy relationship between the activists in tenants' associations and the local authority trade unions, and we would not want that to stand in the way of higher standards on estates.
      Mr. Battle: Why is there a ballot for tenant management organisations at the initial stage when the Minister is not willing to grant one before a management agency is chosen?
      Sir George Young: There is a ballot for TMOs because they have put up their hands to take over the management of estates in the name of all the tenants there. It is therefore legitimate to establish whether they have a mandate, to determine whether the tenants' organisation is truly representative. I have just explained that that does not provide a parallel with giving tenants the veto with which to block the process of housing management CCT.
      Lords amendment No. 181 inserts a new clause dealing with consultation on management agreements under CCT. Without it, clause 117 would still apply to delegation under CCT, but there are enough differences between the procedures that an authority would follow when delegating voluntarily and those that it would follow under CCT to merit specific mention of the CCT case. That is what the new clause does. Because of the differences in procedure, some modifications to the consultation arrangements will be necessary.
      Clause 117, for example, refers to consultation when an authority proposes to enter into an agreement. However, under CCT, when an authority wants to do the work itself, it will propose to enter into an agreement only and when it has lost a tendering exercise. That would be far too late for consultation on the terms of the agreement, so the new clause will allow the Secretary of State to take the procedure back in time to when the authority is going to invite tenders under the CCT legislation.
      696
      The Government's intention is that, where there is CCT, tenants should not lack any of the rights enjoyed by tenants where there is a voluntary delegation. The amendments would enable that to happen. I hope that they are not controversial.
      Mr. Straw: Will there be consultation with local authority associations and tenants' representatives about the draft regulations that will bring the legislation into effect?
      Sir George Young: Yes. We hope to lay the regulations by April and shall consult on many of the aspects of housing management before we take a decision. We shall consult representatives of tenants and local authorities.
      Although the hon. Gentleman did not mention the publication he referred to an article that appeared in a recent edition of Inside Housing about the Bill's tenant consultation provisions. The Government propose that certain aspects of housing management should be defined activities for CCT purposes. Those defined activities will have to be put out to tender if an authority intends to carry out the work itself. Any resulting agreement will be a management agreement and the normal consultation procedures will apply.
      CCT will not enable authorities to enter into management agreements without consultation. We do not accept that there is a potential loophole. Where management functions are delegated, a management agreement will arise. Therefore, I do not share the hon. Gentleman's fears that it will be possible to get around the provisions of the legislation.
      Mr. Straw: The Minister is something of a Jekyll and Hyde character, and when he speaks to a script he sounds like a combination of Dr. Hastings Banda and Mr. Alan Clark. He treated us to the most extraordinary statement when he said that tenants could not be trusted. It reminds me of the way in which the great Dr. Banda—for the benefit of those who read my remarks rather than listen to them, I should say that I use the word "great" ironically—has managed to resist any semblance of democracy in Malawi for the past 30 years on the ground that, if the peasants had the right to vote, they might exercise it against him and his interests. We had a flavour of that from the Minister.
      There was a wonderful elision between the assertion that tenants associations may not be representative, which is true in some cases, and the implicit assertion—with which we were all invited to agree—that, because some tenants associations may not be representative, a secret ballot of all tenants was likely to result in an unrepresentative verdict of what the tenants wanted. That is an extraordinary assertion for a democrat.
      That was the Hastings Banda part of the Minister's speech, and before that we heard the Alan Clark part. The Minister has only one attribute in common with Alan Clark. I make it clear that it has nothing whatever to do with the Minister's private life. I almost said the late Mr. Alan Clark, but that hope has not yet materialised for Conservative Members. The Minister and Mr. Clark share the entertaining ability to mock their own speeches when they do not believe a word of them.
      The Minister made some cerebral remarks about the right of veto and CCT. He changed to auto-pilot when reading from a passage which he obviously found unconvincing and revolting. He described it as a moving

      697
      passage, but he was unmoved. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is seeking to ensure that compulsory competitive tendering is applied in Malawi if Dr. Hastings Banda is still there after today's vote. That would be consistent with the support that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been extending to the puppet regime in Malawi for so long.
      The Minister said that CCT was intended to improve the quality of life for tenants and provide a "fresh wind of competition" for them. Tenants can themselves decide whether they want an improvement in their quality of life. If they vote for it, that is fine, because they are the only judges of that. They should have CCT imposed on them if that is their wish, and if about 90 per cent. of them vote for all kinds of other horrors, so be it. The democratic principle is that the majority should decide, and the tenants have a right to decide on their quality of life: decisions should not be imposed by Ministers.
      The Minister sped through what he called the moving passage, which contained a reference to empty properties. In the light of the report that I published about four or five weeks ago on empty Government properties, I hope that we shall not have any more dissembling from the Minister on that issue. Some 15 per cent. of the properties for which the Minister and his colleagues are responsible are empty. The Government have 25,000 empty properties and Opposition Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) are doing their damnedest to get some of those empty properties out of the Ministry of Defence and other Ministries, but are running into one blockage after another.
      Local authorities, and especially Labour local authorities, have on the whole an excellent record on the management of empty properties. No authority has more than 4 per cent. of its total stock empty for management reasons. That means that the properties are empty and available to let or empty and available to let after minor repairs.
      Earlier this year, the Minister spoke on the Walden programme and tried to pretend that Manchester had 5,000 empty properties. I hope that he will apologise to Manchester for the way in which he traduced its record, because it does not have 5,000 empty properties available to let as he sought to imply. Some 5,000 properties on its books do not have tenants, but about 1,500 of those are in the Hulme district and were put up, not least on the suggestion of speculative industrial builders—all of them contributors to Tory funds—in the 1960s. Those properties are uninhabitable. One would not put a pig in them, and if the Minister had bothered to go on a tour of Manchester, he would know that they are being demolished.
      Another 1,500 properties in Manchester are in desperate need of major repairs, but they cannot be carried out, thanks to the Government's parsimony—the Governments's refusal to allow authorities to use capital receipts accrued before the end of November 1992. Those properties are empty, not because of inefficiency by Manchester city council but directly because of Government policy. When allowances are made for that, far from having an unacceptable record, Manchester has about 2 per cent. of empty properties, which is about average. That percentage is well below the percentage in Redbridge, which still has a large stock of housing. That is not an authority like Tonbridge and Malting; it is Conservative-controlled.
      698
      The record of Labour housing authorities generally is the best in the land. It is far better than that of the private sector or the owner-occupied sector, a little better than that of housing associations and infinitely better than that of central Government.
      Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend spoke about the so-called woeful reputation of Manchester. Knowsley is constantly trotted out as being among the top 10 worst authorities for vacant properties. The properties that are empty there are mostly being decanted, and they are mostly blocks of flats that are to be handed over to housing associations. The Under-Secretary of State is aware of that, because he visited the area and was told about it. Despite that, the Government still trot out statistics purporting to show that Knowsley is performing badly.
      8 pm
      Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. The point that Ministers have made—that mandatory and compulsory competitive tendering should be supported even when the tenants do not want it—is based on the grounds that, somehow, the tenants need to be saved from the record of their local authorities. To support their case, Ministers have said that there are thousands upon thousands of empty properties, which housing authorities—typically, Labour authorities—are failing properly to manage and are leaving empty. The figures tell a different story.
      It is something of a compliment to Labour authorities that, to try to damn their records, Ministers have had to fiddle the figures and drag into them not only the properties that are empty and ought to be let, but all those that are empty and uninhabitable, empty and in need of major repair or empty and awaiting transfer to a housing association, housing action trust or large-scale voluntary transfer.
      If the Minister responds to this short debate, I hope that he will apologise for the way in which he has traduced the reputation of housing authorities, and that he will instruct Conservative central office—if he has any influence with that strange body—not to put out any more misleading information about the record of Labour housing authorities. I think that Ministers are learning that such statements from Conservative central office have a habit of boomeranging and returning to Conservative authorities. That has been the case on fraud and corruption and on value for money. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was rash enough before the county elections to talk about them being fought on value for money. He got his answer on 6 May. That will also be the case here.
      Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is wrong in what he says about management voids. The figures that I published were for management voids. That left out the properties that are derelict for other reasons. I gave those figures at Question Time a fortnight ago. They represent management voids and were exactly the figures for which the hon. Gentleman asked. I have no intention of apologising to Manchester city council. It gave me the figures that I used. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider apologising to Suffolk Coastal and Tunbridge Wells, each of which has transferred nearly the whole of its housing stock but has a handful of voids —two, I think, in one case.

      699
      By fiddling the figures, the hon. Gentleman has pretended that Suffolk Coastal was a worse housing authority than Lambeth or Hackney. He confused no one with that mischievous allegation. It is clear from listening to him that he is not concerned with improving standards for tenants. He is much more interested in protecting trade union monopolies. I hope that the House will agree to all the amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 176 to 180 agreed to.

    New clause

      MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS AND COMPULSORY COMPETITIVE TENDERING
      Lords amendment: No. 181, after clause 117 insert the following new clause—
      (". After section 27A of the 1985 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
      "Management agreements and compulsory competitive tendering
      27AA.—(1) This section shall apply if the Secretary of State makes an order under section 2(3) of the Local Government Act 1988 ('the 1988 Act') providing for the exercise of any management functions to be a defined activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act (compulsory competitive tendering).
      (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that in any case where—

      (a) a local housing authority propose to make an invitation to carry out any functional work in accordance with the rules set out in subsection (4) of section 7 of the 1988 Act (functional work: conditions), and

      (b) the proposal is such that any decision by the authority that the work should be carried out by the person or one of the persons proposed to be invited would necessarily involve their entering into a management agreement with that person,

      the provisions of section 27A shall have effect with such modifications as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
      (3) Nothing in section 6 of the 1988 Act (functional work: restrictions) shall apply in relation to any functional work which, in pursuance of a management agreement, is carried out by the manager as agent of the local housing authority.
      (4) In this section 'functional work' has the same meaning as in Part I of the 1988 Act.
      (5) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."")
      Read a Second time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 109.

      Division No. 296]

      [8.03 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Alexander, Richard

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Booth, Hartley

      Arbuthnot, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Ashby, David

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Bowis, John

      Baldry. Tony

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Brazier, Julian

      Bates, Michael

      Bright, Graham

      Bellingham, Henry

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      700

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hendry, Charles

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Burns, Simon

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Butcher, John

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Butler, Peter

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Butterfill, John

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

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dtord)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (North

      Carrington, Matthew

      Norfolk)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Cash, William

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hunter, Andrew

      Clappison, James

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Jack, Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Coe, Sebastian

      Jessel, Toby

      Colvin, Michael

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Congdon, David

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Conway, Derek

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Key, Robert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Couchman, James

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Cran, James

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

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

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Knox, Sir David

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Day, Stephen

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Legg, Barry

      Devlin, Tim

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lidington, David

      Dover, Den

      Lightbown, David

      Duncan, Alan

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Dunn, Bob

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lord, Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Luff, Peter

      Elletson, Harold

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Maclean, David

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Evennett, David

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Faber, David

      Madel, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Forman, Nigel

      Malone, Gerald

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Mans, Keith

      Forth, Eric

      Marland, Paul

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Marlow, Tony

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      French, Douglas

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gale, Roger

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Garnier, Edward

      Merchant, Piers

      Gill, Christopher

      Milligan, Stephen

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Mills, Iain

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Gorst, John

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hague, William

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Norris, Steve

      Hannam, Sir John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Harris, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Paice, James

      Hawksley, Warren

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hayes, Jerry

      Pawsey, James

      Heald, Oliver

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      701

      Pickles, Eric

      Streeter, Gary

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Sumberg, David

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Sykes, John

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Redwood, John

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Richards, Rod

      Thomason, Roy

      Riddick, Graham

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Robathan, Andrew

      Thurnham, Peter

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

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

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Tredinnick, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Trend, Michael

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Sackville, Tom

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Walden, George

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Waller, Gary

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Watts, John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wells, Bowen

      Shersby, Michael

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Sims, Roger

      Whitney, Ray

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Whittingdale, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Soames, Nicholas

      Wilkinson, John

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Willetts, David

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Wilshire, David

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Wood, Timothy

      Spring, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Sproat, Iain

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Stephen, Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stern, Michael

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Stewart, Allan

      Mr. Irvine Patnick.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Ainger, Nick

      Grocott, Bruce

      Alton, David

      Gunnell, John

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Hall, Mike

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Hanson, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Henderson, Doug

      Battle, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Bayley, Hugh

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Hutton, John

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Illsley, Eric

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Betts, Clive

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Jamieson, David

      Callaghan, Jim

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Cann, Jamie

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Jowell, Tessa

      Clapham, Michael

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Lewis, Terry

      Coffey, Ann

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Corbett, Robin

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Corston, Ms Jean

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cryer, Bob

      McFall, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Madden, Max

      Darling, Alistair

      Mahon, Alice

      Davidson, Ian

      Mandelson, Peter

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Martlew, Eric

      Dixon, Don

      Maxton, John

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Meale, Alan

      Dowd, Jim

      Michael, Alun

      Eastham, Ken

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Enright, Derek

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Etherington, Bill

      Mullin, Chris

      Faulds, Andrew

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Fraser, John

      O'Hara, Edward

      George, Bruce

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Godsiff, Roger

      Patchett, Terry

      702

      Pendry, Tom

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Tyler, Paul

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Vaz, Keith

      Prescott, John

      Wareing, Robert N

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Watson, Mike

      Raynsford, Nick

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rendel, David

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wise, Audrey

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Worthington, Tony

      Short, Clare

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mr. Gordon McMaster and

      Spellar, John

      Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

      Straw, Jack

      Question accordingly agreed to.—[Special entry.]
      Lords amendments Nos. 182 to 188 agreed to, some with special entry.

    New clause

      CALCULATION OF HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT SUBSIDY
      Lords amendment: No. 189, after clause 125 insert the following new clause—
      (". In subsection (1) of section 80 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (determination of formulae for calculating Housing Revenue Account subsidy), the words 'and for any year the first such determination shall be made before the 25th December immediately preceding that year' shall cease to have effect.")
      Read a Second time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Sir George Young.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Lords amendments Nos. 217, 278 and 283.
      Mr. Pike: Can the Minister explain why the change involving the date of 25 December has been made? Is it connected with the change in Budget arrangements, under which tax and benefit provisions will both be announced in November, or is it because the Government have rarely achieved the 25 December target and are therefore regularising the position?
      As I am sure the Minister will recognise, given all the implications for local authorities, it is essential that we dispense with a system that is increasingly causing all local authorities considerable difficulties, regardless of which party is in control. Many key decisions affect their budgets when they are compelled to comply with legislation according to a rigid timetable. Many of the key factors affected by Government decisions are announced increasingly late, which makes it increasingly difficult for councils to meet their statutory requirements.
      Sir George Young: As the hon. Gentleman implied, the amendments are indeed about the arrangements for the unified Budget. The background to the amendments was the announcement in last year's Budget speech that the Government have decided to change the annual Budget timetable so that tax and spending proposals can in future be presented to Parliament at the same time in the form of a unified Budget. The Government are planning on the basis that the date of the unified Budget this year will be no later than the last week of November.
      We are required by legislation to consult representatives of local government on the proposed subsidy determinations before they are issued in final form, but we

      703
      generally have to await the Chancellor's unified Budget announcement of Government spending plans before doing. so. In such circumstances, there will be insufficient time after the unified Budget announcement to allow authorities a reasonable period in which to comment on the draft determinations and for my right hon. Friend to consider those comments and then issue the determinations in their final form before the 25 December deadline. Hence the need for the amendment.
      In response to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), I can say that every effort will be made to issue the subsidy determinations as soon as possible after Christmas. The Department has stated its intention to do so by 10 January. That has been made possible by the helpful suggestion of local government representatives, which the Government have accepted, to shorten the consultation period on the draft determinations so that it can end before Christmas.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 190 to 283 agreed to, some with special entry.
      Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 6: Mr. John Battle, Mr. Tony Baldry, Mr. Timothy Kirkhope, Mr. Jack Straw, Sir George Young; Three to be the quorum; to withdraw immediately.—[ Mr. Baldry.]
      Reasons for disagreeing to one of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

      Representation of the People Bill
      Order for Second Reading read.
      8.26 pm
      The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
      I shall explain the background briefly. Members of the Ulster Defence Regiment—the UDR—were regarded as part of the reserve and auxiliary forces and registered as civilian electors. Following the merger of the UDR and the Royal Irish Rangers to form the Royal Irish Regiment, the home service component of the regiment became part of the Regular Army. As members of the regular forces, the Representation of the People Act 1983 confers on those who now enlist as full-time home service personnel a service qualification; hence, they may register only as service voters. It is illegal for them to register as civilian voters.
      As for part-time members of the home service battalions, it is possible to argue that their liability for call-out renders them part of a reserve and auxiliary force and therefore exempt from the provisions for service voting. All personnel serving our existing UDR engagements may continue to register as civilian voters.
      Our concern is that, under the electoral system in Northern Ireland, canvassers who are not security cleared distribute and collect registration forms from households. Home service personnel who had enlisted since the merger would have to tell the canvassers that they were no longer eligible for registration on the standard civilian voter registration form and that, coupled with the eventual appearance of their names on the completed register, could lead to their identification as home service personnel.
      I in no way wish to cast doubt on the integrity of canvassers, who do a very difficult job very well, but it is possible to conceive of a risk, and it is only prudent to take measures to remove it. After study, we concluded that it would best be done by amending the Representation of the People Act 1983.
      A secondary consideration is that the service voter arrangements are meant to assist service personnel serving overseas and home service personnel serve only in Northern Ireland, except during some limited periods of training. The Bill provides for amendment to the definition of who constitutes a member of the armed forces in section 59(1) of the 1983 Act. Because of the exclusion of home service personnel from the definition, they will be able to continue to register as civilian voters. The reference to a member of the Regular Army means that officers and soldiers are included and the amendment extends to full and part-time home service personnel, thus removing any doubt about the position in law of part-timers.
      In order that the changes may be put into effect before the annual registration round, which begins in August, we seek commencement on Royal Assent. I therefore commend this short Bill to the House.
      8.29 pm
      Mr. Eric Martlew: I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. I understand that he was under fire on Friday and I look forward to doing battle with him, probably on Thursday, about Britain's defence policy—but not tonight.

      705
      It is not late at night, so we can spend a long time debating the Bill. Nevertheless, the issue is not contentious, and I therefore do not intend to delay the House. The Bill is one of those commonsense measures that should be dealt with administratively. I understand that the Government investigated that possibility but found that it was not possible. The necessary adjustments must, therefore, be put before the House. I understand that there is some urgency and that the Bill must be given Royal Assent by August, otherwise we will not be able to complete the necessary adjustments to the electoral register in Northern Ireland. The fact that the Bill must be rushed through shows that perhaps there was an oversight on the part of the Government.
      I said earlier that the Bill is a common-sense measure, but it reflects the level of terrorism and violence on the Northern Irish scene in the past 25 years. It surely cannot be acceptable that soldiers serving their country must hide their occupation to avoid assassination, but that is the sad reality. In the 22-year history of the Ulster Defence Regiment, 244 soldiers or former soldiers were murdered by terrorists. Most of them were murdered off duty, and some of them in front of their families. Let us not forget that the Bill is necessary because of the failure of politicians on both sides of the House and on both sides of the Irish sea to deal with the problem of terrorism.
      The Labour party supports the Bill and hopes that it passes all its stages tonight, but we look forward to the time when we can ask for its repeal and when there is peace in Ulster.
      8.31 pm
      Sir James Kilfedder: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box in his new capacity of Minister of State for the Armed Forces. It is a matter of regret that he has left the Northern Ireland Office, where he served the people of Northern Ireland well. We wish to congratulate him and hope that he will have further success in his new capacity.
      The Royal Irish Regiment, the successor to the Ulster Defence Regiment, and its members face death daily and nightly and everything must be done to protect them from further hazard, which is why the Bill is welcome and should progress speedily.
      As the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said, the Ulster Defence Regiment has suffered great losses. Many of its members have been slaughtered by the IRA. That is what the people of Northern Ireland face. We must give every protection to those who serve the people of
      706
      Northern Ireland. Members of the Royal Irish Regiment show great courage in carrying out their job, which is why I give the Bill my full support.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read a Second time.
      Bill committed to a Committee of the whole I-louse. —[Mr. Wood.]
      Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      8.35 pm
      Mr. Hanley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I thank the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) for his kind remarks and for his co-operation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) for his kind remarks and, on behalf of those who are served by the Bill, I thank the House for its co-operation.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

      EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

      FATS (MARKETING STANDARDS)
      That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10344/91 and 5019/93, relating to marketing standards for fats; and supports the Government's intention to seek amendments to the amended proposal in line with the conclusions on subsidiarity and proportionality already agreed by the Community.—[Mr. Wood.]
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

      HYDROCARBONS (EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION)
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4180/93, relating to licensing of exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons; and welcomes the Government's attempts to secure transparent, fully competitive and non-discriminatory access to hydrocarbon resources throughout the European Community through the adoption of the amended draft Directive.—[Mr. Wood.]
      Question agreed to.

      Human Rights (Tibet)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Wood.]
      8.37 pm
      Mr. David Alton: It is an unusually early hour for the House to adjourn, but I am pleased to have the opportunity of raising the issue of human rights abuse in Tibet. I am grateful to the Minister for being present and I know that one of his colleagues hopes to attend the debate and to speak.
      I know that the Minister shares the concern of myself and others about the appalling catalogue of torture, imprisonment and killings that have marked China's control of Tibet.
      The plight of Tibet has been highlighted in the past few months by the Dalai Lama's visit to Britain and to this place, when many Members of Parliament had the opportunity to meet him, and by the brutal Chinese reaction to the demonstrations that coincided with the European Community mission's visit to Tibet.
      I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming the lead that the Dalai Lama has given his people. I welcome the Government's recent stance that the main avenue for a peaceful resolution of the problems in Tibet are talks without preconditions between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities.
      I hope that the Minister will join me condemning the attempt over the weekend to exclude the Dalai Lama from the world conference on human rights in Vienna. Could the Minister confirm that the call for exclusion came from the Chinese Government? It is an important point that the Dalai Lama was not permitted to take part in that conference, and it would be useful if the Minister could confirm who called for the Dalai Lama's exclusion.
      In the light of pressure from some of the world's most tyrannical and brutal regimes to destroy the universality of human rights, could the Minister give the House an unequivocal commitment that the Government will continue to regard all human rights from the universal declaration of human rights as applying to all? Clearly, with the many abuses of human rights throughout the world, it is sometimes easy to be overcome by the sheer scale of problems, whether they are in Somalia, the Sudan or Bosnia. The fact that Tibet is a faraway place to which we have limited access, and that the world's media cannot highlight events there in the same way as they do atrocities that take place elsewhere, is not a reason for us to treat it as out of sight and out of mind.
      The Dalai Lama in particular is to be congratulated on his unswerving advocacy of non-violent opposition to Chinese violence, for which he has been honoured by being awarded the Nobel peace prize. My immediate concern is that, following recent events in Lhasa, that strategy is at risk.
      The Minister will be aware of the arbitrary arrests, detention without trial and tear-gassing of demonstrators that occurred before and during the visits of 16 to 23 May. He will also be aware of the wholly inadequate response given to the European Community delegation by the Chinese authorities. I want to emphasise in particular, the case of two prisoners whose welfare may well affect the future of Tibet. One is Gendon Rinchen and the other is
      708
      Lobsang Yonten. They are both being held at an unspecified location, accused of stealing a large amount of state secrets.
      Both men were involved in monitoring human rights violations, and may have been engaged in compiling a list of prisoners of conscience to present to the European Community delegation. The most sinister aspect of their case is that they are being held in secret. In the past, those held in that way have been subject to the most brutal torture, and these two men are now clearly in extreme danger. Therefore, it is particularly appropriate that their case should be raised tonight—not least because the European Community delegation had expected to receive information from those two men about human rights abuses.
      I would also refer the Minister to the case of a 26-year-old woman, Sonam Dalar, who was tortured over six months at a detention centre in Lhasa in 1990–91. She escaped in 1991 and was able to reveal what the Chinese do to those merely suspected of political dissent. Sonam Dalar was kept naked and incommunicado in a bare underground cell. She was regularly tortured with electric batons, and was beaten and electrocuted until she lost consciousness. After six months, she was vomiting and urinating blood daily. I could mention many other similar cases were the time available. Suffice it to say, however, that among the list of detainees maltreated in Chinese prisons in Tibet for political dissent are a boy of 14 and a girl of 12.
      Gendon Rinchen and Lobsang Yonten are well known in Tibet. Their cases are being widely watched and followed closely. I share the concern of groups such as the Tibet Support Group that, if the world cannot apply enough pressure on the Chinese to ensure at least the basic minimum of civilised detention, such as visits from families and details of locations at which prisoners are being held, Tibetans will reconsider their non-violent strategy on the basis that international pressure can have no effect on Communist China's attitudes to Tibet. I ask the Minister to confirm tonight that he will approach the Chinese authorities, both with a view to gaining access for British officials to visit both men and with a view to highlighting those cases.
      I should also like to draw the Minister's attention to nine arrests that took place on 4 and 6 June. The latest reported protest incident in Lhasa took place on Sunday 6 June, when three monks wearing civilian clothes were arrested shortly before 2 pm in the south-east corner of Barkor, the pilgrimage route that surrounds Lhasa's main temple. The monks, whose names are not known, were shouting slogans and carrying a white banner, and—according to foreign tourists in the city who were contacted by the Tibetan independence movement—were apparently calling for independence.
      A similar incident took place at about midday on Friday 4 June, when six men were arrrested a few minutes after they appeared in the Barkor square carrying Tibetan flags. One report said that the men—described by one foreign witness as about 18 years old—were in three separate groups around the square for the few minutes during which the incident lasted. The tourists, contacted by telephone in Lhasa, claimed that the men had been beaten with sticks during the 4 June arrests. According to one tourist, between 15 and 20 police in riot gear were on duty in the square during the day, which marked an important Buddhist festival. A large number of

      709
      plain-clothes police were also evident on 4 June, together with security officials who, according to the report, were using "sophisticated equipment".
      Individual cases such as those that I have cited tonight emphasise the wider degradation of Tibet at the hands of the Chinese—the mass population transfers of Han Chinese into Tibet and the destruction of Tibetan culture, the environmental rape of Tibet to supply Chinese factories with raw materials and the abuse of aid to Tibet, such as that provided by the World Food Programme, whose aid is administered by Chinese officials to produce food for the Chinese by methods inappropriate to Tibetan culture. That litany describes what has been happening to that small faraway country.
      Let me also draw the Minister's attention to the mass abuse of Tibetan women who, along with Chinese women, are being forcibly sterilised and aborted, under laws that clearly breach the right to found a family freely. Accounts of infanticide, mass enforced late abortion and compulsory sterilisation are horrific enough. I was even more surprised to discover that, since its inception, the Chinese population control programme has been financially fuelled by the International Planned Parenthood Federation and by the United Nations Family Planning Association, and that, over the last 10 years for which figures are available, Britain contributed £104 million to that cause by funding those two organisations.
      In other words, the British taxpayer contributes £7 million to £9 million a year to programmes administered by UNFPA and IPPF which have been used by Chinese population programmes forcibly to fit IUDs and to sterilise and abort women who do not comply with population targets.
      In Tibet in particular, that has been used deliberately to distort the population balance. When he was here recently, the Dalai Lama highlighted that very case elsewhere in the Palace. Indeed, in the declaration that was issued by European parliamentarians who gathered here in Westminster, that was one of the things that were highlighted as running totally contrary to any system of human rights—a fact that we were urged to impress upon the Chinese Government. That is a matter about which we can do something.
      I am aware of the persistent denials of forced abortion and sterilisation from the Chinese Government—denials that have been regularly supported by the IPPF and UNFPA. Those denials have about as much validity as the assertion that torture is illegal in China and Tibet and is therefore merely an aberration when it occurs.
      It is a scandal that British taxpayers' money is being used by the UNFPA to manufacture IUDs which will be forcibly inserted by law into Chinese and Tibetan women. It is also a scandal that the IPPF, funded by the British Government, passes money to the Chinese family planning association, which works hand in glove with that oppressive Government.
      It is absurd to talk about the family planning association in China as though it resembled a British voluntary organisation. Surely we know enough about the Chinese Government following the massacres in Tiananmen square and the recent brutal killing of a Catholic bishop—in which I know the Minister has taken a personal interest—and about the way in which ordinary people in China, especially those who try to express their religious beliefs and to worship as they would wish, have been repressed, to know that it is not possible for a
      710
      voluntary organisation along the lines of those that exist in the United Kingdom to flourish in China. To be pumping money into those organisations knowing that they are simply groups that work as an adjunct of Government is extraordinarily naive, to put it at its best.
      I have raised these matters with Dr. Halfdan Mahler of the IPPF, without receiving the courtesy of a reply. I have sponsored an early-day motion supported by many hon. Members on both sides of the House who are equally appalled by the abuse of human rights. I have raised it in person with the Minister for Overseas Aid. I welcome her determination to oppose and end any oppressive population control. She has been extremely helpful and interested in this matter, and I was very satisfied with the reply that both she and her officials gave me when I went to see her about the matter some months ago.
      The Minister will understand that this is an issue to which I intend to continue to return. The more evidence that becomes available, the more I think that the British Government should follow the example of the previous American Administration under George Bush, who withdrew funding from those very programmes because they were convinced of the authenticity of the claims that were being made about the abuses.
      Do the British Government intend to continue to fund supporters of that barbaric policy? What evidence, if any, does the Minister have of a Chinese change of heart on population control? Does he have any information about any Chinese official who has been charged, tried or imprisoned for abusing the human rights of women in that way?
      It is in the nature of foreign affairs that commentators continually question the motivation of foreign policy. Is policy founded on principle or pragmatism? Do trade concerns and export policy, rather than suffering and need, dictate our overseas aid policy? Does the situation in Hong Kong dictate our response to Tibet?
      There is also a recent allegation, which I am sure the Minister will take this opportunity to refute, that because the Conservative party has received donations from prominent Chinese communists, that in some way affects the Government's policy towards China. I know that the Minister is totally honourable and I would be grateful if he would place on record the fact that that kind of funding has nothing whatsoever to do with the way in which British Government policy is made.
      Tibet is an issue on which the Government can and should display their moral resolve. The Prime Minister is on record as proclaiming that overseas aid is tied to human rights performance. We provide aid to China and Tibet by numerous national and international avenues. Has the Foreign Office pointed out to Chinese officials that aid can be withdrawn if there are not tangible improvements in their human rights record?
      Representations have been made to the Chinese on human rights in Tibet since that country was invaded. What success can the Minister claim for his current policy? What benchmarks and targets does he set himself when considering China's abuse of human rights? I suggest that greater determination in pursuing that cause would yield results. For example, I applauded the visit of the delegation led by Lord Howe to China last year to discuss human rights.
      I was delighted with the wide consultation that preceded the visit with non-governmental organisations working to improve human rights in that country. We

      711
      were told that the delegation would hopefully be followed by a similar visit to Tibet. More than eight months after the visit, the delegation's report has still not been published, there has been no report back to NGOs, and all talk of a visit to Tibet has ceased. Can the Minister give assurances tonight that those matters will be speedily resolved?
      Mere representations to the Government who perpetrated the Tiananmen square massacre are not enough. The Chinese must be shown that we mean business and that their aid will be threatened if there are not substantial improvements in the way they treat the people under their control in China and Tibet.
      I hope that this Government will have the moral courage to make that commitment on behalf of the terrorised, the tortured and the imprisoned in one of the last communist tyrannies in the world. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter in this Adjournment debate.
      8.52 pm
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is well known and widely respected in this House and outside for his interest in Tibet and in human rights issues generally. I am indebted to him for bringing these important matters to the attention of the House.
      May I begin by assuring the hon. Gentleman once again that human rights, particularly in Tibet, are of deep concern to the Government and are a central element in our dialogue with the Chinese authorities. The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention to the concern felt by the British public and by the House about the situation in Tibet and especially about the recent events there. He raised the cases of Gendon Rinchen and Lobsang Yonten, and I undertake to follow up what he said and look into the background extremely carefully.
      Many hon. Members will have met His Holiness the Dalai Lama during his visit to this country last month, or at least will have heard him speak in the meetings held in the Grand Committee Room on 4 May. As all hon. Members know, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had a private meeting with the Dalai Lama on 12 May, during which a number of issues, including human rights issues in Tibet and elsewhere in China, and the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman tonight, were discussed.
      My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary assured the Dalai Lama that we would continue to pursue our dialogue on human rights with the Chinese authorities at every opportunity, and he emphasised that we would continue to urge the Chinese authorities to enter a genuine dialogue, without preconditions, with the Tibetans, including with the Dalai Lama, and so we will.
      The hon. Gentleman alluded to the recent visit to Tibet by a group of European Community ambassadors in Peking and senior diplomats based there. That important mission took place on the initiative of the EC embassies. It was arranged with assistance from the Foreign Affairs Office in Lhasa, in consultation with the EC presidency.
      An extensive week's programme was organised, including meetings with Vice-Governor Thondrup, in the
      712
      absence of the Governor who was recovering from illness in Chengdu, and representatives of the Commissions for Foreign Economic Relations and Trade, Planning, Development, Health, Education and Nationalities and Religious Affairs. In addition, a meeting was arranged with the Supreme People's Court and the Public Security and Justice Departments.
      The Drapchi prison in Lhasa, and the town of Shigatse, were also visited. During the meeting on 17 May with the Vice-Governor, a list of political prisoners, prepared thanks to assistance from Amnesty International and other NGOs, was handed over and information about them was requested. Members of the group asked a number of penetrating questions, and quite rightly so.
      During his meeting with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 12 May, the Dalai Lama also raised the question of population transfer of Han Chinese into Tibet. It is difficult, if not impossible, to confirm the accuracy of reports on the numbers of Han Chinese moving into Tibet. Different sources provide different figures and often refer to different geographical areas. In our view, it is important to distinguish between the Tibet autonomous region and what some Tibetans claim as Greater Tibet, embracing large parts of neighbouring Chinese provinces.
      We are concerned by all reports of threats to the Tibetans' ethnic and cultural identity, and we will continue to urge the Chinese authorities to respect and protect traditional Tibetan values, culture and way of life. We have also drawn the attention of our European Community partners to those issues, so they can pursue them at the European level as well as bilaterally.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to the recent reports of rioting in Lhasa and of the police action against demonstrators there. I understand that some tension remains. We are watching developments closely. In consultation with our European Community partners, we will continue to urge the Chinese authorities to conform to international standards of behaviour.
      I began by reassuring the hon. Gentleman that human rights in Tibet and elsewhere in China are a central element in our bilateral and wider European Community relations with the Chinese authorities. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of abuses of human rights. There are many other examples, in addition to those which he mentioned.
      The hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned about enforced abortion and the funding programme provided by the international agencies which are assisting the Chinese authorities in that population control programme. We are also aware of, and deeply concerned about, reports of enforced abortion in China. The British Government are opposed to any population activities in which there is any element of coercion of individuals to practice family planning or to accept any particular type of contraception, and so too—the hon. Gentleman acknowledged this—are the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations Fund for Population Activities.
      Indeed, at the UNFPA governing council in New York on 2 June, Dr. Nafis Sadik, the UNFPA executive director, once more categorically stated that the UNFPA condemns coercion of population programmes. She emphasised:
      "Coercion has no part in population and family planning, it is morally wrong and ultimately it will not be effective. This has always been UNFPA's position and it will never change."

      713
      At the governing council, the Chinese Government reiterated that they have been consistently opposed to coercive practice in whatever form while implementing their family planning policy. The British Government, the IPPF and the UNFPA do not advocate or condone induced abortion as a method of family planning. The IPPF and the UNFPA do not provide support for abortions or abortion-related activities in Tibet or elsewhere in China.
      The IPPF and the UNFPA are the leading international agencies in population activities, and are important channels for the United Kingdom's population assistance. They are committed to supporting programmes which enable men and women to choose whether to have children and provide them with information and services to enable them to do so.
      We believe that our most effective strategy in seeking to minimise abuses of reproductive rights in China and bring about a change in that country's population policy is to work through those two agencies. Their involvement in China has ensured that country's exposure to international values and practices which would not otherwise have occurred and is helping to promote a more humane population policy. The technical assistance they provide is essential if China is further to improve the health and welfare of its women and children.
      Mr. Alton: The Minister will recall that I pointed out that the previous American Administration withdrew funding from the UNFPA and the IPPF because they had sufficient evidence of forced abortions, forced sterilisation and the forced fitting of inter-uterine devices.
      Has he taken any steps to try to obtain the reports which the American Administration acted upon before arriving at that decision under the presidency of George Bush? If such information were to come to the right hon. Gentleman—I have heard first-hand accounts of women who had been able to leave Tibet and China and have been forcibly aborted—would he then abandon funding of those programmes?
      Mr. Goodlad: I will inquire, because I do not know offhand whether the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers were taken into account by the Overseas Development Administration when it renewed the subscription of those organisations. I will find out whether that is the case and communicate with the hon. Gentleman. I will also make sure that the evidence that he has brought to the attention of the House and his bilateral discussions with Lady Chalker are taken into account in the future formulation of policy. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for bringing those matters to the attention of the House.
      We believe that the involvement of the agencies in China has ensured that country's exposure to international values and practices that would not otherwise have been brought to bear on what happens there, and that they are helping to promote a more humane population policy. The technical assistance that they provide is essential if China is further to improve the health and welfare of its women and children.
      As the world's most populous nation, China must obviously be a priority country, both for the IPPF and the UNFPA. Both agencies are making a significant contribution to changing attitudes in China.
      714
      The ODA is in regular contact with the IPPF and the UNFPA about their activities in China, and of course it will continue to impress upon them the need for careful monitoring of China' population programme and the promotion of greater freedom of reproductive choice.
      As I said, I will ensure that everything that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the attention of the House tonight is taken into account in future decisions. I can give an assurance that none of the extraneous factors that he mentioned has affected the way in which the policy of Her Majesty's Government has been geared to do that—he was gracious enough to anticipate that that is what I would say.
      Mr. Alton: I ask the Minister to respond to my question about the Vienna conference, which is currently under way. At present, 180 Governments are discussing the question of the universality of human rights. Is that principle being resisted by the Chinese Government? Is it true that attempts were made to exclude the Dalai Lama from the conference? Is it the case that officials of Her Majesty's Government resisted those attempts?
      Mr. Goodlad: I shall come to that point in a moment.
      The hon. Gentleman raised the question of Lord Howe's mission to China. We are awaiting the details of his formal report on his visit to China with interest. I understand that it is nearly finalised. Copies will be made available in the Library of the House and more generally to the public in due course.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to the second world conference on human rights that is taking place in Vienna from 14 to 25 June. The United Kingdom, together with our European Community partners, has played an active role in the preparatory process and will be active at the conference. As the House may know, the world conference will be addressing overall thematic rather than country-specific issues.
      The House will be aware of events over the weekend, when steps were taken to restrict participation at the conference. We and our European Community partners profoundly regret that steps were taken to prevent the Dalai Lama from attending the opening ceremony, while welcoming the invitation to him from the chairman of the governmental conference to attend the remainder of the conference. We understand that he will be participating in the NGO conference being held in parallel, which will be discussing thematic rather than country-specific issues.
      We hope that both conferences will examine methods of improving the implementation of human rights instruments and seek ways to improve United Nations mechanisms in the protection and promotion of human rights. As the House will understand, the overall aim is that all participating countries will benefit from an exchange of views on their respective practices and provisions in this area.
      The specific rights and freedoms codified in the universal declaration of human rights and the two international covenants transcend national, religious, cultural and ideological frontiers. We believe that those specific rights and freedoms are equally applicable to all persons in all circumstances. Whatever some people may think, human rights are no longer, and will never again be, exempt from external pressure on grounds of state sovereignty. The United Nations Security Council endorses that by recognising that gross violations may

      715
      endanger international peace and security. United Nations peacekeeping efforts now incorporate human rights verification.
      Human rights issues in Tibet are frequently associated with aspirations for independence. As I told the hon. Gentleman and the House, we regularly speak to the Chinese about the need for better protection of human rights in Tibet and more autonomy there. But the fact is that Tibet has never been an internationally recognised independent country. We have consistently encouraged the Chinese to enter into a dialogue with Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, without preconditions. We will continue to do so, because we believe that that is the most promising, indeed the only promising, way forward.
      The Chinese can be and are in no doubt about the strength of feeling of Her Majesty's Government, of this House and, more widely, this country about their behaviour in Tibet. There have been changes in the Chinese economy in recent years. We welcome that, and China's so-called open door policy. It is our hope, and that of our Community partners, that, as standards of economic prosperity rise, so will standards of democratic accountability.
      The House recognises, because it has heard it before, that the Chinese view is that human rights are not universal, but vary with each society's specific historical conditions. China is one of those developing countries that is trying to introduce that definition of human rights into the final statement of the world conference in Vienna. The Chinese place emphasis on rights to shelter, clothing and nutrition, in contrast to the wider view of human rights which the House and the hon. Member for Mossley Hill have quite rightly put forward.
      We and our Community partners are holding firm, and I hope, doing our bit to help human rights in China by, for example, training Chinese lawyers, accountants and administrators—some of the essential human resources that, in practical terms, will make good government and the reality of an extension of human rights practicable and possible.
      We hope that the Chinese authorities will agree to talk to the Dalai Lama without preconditions. For his part, he emphasised during his recent visit to this country his readiness to enter such negotiations, and hinted at a compromise based upon the one country, two systems, formula.
      716
      We will continue to urge those concerned to enter into real dialogue and to encourage the Chinese to allow ethnic Tibetans a greater and proper say in running their own affairs. We will continue to urge the Chinese authorities to adhere to international standards of behaviour, to abide by their obligations under the United Nation's charter and to respect the values enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights.
      I reiterate my gratitude and that of the House to the hon. Gentleman for raising the specific matters that have been put before the House. I also reiterate my undertaking to follow up those specific points.
      9.15pm
      Mr. Alton: I thank the Minister for the thorough way in which he dealt with the debate, and the assurances that he has given.
      We will all be concerned to know of the Chinese Government's wish to see the universality of human rights destroyed and replaced by other criteria. The fact that that idea comes from a regime that has been notorious for its brutality and tyrannical methods must surely be something that we and other Community countries must resist.
      The violation of women in Tibet and China is an issue that all hon. Members will want to come back to again and again. We will continue to monitor it. It is a scandal that the IPPF and the UNFPA are funding the construction of factories in China for the manufacture of IUDs, which will be forcibly inserted into Chinese and Tibetan women.
      We can only imagine the misery and the pain that is caused to women who try to remove those devices, which have been placed within them to control their fertility. We can only imagine the sheer loneliness and desperation that many women must experience after they have been forcibly sterilised or forcibly aborted. It is to the eternal shame of western Governments that the money that funds those operations comes from our taxpayers.
      I commend to the Minister a book by Mary Craig which was published recently and which highlights the fate of the Tibetan people.
      I only hope that it will not be long before the Minister, after he has had a chance to ponder these questions, will come to the House of Commons to announce the end of funding for such barbaric and wholly unacceptable practices.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Nine o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorism
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the number of(a) killings by terrorists, (b) terrorist shooting incidents, (c) terrorist bombs, including explosions and defusings, and (d) persons charged with terrorist offences, in Northern Ireland in each of the years since 1985.

  Mr. Mates
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland 1986–1992

  Year

  Murders believed to have been carried out by Terrorist Organisations

  Shootings

  Bombs1(Explosions/Defusions)

  Persons charged with Terrorist Offences

  1986

  55

  392

  254

  655

  1987

  80

  674

  384

  468

  1988

  84

  537

  458

  439

  1989

  57

  566

  420

  433

  1990

  65

  559

  287

  380

  1991

  87

  499

  367

  397

  1992

  75

  506

  371

  405

  1 Excludes incendiary devices

  Note

  If an individual is charged on more than one occasion he/she is added to the statistics each time.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he is giving to the RUC Chief Constable's request for changes to the law in respect of the need to respond more effectively to terrorism; and when he expects to announce his decision.

  Mr. Mates
  The Government keep the law against terrorism under constant review to ensure that it remains both effective in fighting terorism and proportionate to that aim.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  R v. Style, Donaldson and Attwell
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will place in the Library the transcript of Rv. Style, Donaldson and Attwell.

  The Attorney-General
  No. Neither my office nor the Crown Prosecution Service has had cause to request the preparation of a transcript.

  Mr. Asil Nadir
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the right hon. and hon. Members from whom he has received representations concerning the conduct of the 390
  Serious Fraud Office in respect of Mr. Asil Nadir, with the names of the person at whose request those representations were made in each case.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 10 June 1993, column 334. It is not my policy to give details of such representations.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Attorney-General what discussions he has had and with whom, following the flight from the United Kingdom to northern Cyprus of Asil Nadir; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Pursuant to my statutory duty to superintend the work of the director of the Serious Fraud Office, I have discussed the case with several properly interested persons. It is my practice not to give details of such discussions.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Attorney-General how many representations he has received in the past year from right hon. and hon. Members concerning the Asil Nadir case; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I have in the past year received a representation from two hon. Members about the Polly Peck investigation and prosecution. One hon. Member has raised an issue by means of a parliamentary question.

ENVIRONMENT

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to issue guidance to local authorities on the avoidance of anti-competitive conduct when subjecting work to the requirements of compulsory competitive tendering.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government have today issued guidance under section 9 of the Local Government Act 1992, and pursuant to the Local Government (Direct Service Organisations) (Competition) Regulations 1993 (SI No. 848).

  CCT has produced many benefits for local taxpayers since its introduction, not only through financial savings but in improved efficiency and better standards of service. These benefits can be gained only through fair competition, and experience over recent years has shown that the statutory framework for CCT needed to be strengthened and clarified to ensure that all parties compete on a level playing field.

  Local authorities are in the unusual position of being both client and potential contractor. In letting contracts, they must ensure that they are absolutely even-handed. It is not the Government's intention to discriminate against an authority's in-house work force, or to presume in favour of the private contractor. I believe the guidance strikes the right balance and will ensure that both local authority in-house teams and the private sector can tender effectively. This can only be in the best interests of the local taxpayer.

  Local authorities and other bodies have made many helpful and constructive comments during consultation on these provisions, and I am grateful for their contribution.

  Canal Restoration
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance his Department is giving to canal restoration groups.

  Mr. Yeo
  Grant may be available under a number of schemes subject to the relevant criteria being met. These include derelict land grant, the environmental action fund, the European regional development fund, the urban programme and city challenge, and through the Countryside Commission.

  Rural Development Areas
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to authorise the Rural Development Commission to put out for consultation its proposals for new rural development areas.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I are considering the Rural Development Commission's proposals very carefully. The commission should be able to make an announcement shortly.

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to limit local authority expenditure in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The experience of 1993–94—with only three authorities capped—is a very encouraging indication of greater realism on the part of local authorities. We hope that in future years local government will continue to play its part in keeping public expenditure under control and that it will not he necessary to cap any authority.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to continue council tax transitional relief beyond 1995; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have said that there will be council tax transitional relief for at least two years in all. No decision has been made about the availability or otherwise of transitional relief for years beyond 1994–95.

  Toxic Emissions
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to help reduce acid deposition and sulphur dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The United Kingdom is playing a full and active role in negotiations for a second sulphur protocol for the abatement of SO2 depositions under the United Nations Commission for Europe convention on long-range transboundary air pollution.

  Olympic Games
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the extent of the Government's financial commitments in relation to Manchester's bid to host the Olympic games.
  392
  Sir George Young
  The Government have made up to £75 million available to support the Manchester Olympic bid and the construction of key facilities in advance of the International Olympic Committee's decision on the nomination. If the bid is successful, the Government will ensure that the necessary facilities are built by a mixture of public and private finances and that the funding necessary to stage and organise the games is provided.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list for(a) Liverpool city, (b) Rochdale, (c) Calderdale, (d) Sefton, (e) Solihull, (f) Walsall, (g) Wirral and (h) Wolverhampton metropolitan district councils (i) the total population, (ii) the total capital budget for 1993–94 and (iii) the total revenue budget for 1993–94;

  (2) if he will list for the London boroughs of Brent, Havering and Lambeth (a) the total population, (b) the total capital budget for 1993–94 and (c) the total revenue budget for 1993–94;

  Mr. Baldry
  The information is as follows:

  Total population1

  Total capital budget 1993–942 £ million

  Total revenue budget 1993–943 £ million

  Liverpool City

  474,522

  88·552

  447·622

  Rochdale

  205,209

  25·0904

  161·430

  Calderdale

  194,138

  20·206

  143·241

  Sefton

  295,097

  20·650

  199·304

  Solihull

  201,388

  20·619

  123·725

  Walsall

  263,361

  58·757

  4202·212

  Wirral

  336,144

  30·930

  248·457

  Wolverhampton

  249,138

  51·622

  206·863

  Brent

  247,205

  27·273

  4256·354

  Havering

  231,227

  20·846

  149·419

  Lambeth

  249,888

  52·734

  306·364

  1 Mid-1991 population estimates, as used in 1993–94 Settlement.

  2 Total capital expenditure as reported by authorities on the CER93/94 return.

  3 Unless otherwise stated, net revenue expenditure as reported by authorities on the RA93/94 return.

  4 Net revenue expenditure as reported on the BR return. Figures from the RA93/94 return are not yet available.

  Water Companies (Technical Audits)
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the review of the process of technical audit of water companies has been completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I am pleased to announce that the review of the procedures devised and followed by the drinking water inspectorate for assessing the quality of drinking water supplied by water companies has been completed by Professor P. F. Stott, CBE, FEng, assisted by Dr. R. F. Packham, CChem, FRSC, FIWEM. I have placed a copy of the report in the Library.

  Professor Stott describes the standards adopted for drinking water as very demanding. He concludes that, bearing in mind the regulations and the importance to the public of demonstrating that the standards are adhered to, the system and methods devised and developed by the

  393
  inspectorate are appropriate and sufficient but not more than sufficient for the purpose of checking the compliance of the water companies.

  For the future, Professor Stott believes that there could be change as quality management systems are introduced by water companies. The inspectorate will commence consultation with water companies and others on the changes that should be introduced in the longer term.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list for each decommissioning scheme for fishing vessels which has operated since 1973 the total amount paid out, the number of owners who received grants and the number of vessels taken out by each, together with the amount given to employees and the proportion of each scheme financed by EC funds.

  Mr. Jack
  The Fishing Vessels (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1983, which ran until 1986, is the only decommissioning scheme, to have been operated since 1973. The following are details of decommissioning grant paid under that scheme:

  Total amount paid out £18,422,622

  Number of vessels on which grant was paid 247

  EC contribution 50 per cent.

  Figures are not available for the amount paid to employees, since this was a matter between the vessel owner and the employee.

  Pesticides
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations her Department has had with United States agencies about the toxicological data concerning(a) the fungicide Benlate and (b) other pesticides with the same active agent.

  Mr. Soames
  The Department maintains regular contact with the United States and other pesticide registration authorities and was aware of the United States position on the fungicide Benlate and other pesticides containing the same active ingredient (benomyl). As part of the United Kingdom's most recent review of benomyl, the independent advisory committee on pesticides examined the latest study produced by the university of California.

  Livestock Quotas
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will allow free access to livestock quotas for those farmers wishing to convert from arable farming to mixed organic farming.

  Mr. Jack
  Farmers wishing to convert to organic farming will be able to acquire quota by buying or leasing. We are currently considering whether such farmers should also be eligible to apply for quota from the national reserves, and if so what priority they should have in relation to other applicants.

  Comfrey
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to prohibit the growing and consumption of comfrey by private individuals; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  I have no plans to prohibit the growing and consumption of comfrey. The Department has produced an information note on comfrey which we have made available widely. A copy is in the Library of the House. The leaflet advises against the use of comfrey as a vegetable and the use of comfrey root in making teas.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she first considered introducing a voluntary code of practice on the sale of comfrey products; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  When I received the advice of the independent committees—the Food Advisory Committee and the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment—I considered various options. A voluntary withdrawal of the comfrey products of most concern backed up by appropriate labelling was pursued as the course most commensurate with the risks involved.

  Turkish Cyprus
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she is taking to prevent the illegal import of agricultural products from Turkish Cyprus.

  Mr. Jack
  Agricultural products originating anywhere in the island of Cyprus may be imported into the EC provided that they satisfy any relevant standards imposed by EC law. The treatment of agricultural imports from north Cyprus is the subject of a case pending before the European Court of Justice.

  Salmon Advisory Committee (Membership)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on what basis the current members of the Salmon Advisory Committee were selected; how many are representative of anglers' associations; how many are representative of commercial interests; and what is the size of the advisory committee;

  (2) how many of the individuals not reappointed to the Salmon Advisory Committee earlier in the current year were (a) ineligible through age or (b) declined an invitation to serve a further term.

  Mr. Jack
  The Salmon Advisory Committee currently has 10 members plus a chairman. They have been invited to serve because of their knowledge of matters relating to salmon fisheries or the biology of ecology of salmon. All were appointed on a personal basis and not as representatives of particular organisations or interest groups. The committee was reviewed during 1992 particularly with a view to its future work programme. As a result, membership was reduced from 16. Age was not a factor in deciding membership. One former member declined an offer of reappointment for personal reasons.

  Flooding
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which areas of England and Wales have been subject to severe flooding since 1979; and what assistance was made available to those communities and individuals who suffered financial loss as a consequence of the flooding.

  Mrs. Shephard
  My Department and the Welsh Office seek to maintain a general overview of major flooding incidents but do not collect comprehsensive data on incidents. In any case, to the individuals in the affected area any flooding is likely to be regarded as severe.

  The Government do not normally provide financial assistance to individuals as it is considered to be the responsibility of householders and business to ensure that they have adequate insurance for their property and contents. However, exceptionally, the Government made a contribution of £150,000 to the North Wales appeal funds in 1990 following flooding in Towyn.

  In certain exceptional circumstances, special financial assistance has been provided to local authorities under the "Bellwin" scheme by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales with each case being considered on its merits. Grant aid is available to operating authorities for new and improved flood defence works from my Department or the Welsh Office. In targeting grant provision, which has increased in recent years, priority is given to flood warning and urban flood and sea defence works.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Government Documents
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what role his Department plays in reviewing requests made by the media or other interested parties for the release of documents produced by, commissioned by, or forwarded to other Government Departments.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Office of Public Service and Science plays a central role in developing and implementing policies of greater openness across Government as a whole. Decisions on the release of particular documents are, however, for the Departments concerned.

  Science, Engineering and Technology
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to meet the chairman of the Science and Engineering Research Council to discuss his White Paper "A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology", Cm 2250.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I see Sir Mark Richmond regularly to discuss a range of topics, especially those relevant to the Science and Engineering Research Council. My office is working closely with Sir Mark and his management team over the implementation of the policy decisions on restructuring the research council system, which were announced in the White Paper.

  House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements are to be made to provide hon. Members with information about the amendments proposed to schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.

  Mr. David Davis
  A detailed explanatory note on the revised resolution tabled on Friday 11 June is available from the Vote Office.

  European Parliament (Administrators)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many candidates invited to and attending the seminar organised by the Cabinet Office on 29 April for British candidates for European Parliament open competition PE/60/A for English language administrators were(a) women and (b) men; what was the regional breakdown of those (i) invited and (ii) attending the seminar; how many such seminars have been held in each of the last five years in the United Kingdom; and where each was held.

  Mr. Davis
  Invitations to the seminar were issued by the European Parliament on behalf of the Cabinet Office to the 654 Britons who applied for the competition; of these, 299 were women and 355 were men.

  One hundred and five candidates accepted the invitation; of these, 50 were women and 47 were men—the other eight did not indicate their gender. These candidates came from the following regions:

  Regions

  Number

  London and Southern England

  58

  Midlands and Northern England

  19

  Wales and the West Country

  14

  Northern Ireland

  1

  Scotland

  0

  Elsewhere in Europe

  13

  During the past five years, the Cabinet Office has not held any other seminars for competitions run by the European Parliament, but it has organised seminars for the main competitions run by other EC institutions as follows:

  Location

  Year

  Seminars

  4 in London 1 in Edinburgh

  1988

  5

  London

  1989

  1

  London

  1990

  2

  4 in London 1 in Edinburgh

  1991

  5

  London

  1992

  3

  London

  1993

  1

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will review the procedures used by the Cabinet Office in arranging seminars for United Kingdom candidates for European Parliament English language administrators to ensure that(a) accurate information is provided to candidates and (b) all candidates are given an equal opportunity to take part.

  Mr. Davis
  The content of every seminar and the procedures used to arrange it are reviewed after the seminar has taken place; the results inform the arrangements for the next seminar.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Tobacco Products
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the sums, expressed in current prices, raised from(a) excise and (b) VAT on tobacco products in the first quarters of 1992 and 1993.

  Sir John Cope
  The available information is as follows:

  £ million

  Tobacco excise

  VAT on tobbaco

  1992 Q1

  1,688

  360

  1993 Q1

  1,311

  n/a

  The VAT is estimated from consumer spending on tobacco. No estimate is yet available for the first quarter of 1993.

  Comparisons between the first quarter of 1992 and the first quarter of 1993 are complicated by the removal of pre-Budget restrictions on the clearance of tobacco products for the 1993 Budget. As a result, clearances which might previously have taken place in the period December to February were delayed until March, and duty payment delayed into the second quarter.

  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the most recent Central Statistical Office estimate for United Kingdom consumers' expen-diture on tobacco products in the United Kingdom for Ql 1993; and what was the comparable figure for Q1 1992.

  Mr. Nelson
  Figures for consumers' expenditure on tobacco products for Q1 1993 will be published on 22 June. Figures for earlier quarters are available from the CSO database which can be accessed by the House of Commons Library. The relevant database indentifiers are:

  CCDZ—current prices, not seasonally adjusted

  CCEN—current prices, seasonally adjusted

  CCBP—constant prices, not seasonally adjusted

  CCCD—current prices, seasonally adjusted

  Customs and Excise
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many Customs and Excise officers were employed in Scotland at the last available date; and what were the comparable figures for the same dates in 1988 and 1983;

  (2) how many customs officers at each of the Scottish airports are designated specifically for drugs duties; and how many serve at each airport at any given time;

  (3) what measures are being taken to search hold baggage arriving at domestic halls at Scottish airports which have been interlined by passengers transferring from international flights at Heathrow or Gatwick from other destinations.

  Sir John Cope
  The following numbers of Customs and Excise officers were employed in Scotland over the relevant period:

  Number

  30 April 1993

  1,666·5

  30 April 1988

  1,780·5

  30 April 1983

  2,078·0

  398
  The number of officers shown below have an anti-smuggling role at the Scottish airports, but this is not confined exclusively to drug duties. It also covers other aspects of smuggling and other prohibitions and restrictions:

  Number

  Edinburgh

  11

  Glasgow

  32

  Aberdeen

  20

  The deployment of anti-smuggling staff at any given time will vary according to the perceived risk of a particular flight. This is part of a strategy which has moved staff away from predictable static controls to a more mobile and flexible approach targeted at areas of highest risk.

  The anti-smuggling staff can also be augmented, when necessary, by staff from elsewhere in the executive units who are normally deployed on other duties. In addition, specialist intelligence teams are used in each area.

  Following the introduction of the single market on 1 January 1993, revised arrangements under the European Community baggage regulation enable hold baggage consigned from outside the Commmunity to be cleared at the final destination in the EC. Special measures are taken to identify hold baggage interlined by passengers travelling from international flights at Heathrow and Gatwick. These enable full examination of baggage to be made by customs, where necessary, at the final point of destinations.

  Customs checks are increasingly based on the indentification of targets through the use of intelligence and risk indicators.

  This highly selective and unobtrusive approach is in no way diminished at those locations where examination of baggage takes place in domestic facilities.

  Public Finance
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out(a) tax receipts and (b) public expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product for each year since 1978.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to tables 2B.1 amd 2B.2 of the 1993 "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  VAT
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to lowering the VAT rate levied on energy-saving equipment including insulation and draughtproofing; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  My right hon. Friend keeps all taxes under review, but no Chancellor normally proposes changes in rates outside the Budget statement. In the sixth EC VAT directive, the United Kingdom Government agreed in 1977 that no new zero rates would be introduced.

  Pensions
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to the Exchequer of providing non-contributory, index-linked pensions to public sector employees; and what plans he has to review such practice.
  399
  Mr. Portillo
  Of the main public service schemes, only the armed forces pension scheme is non-contributory. The civil service and judicial pension schemes are noncontributory for members' benefits, but members pay contributions for survivors' benefits. The estimated cost to the Exchequer of providing pensions from these schemes in 1992–93 is as follows:

  £ million

  Civil Service Pension Scheme

  1,949

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme

  1,659

  Judicial Pensions Scheme

  9

  The determination of pay for the civil service, armed forces and the judiciary takes into account the value of the whole remuneration package of pay and other conditions of service, including the value of pension scheme benefits and the contribution which scheme members make. These arrangements are kept under review.

  Northern Cyprus
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to prevent the flow of capital from the United Kingdom to destinations in northern Cyprus.

  Mr. Nelson
  None.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to prevent the illegal import of manufactured goods from Turkish Cyprus.

  Sir John Cope
  Manufactured goods imported from north Cyprus are subject to the normal controls applied by Customs and Excise.

  Income Tax
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total number of guidance documents issued to employers in connection with the levying of income tax; and what was the total expenditure on such documents in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 10 June 1993]: Each year 130,000 new employers are issued with a starter pack jointly by the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency containing basic pay-as-you-earn guidance—tax and national insurance contributions—together with a set of standard tables and a small supply of PAYE stationery, such as deduction working sheets and a requisition form for ordering additional supplies. Around 1·1 million established employers receive an annual pack before the start of each tax year containing revised basic guidance, more detailed guides for reference purposes and further supplies of PAYE stationery tailored to the individual employer's requirements. Soon after the Budget, all employers are sent a supplementary pack containing details of the Chancellor's proposals relating to PAYE including, where appropriate, revised tax tables. Following the move to a unified Budget this November, the contents of the annual and Budget packs will be combined in a single, slimmer pack for all employers.

  The Inland Revenue has not kept central records of the total expenditure in each of the last 10 years on providing all employers with the documents they need to operate PAYE. Many of these documents are provided by local tax
  400
  offices in response to individual requests by employers. However, the Inland Revenue estimate the cost of printing, packing and posting the bulk issue packs at between £4·5 million and £5·5 million in each of the last three years.

  Removal Expenses
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the number of employees for whom removal expenses and benefits exceeded(a) £6,000, (b) £8,000, (c) £10,000, (d) £12,000, (e) £14,000, (f) £16,000, (g) £18,000 and (h) £20,000 in the latest year for which figures are available;

  (2) if he will estimate the yield to the Exchequer of limiting tax relief for removal expenses and benefits to (a) £6,000, (b) £8,000, (c) £10,000, (d) £12,000, (e) £14,000, (f) £16,000, (g) £18,000 and (h) £20,000 in 1994–95.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 11 June 1993]: There is no comprehensive statistical data source from which such estimates could be calculated. On the basis of estimates of the total number of employer-assisted relocations from survey and administrative data sources, and reasonable estimates of the likely levels of expenses in 1993–94, the following tentative estimates can be made. These are all based on the Budget proposals for the reform of tax relief for relocation packages with the corresponding limits substituted for the proposed level of £8,000.

  Threshold for removal expenses and benefits (excluding loss on sale payments) £

  Numbers subject to tax for 1993–941 2 (thousands)

  Income tax yield3 in 1994–954 £ million

  6,000

  100

  300

  8,000

  100

  200

  10,000

  75

  150

  12,000

  50

  150

  14,000

  50

  100

  16,000

  50

  100

  18,000

  50

  100

  20,000

  25

  50

  1 Excluding employees covered by transitional arrangements—estimated to be one third of those moving and receiving relocation assistance in 1993–94.

  2 Numbers of employees receiving "loss on sale" payments, additional housing cost payments, or receiving eligible removal expenses and benefits in excess of the stated levels.

  3 Including tax on payments for losses on sale.

  4 In respect of payments in 1993–94.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of employees for whom tax relief for removal expenses and benefits were claimed in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 11 June 1993]: Available estimates of the numbers of employees whose employers made payments towards removal expenses and who benefited from tax relief under extra statutory concession A5 are as follows:

  Thousands

  1987

  200

  1988

  175

  1989

  200

  401

  Thousands

  1990

  200

  1991

  175

  These figures are based on information from labour force surveys for United Kingdom moves and Inland Revenue data for international relocations.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of employees moving because of(a) a job transfer with an existing employer and (b) to take up new employment, who benefited from assistance with removal expenses in the latest year for which figures are available; and what was the total tax relief available to employees in each category in that year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 11 June 1993]: Approximate estimates in respect of 1991–92, the latest year for which data are available, are given in the table. Estimates of the relevant numbers of employees relocating in the United Kingdom are based on the 1991 labour force survey and those for international moves are based on administrative data. The revenue costs of tax relief—under extra statutory concession A5—are based on reasonable assumptions about the levels of payments and are very tentative.

  Number (thousands)

  Cost (£ million)

  United Kingdom moves:

  With same employer

  120

  600

  To new employer

  40

  100

  International moves

  15

  100

  Total

  175

  800

  Outgoing from:

  Incoming to:

  B

  DK

  D

  GR

  E

  F

  IRL

  I

  L

  NL

  P

  UK

  B

  —

  2·53

  1·93

  2·68

  2·53

  1·93

  1·93

  2·53

  2·31

  1·64

  2·53

  1·93

  DK

  1·59

  —

  1·43

  1·43

  1·80

  1·59

  1·59

  1·80

  1·59

  1·59

  1·80

  1·59

  D

  1·76

  1·76

  —

  1·76

  1·76

  1·76

  1·76

  1·76

  1·76

  1·76

  1·76

  1·76

  GR

  1·88

  1·88

  1·88

  —

  1·88

  1·88

  1·88

  1·88

  1·88

  1·88

  1·88

  1·88

  E

  3·02

  3·02

  3·02

  3·02

  —

  3·02

  3·02

  3·02

  3·02

  3·02

  3·02

  3·02

  F

  1·97

  1·97

  1·97

  1·97

  1·97

  —

  1·97

  1·97

  1·97

  1·97

  1·97

  1·97

  IRL

  2·70

  2·70

  2·70

  2·70

  2·70

  2·70

  —

  2·70

  2·70

  2·70

  2·70

  2·06

  I

  2·18

  2·18

  1·94

  1·94

  2·18

  1·94

  2·57

  —

  1·94

  2·18

  2·57

  2·18

  L

  1·12

  1·62

  1·62

  1·62

  1·62

  1·62

  1·62

  1·62

  —

  1·12

  1·62

  1·62

  NL

  1·50

  1·50

  1·50

  1·98

  1·98

  1·50

  1·98

  1·98

  1·50

  —

  1·98

  1·50

  P

  2·89

  2·89

  2·89

  2·89

  2·72

  2·89

  2·89

  2·89

  2·89

  2·89

  —

  2·89

  UK (BT)

  1·48

  1·48

  1·48

  1·48

  1·48

  1·48

  1·42

  1·48

  1·48

  1·48

  1·48

  —

  UK (Mercury)

  1·45

  1·45

  1·45

  1·45

  1·45

  1·45

  1·34

  1·45

  1·45

  1·45

  1·45

  —

  Source: Commission Communications "Towards Cost orientation and the Adjustment of Pricing Structures" updated 1 February 1993.

  This table shows that the United Kingdom has the cheapest outgoing call charges to other member states in seven out of 11 cases and is second cheapest in the four other instances.

  Vehicle Components
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the levels of import and export of automotive vehicle components for each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  The figures requested are as follows:
  402
  In addition, there were in 1991 nearly 300,000 job-related moves in the United Kingdom which did not benefit from relocation assistance from employers.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Firms (Receivership)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the percentage change in the number of firms in the north-west going into receivership in the last month for which figures are available.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  There is no regional breakdown of official statistics on companies placed into receivership. A quarterly breakdown for England and Wales is published in the "Companies Report" presented to Parliament annually by the Department.

  International Telephone Charges
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish details of international telephone charges from the United Kingdom; what information he has on equivalent charges from other EC countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Both BT and Mercury Communications are obliged to make their telephone call charges available. I refer the hon. Member to their published tariffs, which are available from these companies' major offices.

  International comparisons are complex, since the basis on which calls are defined can differ from country to country. The following table sets out the price inclusive of VAT in ECUs, of a peak rate, three-minute international telephone call between EC member states.

  Motor vehicle parts

  (Standard Industrial Classification 1980 Activity Heading 3530)

  £ million

  Exports(FOB)

  Imports(CIF)

  1992

  3,460

  4,654

  1991

  3,365

  4,024

  1990

  3,105

  4,077

  1989

  2,820

  3,697

  1988

  2,476

  3,052

  Source: HM Customs and Excise.
  403
  It is recognised that not all parts used by the motor industry are assigned to the motor vehicle parts industry (Activity Heading 3530) as officially defined. As a result, the trade values assigned to the motor vehicle parts industry are understated.

  Oil Companies
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to continue part III of the undertakings given by the oil companies to the Government.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Director General of Fair Trading will be advising my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on whether any changes should be made to the petrol undertakings. Until that advice has been received and considered, it would be inappropriate to comment further.

  Light Rail Transit Systems
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 161, on British train manufacture, what progress has been made in his Department's attempts to enhance Britain's capability in light rail transit systems, including trams.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Four projects of direct relevance to light rail transit systems, including trams, are currently being considered by my Department under the tracked transport systems technology programme.

  Product Marking
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals his Department has to introduce regulations requiring retail products to be named in a manner which indicates the product's area of origin.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None. Such regulations would conflict with the United Kingdom's obligations under the treaty of Rome and other international agreements.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals his Department has to introduce regulations requiring all footwear for sale to he labelled with a symbol relating to the material of construction.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department has no plans to introduce such regulations. No agreement has been reached on the proposed EC directive and we continue to oppose the obligatory use of symbols to label footwear.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will make a statement about the representations he has received about changes in the travel-to-work areas eligible for regional aid;

  (2) if he will make a statement about the continued eligibility of travel-to-work areas for regional aid;

  (3) if he will make a statement about the changes he intends to make in the travel-to-work areas eligible for regional aid.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on 21 April,Official Report, columns 117–18 and to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on 6 May, Official Report, column 206.

  Jobs Stoke-on-Trent
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the full cost and remit of the Coopers and Lybrand development study undertaken under contract to English Estates to inquire into the provision of job opportunities in the Stoke-on-Trent area.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Coopers and Lybrand was asked to provide an overview of the local economy and an analysis of the local property market. The cost of the report was approximately £15,000.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who is responsible for co-ordinating measures to counteract the loss of miners' jobs in the Stoke-on-Trent area.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Lord Walker has overall responsibility for co-ordinating the regeneration package for coal closure areas in England.

  North Staffordshire Coalfield
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to keep all hon. Members representing the north Staffordshire coalfield fully and regularly briefed of all relevant initiatives undertaken by English Estates or by his Department.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have asked English Estates to keep hon. Members informed of its activities locally.

  Trentham Colliery
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much new money has been allocated to date to counter the unemployment caused by compulsory redundancies at Trentham colliery; and what percentage that is of the total money allocated to alleviate job losses in coal mining areas.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Additional money already made available to help regenerate the Trentham colliery area are £7 million from English Estates, £4·9 million from the Department of Employment for the Staffordshire training and enterprise council and £826,000 from the Department of the Environment's coalfield areas fund. This represents over 6 per cent. of the £200 million regeneration package for pit closure areas. Regional enterprise grants have also been extended to the area.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Government Departments, Government agencies and private consultants commissioned from the public sector are currently being consulted or engaged in endeavours to counter the effect of job losses at Trentham.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Department of Trade and Industry, in conjunction with English Estates, the Department of Employment and the Department of the Environment, is working closely with local authorities, the Staffordshire training and enterprise council and other local bodies to counter the effect of job losses at Trentham.

  Corporate Jets
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information his Department has received on United Kingdom bids received by British Aerospace for Corporate Jets; and if he will make a statement.
  405
  Mr. Heseltine
  Any information received by my Department on bids received by British Aerospace for Corporate Jets, which has not been announced publicly, is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will visit the Corporate Jets factory, Broughton, Clwyd; and if he will receive a deputation of production workers from the Corporate Jets factory, Clwyd.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, who has ministerial responsibility for the aerospace industry, visited the Broughton factory site last year. I have no plans to visit the Broughton site or to receive a delegation of production workers from the factory.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information his Department has received on the proposed timetable for the sale by British Aerospace of Corporate Jets to Raytheon (United States); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Any information received by the Department of Trade and Industry on the proposed timetable, which has not been announced publicly by the companies involved, is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement concerning the competition aspects of the proposed sale by British Aerospace of Corporate Jets to Raytheon (United States); and what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Aerospace concerning the competition aspects of the sale.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The chairman of British Aerospace advised me of the proposed sale on 26 May. However, it is for the Director General of Fair Trading to consider whether the proposed acquisition is a qualifying merger under the Fair Trading Act 1973 and, if so, to advise me in due course.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations in regard to abuses of human rights were made by the Trade Minister heading the British trade delegation to Indonesia on 1 to 3 June.

  Mr. Needham
  None. The Indonesians are fully aware of the Government's firm stance on human rights issues, expressed most recently by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary during his visit last April. The purpose of my visit was to promote and further the interests of the accompanying British firms in the civil sector in the buoyant markets of Thailand, Singapore and Indonesia.

  Petrol Supply
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he intends to accept the Office of Fair Trading"s recommendations on abolition of part III of the undertakings given by the oil companies on the supply of petrol.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has not yet received the Office of 406
  Fair Trading's recommendations. Until this advice has been received and considered, it would not be appropriate to comment further.

  Bankruptcy Audit Fees
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total sum his Department collected from the 15 per cent. audit fees in bankruptcy for the last financial year.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The total sum collected by the DTI from the 15 per cent. audit fees in bankruptcy for the last financial year was £7,230,351.

  Plugs and Sockets
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that EC proposals for the harmonisation of electrical plug and socket systems do not damage the interests of United Kingdom industry and commerce.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department is working closely with the relevant trade associations to ensure that the interests of the United Kingdom industry—in particular, manufacturers of domestic appliances, plugs and sockets—are reflected in the harmonisation proposals coming forward, while recognising that consumer safety issues are also important.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, columns 164–65, what are the unemployment statistical series that are being taken into account in determining the new assisted areas map.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Data on unemployment rates in recent years, including long-term rates, have been considered in the assisted areas map review.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many unclaimed dividends were held in the Insolvency Service's account during the financial year ended 31 March; and what was the total value of these dividends.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The total of unclaimed dividends held in the ISA as at 31 March 1993 was £14,085,952.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many unclaimed dividends were surrendered to the Consolidated Fund by the Insolvency Service in the year ended 31 March; and what was their total value.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Insolvency Service does not keep a separate record of the number of unclaimed dividends surrendered to the Consolidated Fund in any one year, but their total value for the year ended 31 March 1993 was £530,398.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he intends to adopt to maintain the network of Crown, agency, or sub-post offices where payments for a full range of pensions and benefits can be made.
  407
  Mr. McLoughlin
  We are committed to maintaining a nationwide network of post offices at which pensioners and other benefit recipients will continue to be able to receive their benefits. Total government business transacted through post offices has increased in each of the last three years, and is expected to increase again this year. The future prosperity of the network of post offices is one of the key objectives of our review of the structure and organisation of the Post Office, announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 29 July 1992.

  Shipbuilding Directive
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last discussed with his ministerial counterparts from other member states of the European Community the question of the seventh directive on the shipbuilding intervention fund being succeeded by an eighth directive based upon similar criteria to those which underpin the former; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  On 4 May the Industry Council agreed in principle to extend the seventh directive for 12 months after it expires on 31 December 1993.

  Political Donations
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the operation of the Companies Act 1985 in relation to the use of associate companies to make political donations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Directors of a GB parent company are required under section 234 and schedule 7 of the Companies Act 1985 to disclose political donations of more than £200 in aggregate made by the company and its subsidiaries.

  Subsidiaries, defined in section 736 of the Act, are bodies corporate under the control of a parent. Associate companies are the subject of significant influence, rather than control. The responsibility for the reporting of political donations made by United Kingdom associate companies lies with the associate company concerned.

  I have no plans for any review.

  KONVER Programme
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if his Department will provide matching financial support for projects which succeed in attracting funding under the KONVER programme;

  (2) what estimate his Department has made of the employment implications in the United Kingdom of successful bids for support under the KONVER programme; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many applications for funding under the KONVER programme have been submitted to his Department; and how many are being recommended to the Commission;

  (4) what preparations his Department has made to submit applications under the KONVER programme to the European Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The KONVER scheme of grants was announced on 28 May this year. The United Kingdom 408
  along with other member states has been invited to put forward a programme by the European Commission. The Commission has asked for these to be transmitted to Brussels by 31 August 1993.

  My Department will shortly be consulting interested bodies for their views on the draft United Kingdom programme. Applications for projects have not yet been invited, and it is not possible at this stage to determine what the employment implications might be.

  It will be for applicants themselves to provide funds to match any grant awarded under KONVER.

  English Estates
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ensure that an early start is made by English Estates to its Walker development on Tyneside.

  Mr. Eggar
  English Estates has already let the building contract.

  Scottish Beer
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement, following the meeting between the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms and the Brewers Society, on the issue of the head on Scottish beer.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 9 June 1993]: At the meeting on 19 May, representatives of the Brewers Society urged the revocation of the order bringing into force section 43 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985. The Government are considering the points made by the society and other representations received on this matter. A decision will be announced as soon as possible.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a breakdown of import and export trade with(a) Latvia and (b) Estonia since those countries became independent.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 10 June 1993]: Figures for trade between the United Kingdom and the Baltic states have been available since January 1992. Exports and imports for Latvia and Estonia are:

  £ million

  United Kingdom exports

  United Kingdom imports

  1992

  Estonia

  5·6

  10·4

  Latvia

  7·8

  25·9

  January to April 1993

  Estonia

  2·7

  8·7

  Latvia

  2·6

  17·2

  A detailed breakdown of these figures is published monthly in the Central Statistical Office Business Monitor "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom with countries outside the European Community (Extra-EC Trade)", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Offshore Oil
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those offshore oil extraction projects that have been subject to an environmental impact assessment under the provisons of article 4(2) of EC directive 85/337.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 7 June 1993]: No offshore oil extraction projects requiring an environmental impact assessment have been brought forward since 1985.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what criteria and thresholds have been established by his Department to determine which United Kingdom offshore sector oil and gas extraction activities should be subject to an environmental impact assessment under article 4(2) of EC directive 85/337;

  (2) which oil and gas extraction activities in the United Kingdom offshore sector are subject to the provisions under article 4(2) of EC directive 85/337.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 7 June 1993]: For any oil and gas development within 25 miles of the coast or in an environmentally sensitive area, preparation of an environmental impact assessment is a condition of the grant of a licence.

  Oil Exploration, Wales
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what money his Department is making available for a comprehensive survey of seabird populations in Cardigan bay, St. George's channel and the Bristol channel before all drilling activity is permitted in these areas.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 10 June 1993]: The Department of Trade and Industry is a contributing member to the Joint Nature Conservancy Committee's "Seabirds at Sea" survey. Since 1990, phase 4 has investigated the seabird populations from the Irish sea to the Dover straits which includes the Cardigan bay, St. George's channel and Bristol channel areas. The Department's contribution to this phase is £32,000 annually.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans his Department has to carry out or support a survey of background levels of hydrocarbons in Cardigan bay, St. George's channel and the Bristol channel before any oil drilling is permitted.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 10 June 1993]: The Department has no such plans at present.

  Oil and Gas Licences
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the results of the 14th off-shore oil and gas licensing round.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am able to inform the House that I received a total of 97 applications for 128 of the 484 blocks offered in the three stages of the 14th offshore licensing round. These applications involved 62 companies, either as sole applicants or in various consortia. Following careful examination of all applications, I am prepared to offer licences for 110 of the blocks applied for.

  This has been the largest round, in terms of the number of blocks on offer, since the 4th round in 1972; and the
  410
  largest in terms of the number of blocks awarded since the 11th round in 1989. This provides ample evidence of the high level of continuing interest in United Kingdom offshore oil and gas resources.

  I have already announced the award of licences for 12 of these blocks, seven in Cardigan bay and five west of the Shetlands; in these cases, an early announcement has enabled the successful applicant to proceed promptly with exploration of potentially major new basins.

  The other awards cover acreage in both new and mature areas. It was particularly refreshing to see innovative proposals for further investigation of areas such as the southern North sea, which has already been extensively explored; it is clear that such areas are mature only at particular geological horizons and that further reserves may be identified at levels previously considered unprospective.

  In total, 33 of the blocks awarded have not been licensed in the past. There was particularly keen competition for blocks in the English channel, the Solway firth and the North channel which were offered for licensing for the first time. There was also strong interest in areas of St. George's channel and the Peel basin which have been lightly explored in the past.

  In making decisions on the round, I have been particularly mindful of the environment. Many of these areas are close to shore and environmentally sensitive, and stringent conditions will be attached to licences to ensure that licensees take due care when exploring these blocks. The industry nominated a further 35 highly sensitive blocks for inclusion in this round but for which satisfactory safeguards could not be agreed, and these blocks were not offered for licensing. A full environmental impact assessment will be required before a licensee may develop any find within 25 miles of the coast or in other sensitive areas further offshore; and the general public will have access to the companies' environmental appraisal reports on request, in line with the EC freedom of access to environmental information directive.

  Where companies applied for blocks in environmentally sensitive areas, they were asked to assess the environmental resources in these areas and to identify the steps they planned to take to avoid or minimise environmental impact, should they be awarded the block. The degree of environmental awareness and the quality of environmental presentations provided was taken into account when considering awards in these areas. I am happy to say that most companies demonstrated their awareness of environmental issues and many had carried out high-quality pre-application work. I am taking steps to ensure that companies awarded licences do not lose sight of their environmental commitments. My officials will
  require licensees to report on local consultation at a set time;
  require licensees to discuss plans for seismic activity and drilling before these activities are carried out;
  stipulate that, at the Department's discretion, Government observers may be present at some operations;
  require a post-operational return to indicate how licence conditions have been met.

  These steps will ensure that the 14th round does more to safeguard the environment than any previous round.

  The results of this round show the continuing commitment of the international oil and gas industry to the United Kingdom continental shelf. I am, however, particularly pleased to note the success of a number of British independent companies in the round, both as partners and as operators. The re-evaluation of mature

  411
  areas and the opening up of new basins as a result of this round should ensure that the UKCS remains an important oil and gas-producing province well into the next century.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the top 10 beneficiaries of United Kingdom overseas aid in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The top 10 recipients of United Kingdom external assistance for the financial years 1987–88 to 1991–92 are shown in the table.

  Top ten recipients of United Kingdom external assistance 1987–88 –1991–92 (£ thousand)

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  (1) India

  India

  India

  India

  India

  (2) Malawi

  Kenya

  Nigeria

  Bangladesh

  Bangladesh

  (3) Kenya

  Bangladesh

  Poland

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  (4) Tanzania

  Malawi

  Bangladesh

  Kenya

  Ghana

  (5) Ghana

  Mozambique

  Kenya

  Pakistan

  Kenya

  (6) Bangladesh

  Ghana

  Malawi

  Tanzania

  Pakistan

  (7) Uganda

  Tanzania

  Ghana

  Malawi

  Zambia

  (8) Sri Lanka

  Sudan

  Pakistan

  Jamaica

  Indonesia

  (9) Pakistan

  Pakistan

  Uganda

  Nigeria

  Tanzania

  (10) Mozambique

  Sri Lanka

  Sudan

  Zimbabwe

  Uganda

  Kenya
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each of the aid projects in Kenya which are at present receiving financial assistance from the United Kingdom Government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [pursuant to his answer, 8 June, c. 198–99]: A corrected version of the table showing current capital and technical co-operation projects supported through the United Kingdom bilateral aid programme in Kenya is as follows:

  Project

  Total cost of project £'000

  Agriculture and Livestock

  Rehabilitation of South Nyanza Sugar Factory

  4,660

  Agricultural Information Centre

  945

  Tea Research Foundation/Natural Resources Institute Collaboration

  28

  National Agricultural Research Project

  7,640

  Kenya Trypanosomiasis Research Institute

  1,391

  Forestry

  Indigenous Forest Conservation

  4,860

  Conservation

  Protected Areas and Wildlife Services

  3,661

  National Museum of Kenya Plant Conservation and Propagation Unit

  467

  Energy

  Geothermal Energy Project

  1,295

  Department of Mines and Geology

  331

  Construction

  Technical Co-operation for Ministry of Public Works

  183

  Roads

  Molo-Litein

  12,080

  412

  Project

  Total cost of project £'000

  Tea Roads Feasibility Study

  416

  Silibwet Forest Road Design

  198

  Highways Sector Field Manager

  39

  Railways

  Kenya Railways Phase II

  9,647

  Ports

  Kenya Ports Authority

  11,327

  Small Scale Enterprise

  Assistance to Youth Polytechnics

  157

  K-Rep Juhudi Credit

  967

  Public Administration and Good Government

  Kenya Institute of Administration

  1,441

  Kenya Institute of Management

  580

  Office of Controller and Auditor General

  243

  Assistance to Department of Government Investments and Public Enterprises

  82

  Machakos Environmental Management Study

  20

  Education

  Thames Polytechnic/Kenya Polytechnic Link

  800

  Moi University/Oxford Forestry Institute Link

  530

  University of Nairobi Microcomputer Project

  710

  National Programme for Student Communication Skills in Universities

  820

  Kenyatta University English Department

  282

  Kenyatta University Science Faculty

  1,650

  Moi University Library

  8,373

  Moi Faculty of Information Sciences

  911

  Strengthening of Primary Education

  3,325

  Teachers Resource Centres

  96

  Health and Population

  World Bank Third Population Project

  4,601

  Moi University Faculty of Health Sciences

  185

  Isiolo Hospital Immediate Support

  549

  Senior Health Planner/Economist

  180

  Family Planning Services

  2,000

  AMREF Health Care Support Unit

  262

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's aid policy to Kenya.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We continue to provide substantial development aid and humanitarian assistance to Kenya. In addition, we are prepared to pledge new fast disbursing balance of payments assistance once the international financial institutions assess that Kenya has made satisfactory progress in implementing the recently agreed IMF-monitored economic reform programme and subject to the political environment being acceptable.

  Eastern Bloc (Training)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to publish a progress report on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's financial sector scheme for training and experience in western insurance banking and finance for former eastern bloc country management and civil servants.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Chancellor's financial sector scheme is open to countries of the former Soviet Union and the Baltic states, not eastern Europe. Officials will review progress with the scheme in July. Conclusions will be summarised in the know-how fund's annual report, which will be published in early 1994.

EDUCATION

  Standard Assessment Tasks (Class Size)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the correlation between achievement in standard assessment tasks taken by children at key stage 1 and class size.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools gave to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on 17 May at column 23.

  School Meals
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average price of a school meal in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in cash and real terms in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  Information is collected on the fixed charges for a standard meal in schools operating a dining centre and on the amount allowed, the "authorised spend", for each pupil receiving a free meal in schools operating a cash cafeteria system.

  This information—in both cash and real terms—for each year since January 1990 is shown in the table. Information for earlier years is not readily available.

  Average fixed charge or authorised spend on school meals in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England: January 1990–92 (cash and real terms)

  1990

  1991

  Pence 1992

  Primary (including nursery)

  Cash terms: Fixed charge

  62

  73

  83

  Numbers and percentages of day-pupils taking paid and free school meals in maintained schools in England January 1992

  Primary (including nursery)

  Secondary

  Special

  Local education authority

  Paid

  Free

  Paid

  Free

  Paid

  Free

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Corporation of London

  84

  38

  91

  41

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Camden

  3,491

  33

  3,291

  31

  2,055

  20

  1,762

  17

  73

  25

  143

  48

  Greenwich

  7,096

  33

  5,727

  27

  3,302

  24

  2,204

  16

  238

  35

  250

  36

  Hackney

  4,927

  30

  6,567

  40

  1,463

  19

  2,443

  31

  135

  27

  222

  44

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,403

  36

  2,929

  31

  1,755

  29

  1,236

  21

  156

  41

  145

  38

  Islington

  5,273

  36

  5,094

  34

  1,102

  14

  1,806

  23

  115

  37

  131

  42

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,345

  36

  1,980

  31

  1,389

  37

  741

  20

  0

  0

  1

  100

  Lambeth

  6,112

  32

  6,720

  35

  1,685

  27

  1,607

  26

  219

  29

  324

  43

  Lewisham

  5,784

  28

  5,188

  26

  1,673

  16

  2,257

  21

  148

  36

  154

  38

  Southwark

  5,455

  26

  7,162

  34

  1,448

  16

  2,433

  27

  101

  28

  160

  45

  Tower Hamlets

  5,305

  26

  9,179

  45

  1,378

  13

  4,406

  40

  74

  16

  269

  57

  Wandsworth

  6,111

  36

  4,822

  28

  2,960

  31

  1,903

  20

  29

  42

  202

  39

  Westminster

  3,278

  36

  2,949

  32

  1,422

  20

  1,992

  28

  43

  32

  63

  47

  Barking

  4,015

  26

  2,330

  15

  1,380

  15

  665

  7

  73

  45

  30

  19

  Barnet

  7,524

  31

  2,738

  11

  8,385

  45

  1,467

  8

  142

  45

  56

  18

  Bexley

  5,570

  30

  2,030

  11

  3,075

  21

  714

  5

  117

  43

  88

  32

  Brent

  5,805

  26

  4,574

  21

  1,449

  12

  1,789

  15

  141

  40

  119

  34

  Bromley

  5,437

  27

  2,257

  11

  4,996

  31

  1,165

  7

  142

  40

  65

  18

  Croydon

  7,588

  29

  4,217

  16

  5,734

  37

  1,466

  9

  219

  44

  157

  31

  Ealing

  4,978

  18

  4,830

  17

  3,202

  29

  1,831

  16

  173

  38

  138

  30

  Enfield

  6,095

  27

  3,096

  14

  4,768

  28

  1,548

  9

  161

  38

  137

  32

  Haringey

  4,815

  26

  4,992

  27

  2,286

  26

  2,240

  26

  93

  27

  116

  34

  Harrow

  356

  2

  1,277

  7

  2,220

  27

  536

  7

  84

  42

  40

  20

  Havering

  4,952

  26

  1,560

  8

  3,784

  24

  724

  5

  87

  39

  51

  23

  Hillingdon

  1,552

  8

  1,436

  7

  3,142

  23

  938

  7

  156

  39

  86

  21

  Hounslow

  5,604

  29

  2,942

  15

  5,565

  42

  1,600

  12

  173

  44

  90

  23

  Kingston upon Thames

  352

  3

  705

  7

  1,569

  21

  340

  5

  99

  43

  37

  16

  Merton

  2,986

  20

  1,982

  13

  1,784

  24

  706

  10

  79

  32

  64

  26

  Newham

  4,563

  18

  5,758

  23

  1,032

  8

  2,429

  18

  120

  35

  130

  38

  414

  1990

  1991

  Pence 1992

  Authorised spend

  63

  75

  88

  At 1992–93 prices:

  Fixed charge

  74

  81

  86

  Authorised spend

  75

  83

  91

  Secondary

  Cash terms:

  Fixed charge

  65

  78

  89

  Authorised spend

  74

  82

  94

  At 1992–93 prices:

  Fixed charge

  78

  86

  92

  Authorised spend

  88

  91

  97

  Note: The cash terms figures have been re-priced into 1992–93 prices using the latest GDP (Market Prices) Deflator Index.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish a table showing the number and proportion of children receiving school meals broken down into(a) paid and (b) free in (i) primary school, (ii) secondary schools and (iii) special schools in each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on school meal arrangements in each local education authority in January 1992—the latest date for which information is available—is shown in the table. Similar information for January 1989 and subsequent years is published annually in the "Statistics of Education (Schools)" volumes, copies of which are available in the Library. Information for earlier years is not readily available.
  415

  Primary (including nursery)

  Secondary

  Special

  Local education authority

  Paid

  Free

  Paid

  Free

  Paid

  Free

  Number

  Percent.

  Number

  Percent.

  Number

  Percent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Percent.

  Number

  Percent.

  Redbridge

  6,692

  37

  1,981

  11

  4,657

  33

  1,081

  8

  204

  53

  73

  19

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,216

  21

  824

  8

  2,026

  28

  560

  8

  70

  47

  30

  20

  Sutton

  3,138

  24

  1,122

  9

  3,975

  37

  552

  5

  84

  34

  54

  22

  Waltham Forest

  5,496

  28

  4,355

  22

  2,833

  23

  2,102

  17

  336

  44

  214

  28

  Birmingham

  29,766

  27

  32,673

  30

  21,990

  34

  15,042

  23

  885

  32

  1,327

  48

  Coventry

  6,774

  23

  6,863

  23

  3,545

  19

  2,600

  14

  287

  38

  281

  37

  Dudley

  7,180

  26

  3,780

  14

  4,662

  26

  1,711

  10

  222

  39

  183

  32

  Sandwell

  7,199

  23

  6,727

  21

  3,080

  17

  2,329

  13

  276

  36

  328

  42

  Solihull

  6,464

  34

  2,572

  13

  5,324

  37

  892

  6

  107

  39

  81

  29

  Walsall

  9,939

  35

  5,823

  20

  5,627

  30

  2,786

  15

  230

  42

  207

  38

  Wolverhampton

  4,980

  20

  5,445

  22

  1,918

  12

  1,870

  12

  173

  35

  187

  38

  Knowsley

  2,455

  13

  6,867

  37

  1,836

  21

  2,544

  29

  126

  22

  312

  55

  Liverpool

  9,833

  19

  15,828

  31

  4,959

  17

  6,888

  24

  374

  26

  670

  46

  St. Helens

  5,710

  32

  3,379

  19

  5,012

  41

  1,310

  11

  167

  36

  169

  36

  Sefton

  5,092

  19

  4,850

  18

  5,298

  28

  2,308

  12

  166

  39

  163

  38

  Wirral

  7,140

  23

  7,391

  24

  6,363

  30

  3,849

  18

  243

  31

  305

  40

  Bolton

  8,251

  30

  4,766

  17

  5,860

  34

  1,823

  11

  172

  36

  166

  35

  Bury

  6,538

  39

  2,334

  14

  3,880

  37

  806

  8

  95

  38

  99

  40

  Manchester

  12,286

  26

  18,506

  40

  5,245

  22

  6,154

  26

  405

  23

  734

  42

  Oldham

  8,808

  37

  5,461

  23

  5,415

  34

  2,519

  16

  240

  40

  201

  34

  Rochdale

  6,894

  31

  4,915

  22

  4,134

  33

  2,049

  16

  187

  39

  173

  36

  Salford

  7,348

  31

  6,748

  29

  3,351

  26

  1,686

  13

  169

  37

  160

  35

  Stockport

  8,511

  33

  3,588

  14

  8,189

  45

  1,495

  8

  156

  38

  118

  29

  Tameside

  8,695

  38

  4,408

  19

  4,824

  34

  1,637

  12

  160

  39

  143

  35

  Trafford

  4,063

  21

  2,942

  15

  4,656

  42

  1,186

  11

  141

  35

  102

  26

  Wigan

  7,465

  25

  5,061

  17

  6,243

  30

  1,795

  9

  291

  36

  318

  40

  Barnsley

  6,878

  32

  4,197

  20

  4,368

  36

  1,442

  12

  75

  47

  63

  40

  Doncaster

  14,345

  49

  6,568

  22

  6,287

  30

  2,699

  13

  280

  42

  259

  38

  Rotherham

  7,439

  30

  4,798

  19

  3,898

  22

  1,723

  10

  230

  37

  245

  39

  Sheffield

  11,147

  24

  9,924

  21

  6,918

  29

  3,278

  14

  222

  31

  315

  45

  Bradford

  13,333

  33

  8,984

  22

  14,344

  32

  9,588

  21

  343

  36

  310

  32

  Calderdale

  8,409

  44

  3,528

  18

  3,659

  29

  1,403

  11

  100

  50

  50

  25

  Kirklees

  13,329

  37

  6,185

  17

  8,378

  32

  2,742

  10

  260

  46

  205

  36

  Leeds

  17,582

  31

  9,398

  17

  16,014

  31

  7,099

  14

  425

  42

  326

  33

  Wakefield

  13,174

  45

  4,707

  16

  6,312

  30

  2,184

  11

  236

  43

  215

  39

  Gateshead

  6,429

  35

  4,640

  26

  1,349

  12

  1,360

  12

  129

  38

  141

  41

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  6,211

  27

  7,605

  33

  5,436

  33

  2,716

  16

  229

  32

  269

  37

  North Tyneside

  5,850

  36

  3,017

  18

  5,345

  36

  1,526

  10

  211

  48

  161

  37

  South Tyneside

  5,306

  33

  4,584

  28

  2,645

  29

  1,376

  15

  148

  43

  137

  40

  Sunderland

  9,852

  32

  7,611

  25

  3,370

  18

  2,651

  14

  216

  31

  266

  38

  Isles of Scilly

  70

  40

  8

  5

  16

  17

  23

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Avon

  20,636

  26

  12,852

  16

  15,179

  28

  4,496

  8

  640

  36

  575

  32

  Bedfordshire

  17,237

  41

  6,053

  14

  14,398

  32

  4,629

  10

  433

  41

  293

  28

  Berkshire

  15,817

  25

  5,350

  9

  16,480

  37

  2,018

  4

  663

  42

  336

  21

  Buckinghamshire

  2,356

  4

  3,392

  6

  6,004

  17

  1,366

  4

  428

  33

  322

  25

  Cambridgeshire

  13,552

  23

  6,768

  12

  8,637

  21

  2,907

  7

  364

  40

  212

  23

  Cheshire

  21,990

  25

  11,950

  13

  23,421

  37

  5,033

  8

  578

  49

  291

  25

  Cleveland

  25,120

  39

  15,336

  24

  10,648

  27

  5,650

  14

  422

  31

  548

  40

  Cornwall

  10,654

  27

  5,846

  15

  11,331

  39

  3,058

  11

  105

  44

  101

  42

  Cumbria

  13,643

  32

  5,205

  12

  13,626

  44

  2,002

  7

  122

  40

  76

  25

  Derbyshire

  45,598

  54

  11,351

  13

  35,585

  63

  4,662

  8

  556

  44

  375

  30

  Devon

  17,797

  23

  11,598

  15

  22,238

  40

  4,763

  8

  573

  36

  434

  28

  Dorset

  463

  1

  2,995

  7

  10,389

  27

  2,423

  6

  442

  42

  243

  23

  Durham

  26,426

  45

  11,724

  20

  11,192

  30

  3,968

  11

  350

  37

  402

  43

  East Sussex

  12,699

  26

  7,282

  15

  9,251

  27

  3,071

  9

  466

  36

  384

  30

  Essex

  27,727

  23

  14,808

  12

  21,427

  22

  5,890

  6

  874

  35

  583

  24

  Gloucestershire

  7,809

  19

  4,774

  11

  6,768

  21

  1,905

  6

  471

  39

  351

  29

  Hampshire

  24,561

  19

  15,169

  12

  20,504

  25

  4,579

  5

  1,110

  32

  864

  25

  Hereford and Worcester

  4,605

  10

  3,848

  8

  10,959

  23

  2,776

  6

  503

  45

  274

  24

  Hertfordshire

  29,653

  36

  7,643

  9

  21,183

  32

  3,744

  6

  688

  42

  387

  24

  Humberside

  31,231

  37

  13,969

  17

  22,085

  38

  6,339

  11

  445

  40

  382

  34

  Isle of Wight

  1,894

  27

  1,314

  19

  3,167

  31

  1,425

  14

  79

  31

  68

  27

  Kent

  32,177

  26

  15,577

  13

  28,554

  29

  6,838

  7

  993

  36

  665

  24

  Lancashire

  32,048

  25

  23,320

  18

  30,920

  37

  10,430

  13

  1,066

  35

  1,102

  36

  Leicestershire

  22,325

  28

  10,669

  14

  19,303

  32

  4,604

  8

  465

  50

  300

  32

  Lincolnshire

  1,355

  3

  2,812

  6

  11,686

  33

  2,104

  6

  311

  33

  263

  28

  Norfolk

  15,454

  25

  7,511

  12

  9,716

  25

  2,394

  6

  335

  41

  183

  23

  North Yorkshire

  18,652

  33

  4,944

  9

  19,643

  45

  2,012

  5

  353

  44

  162

  20

  Northamptonshire

  398

  1

  4,441

  9

  4,187

  10

  3,160

  7

  378

  33

  237

  21

  Northumberland

  8,569

  40

  3,210

  15

  12,933

  45

  2,403

  8

  171

  40

  119

  28

  Nottinghamshire

  25,810

  29

  15,939

  18

  17,321

  28

  6,981

  11

  682

  42

  517

  32

  Oxfordshire

  10,228

  25

  3,843

  9

  7,746

  23

  2,011

  6

  281

  36

  155

  20

  Shropshire

  12,536

  36

  4,924

  14

  10,779

  41

  2,088

  8

  204

  38

  176

  33

  Somerset

  3,274

  9

  3,132

  9

  7,225

  26

  1,726

  6

  224

  38

  161

  27

  416 417

  Primary (including nursery)

  Secondary

  Special

  Local education authority

  Paid

  Free

  Paid

  Free

  Paid

  Free

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Staffordshire

  33,629

  36

  13,618

  15

  16,793

  25

  4,946

  7

  897

  44

  623

  31

  Suffolk

  11,382

  27

  4,535

  11

  12,197

  26

  3,019

  6

  339

  51

  128

  19

  Surrey

  27,512

  36

  5,821

  8

  14,990

  35

  1,338

  3

  709

  49

  273

  19

  Warwickshire

  10,842

  24

  4,660

  10

  7,863

  32

  1,310

  5

  343

  30

  361

  31

  West Sussex

  15,262

  30

  4,922

  10

  10,308

  26

  1,910

  5

  475

  44

  205

  19

  Wiltshire

  8,986

  20

  4,676

  10

  9,433

  29

  1,987

  6

  247

  43

  145

  25

  ENGLAND

  1,131,050

  27

  681,167

  16

  865,313

  30

  294,297

  10

  31,435

  37

  26,504

  32

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he has on the numbers and proportion of eligible children who are in(a) local authority nursery schools and (b) reception classes in primary schools, broken down by social class.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information is not collected centrally on the numbers of pupils in reception classes in primary schools. In January 1992—the latest date for which information is available—the total number of pupils of all ages in maintained nursery schools in England was 52,204. A breakdown of this figure by social class is not available.

  Teacher Redundancies
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has of the numbers of qualified teachers who have(a) taken voluntary redundancy or (b) been made compulsorily redundant, in each of the years 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Forth
  The table shows the number of teachers aged 50 and over who retired prematurely by reason of redundancy from maintained schools in England and claimed their superannuation benefits during the financial years 1990–91 to 1992–93. Information on other redundancies of teachers is not centrally recorded.

  Year to March

  Teachers

  1991

  1 1,587

  1992

  1 1,464

  1993

  1 2,028

  1Teachers prematurely retired by reason of redundancy: maintained schools in England.

  Teachers' Conferences
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on his recent visits to the national conferences of teachers' organisations.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend accepted invitations from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the Secondary Heads Association and the National Association of Head Teachers to address their annual conferences. Copies of the texts of these addresses have been placed in the Library.

  University Funding
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent representations and information he has received about funding at the university of Essex; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received no such representations. Funding for individual universities is a matter for the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether the level of student grants will be adjusted to reflect the forthcoming value added tax on energy.

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) on 24 March at column 603. The rates of student support for the academic year 1993–94 were announced last month, and those for 1994–95 will be announced next spring.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the consultation letter on the sell-off of school playing fields.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on 13 May 1993 at columns 526–27.

  Undergraduate Courses (Fees)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what representations he has received from university directors regarding the introduction of a system of top-up fees for undergraduate courses; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received regarding the introduction of a system of top-up fees for undergraduate courses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Recent press publicity has led to one or two representations from members of the public about the introduction of top-up fees for undergraduate courses. No such representations have been received recently from the heads of universities, although my right hon. Friend is aware of current discussions within the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals, about the future funding of higher education.

  English
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many representations he has received on the subject of the proportion of coursework in the assessment of GCSE English; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  During the past year my right hon. Friend received 76 letters about GCSE coursework in English. The 40 per cent. limit for coursework for English is higher than that for most other GCSE subjects, because we recognise that some aspects of achievement in the subject are better assessed through extended tasks than through a terminal examination. However, there must be a limit on coursework assessment if we are to have confidence in the reliability and consistency of GCSE grades.

  Access Funds
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the amounts to be allocated to each of the access funds in England for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  A total of £23·78 million will be available for the access funds for the 1993–94 academic year, which represents a 9·6 per cent. increase over 1992–93. This generous increase will enable colleges and universities to offer access funds to more students who face severe financial difficulties which might prevent them from pursuing their courses. I am sure that all concerned will welcome the extra help this represents.

  The total sum is being allocated between the three funds as follows:

  £ million

  1993–94

  1992–93

  Undergraduate fund

  13·15

  11·99

  Postgraduate fund

  6·03

  5·50

  Further education fund

  4·60

  4·20

  Total

  23·78

  21·69

  Note: The figures for 1992–93 have been derived from those announced earlier to bring them onto a comparable basis with those for 1993–94, having regard to the new framework for higher and further education established in April 1993.

  These funds for 1993–94 will be allocated by the appropriate funding council.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chile
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communica-tions Her Majesty's Government have had with Dr. Carlos Cardoen of Chile since 1985 over the procurement of British machine tools for the production of armaments in Chile.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have no record of communications between Her Majesty's Government and Dr. Carlos Cardoen about such procurement. I also refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Foreign and 420
  Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) on 21 April 1993 at column 107.

  Iran
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Iranian Government concerning its reported violation of Iraqi airspace on Tuesday 25 May in an air attack on bases of the Mujaheddin organisation of Iran.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 7 June at column 84.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to press for an increase in the membership of the Committee of Independent Experts on the working of the Council of Europe's social charter.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The amending protocol en-visages an increase in the membership of the Committee of Independent Experts to "not less than nine". We support such an increase.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recommendation 1168 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the revitalisation of the Council of Europe's social charter.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Recommendation 1168 is an important contribution to the current consideration within the Council of Europe of changes to the European social charter.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to press for the revision of voting arrangements under the Council of Europe's social charter so that only representatives of those Governments who subscribe to the charter are able to vote on matters raised under it.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It has now been agreed that, as envisaged by the amending protocol, only those states which have ratified the charter shall vote when the Committee of Ministers is acting as part of the supervisory machinery of the charter.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have subscribed to the Council of Europe's social charter, but have not ratified the amending protocol opened for signature on 21 October 1991; and if he will make it his policy to encourage those who have not ratified the protocol to do so.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The following countries have ratified the social charter, but have not ratified the amending protocol: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Decisions on ratification are a matter for individual Governments.

  Israel
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the Arab boycott of Israel; and what recent initiatives his Department has taken.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have always condemned the boycott as iniquitous and incompatible with the spirit of the peace process. We continue to seek Arab agreement to end it—we initiated an EC démarche last autumn under our presidency. The response to this demarche, and to numerous bilateral approaches made by the United Kingdom, has been uneven. But we are encouraged by signs that some Arab countries are enforcing the requirements of the boycott less rigorously, and in particular by recent reports that Kuwait will cease to apply the boycott to third countries.

  Channel Islands and Isle of Man
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the relationship between the Channel islands and the Isle of Man with the European Community.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The relationship of the Channel islands and the Isle of Man with the European Community is governed by article 227(5)(c) of the treaty of Rome—and the equivalent provisions in the ECSC and Euratom treaties—and by protocol 3 to the Act signed on 15 January 1972 concerning the conditions of United Kingdom accession to the Community. The islands chose in 1972 to remain essentially outside the Community. The broad effects of the treaty provisions is that the islands are included in the Community solely for customs purposes and for certain aspects of the common agricultural policy and free movement of goods. The islands neither contribute to, nor are eligible to benefit from, Community funds.

  Northern Cyprus
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to impose restrictions on trade between Britain and the illegal northern Cyprus Government.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The question of imports to the United Kingdom from northern Cyprus is the subject of a case pending before the European Court of Justice

  Bosnia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from United Nations authorities in Bosnia-Herzegovina in respect of attacks by Muslim forces on Croat villages and atrocities committed against the Croat population; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have seen reports from the United Nations and the European Community monitor mission on Muslim attacks on Croat communities, particularly around Travnik. It is clear that there have been many casualties. Ethnic cleansing is taking place. We continue to deplore aggression and human rights abuses, whichever party is responsible.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions have been given to entry clearance officers in British consulates in European Community member states to enable them to fulfil their obligations to provide non-Community national spouses of British citizens residing in other member states with entry clearance to allow them to travel to and settle in the United Kingdom in accordance with the requirements of article 3 of Council directive 68/360/EEC.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Following a European Court of Justice ruling in July 1992, instructions were issued to posts about procedures for dealing with entry clearance applications from non-EC spouses of British citizens who wish to return to the United Kingdom with their non-EC spouse, after residing in another member state.

  Any such entry clearance applications are currently referred to the Home Office for a decision, pending the issue of further guidance to posts.

  European Court of Justice
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions since 1983 Her Majesty's Government have been judged by the European Court of Justice to have been in breach of European Community directives; and what that number represents as a percentage of(a) cases brought against the United Kingdom and (b) cases won by a plaintiff or plaintiffs.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 8 June 1993]: The United Kingdom was held to be in breach of the relevant directives in six out of 12 direct actions—50 per cent.—brought before the European Court of Justice by the Commission since 1983, in accordance with article 169 of the treaty of Rome, involving allegations that the United Kingdom was in breach of its obligations under EC directives.

  Further details of cases brought against the United Kingdom are contained in the six-monthly White Papers on developments in the European Community, which also contain details of references to the European Court of Justice from United Kingdom courts under article 177 of the treaty.

  Japan
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he or other Ministers or officials of his Department have had with Japanese counterparts since 1990 regarding(a) the application of international safeguards to and (b) the implications for non-proliferation of the export of plutonium from the United Kingdom to Japan.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  All plutonium in Japan is subject to full-scope international safeguards. Japan has made clear its commitment to the goal of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and is a non-nuclear weapons state party to the non-proliferation treaty. Appropriate assurances are obtained from the Japanese Government before any plutonium is exported there from the United Kingdom,

  423
  but otherwise Her Majesty's Government have not discussed the matters referred to by the hon. Member with the Japanese authorities.

HEALTH

  Mental Health
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the number of people with mental health problems in each region.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally. A national survey assessing the extent of psychiatric morbidity in Great Britain is currently being carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The survey, the results of which will be available in 1995, will provide information both nationally and regionally on the nature and extent of psychiatric illness amongst adults.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of NHS mentally ill patients in non-NHS hospitals, by region in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  "Making London Better"
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the number of nurses who(a) will be deployed and (b) will not be able to be redeployed within London health services when hospitals are closed under "Making London Better" plans.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is too early to speculate about the effects of reconfiguring hospital services in London or the number of nurses who will be employed in the capital's hospitals.

  Hospital Beds
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds there are in inner London and each Thames region; and what are the projected numbers in each of the next five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table. Information on projected numbers of beds is not available centrally.

  Average daily number of available beds all wards 1991–92

  Number

  North West Thames

  17,414

  North East Thames

  18,727

  South East Thames

  16,442

  South West Thames

  16,678

  of which in inner London 1

  17,397

  Special health authorities

  2,619

  1 Comprising of district health authorities: Bloomsbury and Islington, Camberwell, City and Hackney, Hampstead, Haringey, Lewisham and North Southwark, Newham, Parkside, Riverside, Tower Hamlets and West Lambeth.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current number of(a) acute and (b) geriatric beds in each health region.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.424

  Average of daily number of acute and geriatric beds in each health region for year 1991–92

  Regional Health Authority

  Acute

  Geriatric

  Total

  Northern

  8,763

  3,435

  12,198

  Yorkshire

  9,413

  3,575

  12,988

  Trent

  10,280

  4,050

  14,330

  East Anglian

  4,742

  2,240

  6,982

  North West Thames

  6,946

  2,808

  9,754

  North East Thames

  9,259

  3,179

  12,438

  South East Thames

  8,503

  2,903

  11,406

  South West Thames

  6,113

  2,422

  8,535

  Wessex

  6,759

  2,765

  9,524

  Oxford

  4,981

  1,457

  6,438

  South Western

  8,211

  2,925

  11,136

  West Midlands

  11,874

  4,434

  16,308

  Mersey

  6,248

  1,870

  8,118

  North Western

  11,183

  3,916

  15,099

  Special Health Authorities

  1,819

  127

  1,946

  England Total

  115,094

  42,106

  157,200

  Londoners' Health
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to create an information base about the health of the London population.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is the role of purchasers to develop an information base about the health of their local population in order to make informed decisions about the delivery of health services. All regional health authorities publish an annual public health report, which draws on information from the public health common data set, commissioned by the Department.

  King Edward VII Hospital
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of the King Edward VII hospital, Trent region.

  Mr. Sackville
  The future of the site of the former King Edward VII orthopaedic hospital in Sheffield is a matter for Trent regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Michael Carlisle, chairman of Trent regional health authority, for details.

  West Midlands RHA
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the qualifications of Bryan Baker for the position of chair of the West Midlands regional health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Bryan Baker has wide experience of handling major business and providing strategic leadership at the highest level, gained during his long and distinguished career with Tarmac plc.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is requiring the West Midlands regional health authority and Wessex regional health authority to take to recover the payments improperly paid to and accepted by officers of that authority when they resigned or whose employment was terminated; and what action she expects to be taken against those authorising such payments.
  425
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Health authorities should take legal advice on the case for recovery of such payments and consider whether disciplinary action is appropriate.

  Trent RHA
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if a decision has yet been reached over the relocating of the headquarters of Trent regional health authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for the Trent regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Michael Carlisle, chairman of Trent regional health authority, for details.

  British Health Care Consortium
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the work of the British Healthcare Consortium in Russia.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The British Healthcare Consortium together with associated organisations concerned with construction, procurement, training and consultancy are offering a complete service package to regions in Russia to upgrade their health services. Currently, the main centre of activity is the Sverdlovsk region. Projects include the supply of medical equipment and pharmaceuticals and the construction of a theatre block for a new oncology hospital.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went to Ekaterinburg in Sverdlovsk during a visit to Russia in April and was much impressed by the work the consortium is doing there.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will conduct a survey of how many health authorities and trusts in England have asked their employees to forfeit pay awards in 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Subfertility
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment she has made of the cost of providing a comprehensive service for the assessment and treatment of subfertility;

  (2) what assumptions have been made of the cost of providing assessments and treatments for subfertility in the allocation of resources to health authorities.

  Mr. Sackville
  The publication "Effective Health Care: The Management of Subfertility" contains estimations of the cost of providing a comprehensive subfertility service. This guidance was issued to health authorities on 28 September 1992, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Allocations to health authorities are made on the basis of the size, age, distribution and relative health of their resident populations. It is for district health authorities to decide their priorities in purchasing services to meet the needs of their resident population.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current prescription charge as a percentage in real terms of the prescription charge in 1979.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In real terms, the present prescription charge is 864 per cent. of the charge in 1979. At £4·25 it remains substantially less than the average total cost of a prescribed item to the national health service. Only one in five items dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors now attracts a charge, compared with two in five in 1979.

  Cancer Tests
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the reasons why women over the age of 65 years are not called for further routine regular smear tests or mammography examinations.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is evidence to suggest that women over the age of 65 are less likely to accept invitations to screening. Though such women are not routinely invited, they can on request continue to be screened within agreed intervals.

  NHS Overseas Enterprises
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the work of NHS Overseas Enterprises.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  National Health Services Overseas Enterprises (NHS OE) is the international marketing arm of the national health service (NHS) in England. NHS OE exists to provide overseas clients with a central point of access to the wealth of skill and expertise within the NHS and other organisations offering health related expertise. Current projects include establishing a management training college in Russia; commissioning a private hospital in Turkey; and planning and developing two health care colleges in Saudi Arabia.

  Low-income Scheme
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the average cost of processing a claim made under the health benefits low-income scheme; and what plans she has to simplify that scheme;

  (2) if she will introduce a provision for claiming optical refunds under the health benefits low-income scheme in line with the rules for claiming a refund of prescription charges and dental treatment;

  (3) how many staff were engaged in the administration of the health benefits low-income scheme at Newcastle in (a) March 1991, (b) March 1992 and (c) March 1993;

  (4) when she proposes to revise the health benefits low-income scheme claim form AG1.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The numbers of staff at the health benefits unit in Newcastle engaged in the administration of the national health service low-income scheme were(a) 364·5 (whole-time equivalent (WTE)) in March 1991, (b) 363·5 (WTE) in March 1992 and (c) 341 (WTE) in March 1993.

  The average cost of processing a claim in 1993–94 is estimated to be £6·61. Final decisions on any measures to

  427
  simplify the scheme or to improve its effectiveness will be taken as part of the fundamental review of health expenditure. The content of the claim form AG1 will be considered in the light of those decisions.

  Negative Growth
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each regional health authority, the number of district health authorities that received negative growth revenue for the financial year(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  Revenue allocations to district health authorities are the responsibility of regional health authorities and detailed information is not routinely collected centrally. Details of the main revenue allocations in respect of resident population have been collected in a consistent and comparable format for the first time for 1993–94 but these amounts do not represent the total revenue allocation per district.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Peniston (Mr. Clapham) on 23 February at columns 546–47, for a list of the 24 districts which received less funding at constant prices for resident population in 1993–94 than in 1992–93.

  Schizophrenia
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions for emergency beds she is making for victims of schizophrenia.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is the responsibility of district health authorities to purchase, having regard to available resources, mental health services including emergency provision appropriate to the needs of their local population.

  Asthma Deaths
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in each standard age group died from asthma in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  Deaths from asthma (international classification of diseases 493) by standard age group for the past five years are published in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys series DH2, "Mortality Statistics", table 2.

  Data for 1992—not yet published—are shown in the table:

  Deaths from asthma (ICD 493) by standard age group, for 1992 in England and Wales.

  Age group

  Total

  Under 1

  1

  1–4

  10

  5–9

  3

  10–14

  6

  15–19

  20

  GP Contracts (Health Promotion)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she has decided on payment levels for the new general practitioner contract health promotion and diabetes and asthma management programmes.
  428
  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have decided that the payment levels for the new programmes which take effect on 1 July should be as follows:

  Annual payment for a General Practitioner with average Great Britain list size (adjustments pro rata for other list sizes)

  £

  Health Promotion Programmes

  Band 1 (programmes to reduce smoking)

  420

  Band 2 (programmes for patients at risk from hypertension, or with established coronary heart disease (CHD) or stroke)

  1,135

  Band 3 (full programme for prevention of CHD and stroke)

  2,015

  Diabetes and Asthma Programmes

  Annual Payments

  Diabetes Allowance (per GP)

  350

  Asthma Allowance (per GP)

  350

  There will also be a transitional protection scheme: final details of this remain under discussion with the General Medical Services Committee of the British Medical Association.

  Novopens
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has as to the multiple use of novopens by diabetics; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has had in favour of the inclusion of novopens for insulin injection on the prescribable list.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have received a number of representations on the matter of novopens and the associated special needles. Their inclusion in the general practitioner prescribable list must, like all new additions to the list, be subject to the availability of resources.

  Project 2000
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 59, how many Project 2000 nurses were in training in 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Sackville
  There were 3,000 Project 2000 nurses in training in September 1990 and 10,500 in September 1991.

  NHS Equipment
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the value of donated equipment(a) held by NHS trusts and health authorities at 31 March 1992 and (b) acquired by NHS trusts and health authorities over the preceding year.

  Mr. Sackville
  The summarised accounts of health authorities and of national health service trusts in England for 1991–92 show the total net book values of equipment acquired through donations at 31 March 1992 as £91 million and £28·3 million respectively.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 27 May at column 677 for information on the acquisition of assets from donations.

TRANSPORT

  Armed Forces Railcard
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the continuation of the armed forces railcard after railway privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail operates the armed forces railcard for commercial reasons: it helps to encourage use of the railway and fill seats which might otherwise be empty. The new private operators will doubtless market their services vigorously. I am sure that they will offer a range of discounted tickets in addition to the discount schemes that they will be required to provide for senior citizens, disabled people and young people. However, this will be a commercial matter for the new operators.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement on the construction of the extension of the Jubilee line.

  Mr. Norris
  Once a satisfactory conclusion has been reached in the negotiations between London Transport and the parties involved with the financing of Canary Wharf on the basis of their contribution to the Jubilee line extension, the Secretary of State will authorise the start of construction.

  A27 (Worthing Bypass)
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements have been made to inform constituents of the right hon. Member for Worthing who have objected to the Government's preferred route for the A27 and prefer a bypass of the arrangements for the public inquiry; what deadline has been set for the proposal of alternatives to the Government route; and what assessment he has made of whether all objectors will receive notice in sufficient time to prepare representations.

  Mr. Key
  All those who have submitted objections to the published proposals for the A27 Worthing-Lancing improvement scheme have already been notified about the arrangements for the public inquiry starting on 28 September. Those wishing to propose an alternative have been requested to submit details to the Department by 18 June. This will enable a plan of the alternatives to be drawn up by the Department's consultants and for it to be published in sufficient time for the public to prepare their representations on it before the start of the inquiry.

  Rail Freight
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will supply figures for freight tonnage carried by rail for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is given in table 1.9 of "Transport Statistics Great Britain 1992", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  A27
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to check whether letters he has sent to the constituents of the right hon. Member for 430
  Worthing who objected to the Government's preferred route for the A27 have been delivered; and if he will extend the deadline of 18 June for submissions on alternative routes.

  Mr. Key
  In accordance with the Department's normal practice, all those who have objected to the published proposals for the A27 Worthing-Lancing improvement scheme were sent details of the forthcoming public inquiry by recorded delivery. Any items not delivered by the Post Office are returned to the Department. To date, four of the 1,098 notifications issued have been returned.

  Alternative proposals need to be received by 18 June so that the Department's consultants can prepare a plan of each alternative for discussion with the proposer and publication in sufficient time for the public to consider and comment on it before the start of the inquiry on 28 September.

  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a map showing the location of the proposed temporary relief road for the A27 referred to in his statement of 20 May,Official Report, column 476.

  Mr. Key
  The location of the temporary highway proposed as part of the scheme for the A27 Worthing-Lancing improvement is shown on the published site plan 2 of the draft A27 Trunk Road (Worthing-Lancing Improvement Side Roads) Order. I am sending a copy of the relevant extract to my right hon. Friend.

  Hospital Ships
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will explore the possibility of a feasibility study on hospital ships within the terms of reference of European objective I status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have been asked to reply.

  Objective 1 funds are not likely to be available for shipbuilding projects.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ozone-depleting Substances
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce guidelines to all Government Departments to secure that all future purchases made do not involve ozone-depleting substances and that the policy be reflected within specifications given to contractors and suppliers.

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is arranging a meeting of green Ministers to discuss a number of environmental issues, including the treatment of ozone-depleting substances in departmental green housekeeping strategies.

  Turkish Cyprus
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussion he has had with other European Heads of State on the imposition of appropriate sanctions against the illegal regime in Turkish Cyprus.

  The Prime Minister
  None. The question of imports to the United Kingdom from northern Cyprus is the subject of a case pending before the European Court of Justice.

  Mr. Asil Nadir
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Turkish President regarding the presence of Mr. Asil Nadir in Turkish Cyprus.

  The Prime Minister
  Her Majesty's ambassador in Ankara has made our desire for the return of Nadir clear to the Turkish Government. The Turkish authorities are co-operating with us in the investigation.

  Cash (£ thousands)

  1992–93 prices (£ thousands)

  Salaries

  Other costs

  Total1 2

  Salaries

  Other costs

  Total1 2

  1980–81

  —

  —

  1,745

  —

  —

  3,528

  1981–82

  —

  —

  2,415

  —

  —

  4,452

  1982–83

  —

  —

  2,700

  —

  —

  4,647

  1983–84

  —

  —

  3,026

  —

  —

  4,978

  1984–85

  —

  —

  3,787

  —

  —

  5,929

  1985–86

  1,403

  3,003

  4,406

  2,083

  3,738

  5,821

  1986–87

  1,670

  3,293

  4,963

  2,402

  4,736

  7,138

  1987–88

  1,763

  3,655

  5,418

  2,404

  4,982

  7,386

  1988–89

  1,904

  4,650

  6,554

  2,420

  5,909

  8,329

  1989–90

  2,159

  5,510

  7,669

  2,574

  6,570

  9,144

  1990–91

  2,386

  5,840

  8,226

  2,634

  6,447

  9,081

  1991–92

  2,628

  6,036

  8,664

  2,720

  6,247

  8,967

  1992–93

  2,903

  6,962

  9,865

  2,903

  6,962

  9,865

  1993–94 3

  3,297

  7,406

  10,703

  3,209

  7,208

  10,417

  Notes:

  1 The figures represent the cost of 10 Downing street and Chequers borne on the votes of the Cabinet Office (OPSS) and its predecessors. Over the period, the following changes have occurred to the basis of the costs:

  in 1981–82 the Ministry of Defence introduced charges for the use of its aircraft;

  in 1983–84 the then Property Services Agency introduced charges for buildings and services;

  in 1984–85 charges were introduced for the Government Car Service and the Service personnel at Chequers; and

  in 1986–87 the cost of office services was included for the first time and in April 1992 26 office service posts were formally added to the complement of No. 10 Downing street. These staff were already working in No. 10 but were previously on the complement of the Cabinet Office establishments officer.

  2 Costs are shown in the year in which the expenditure was made. Because of billing delays, this is not always in the financial year in which the goods or services were provided.

  3 1993–94 budget.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Group 4
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the difference between the unit costs per prisoner movement specified in the contract with Group 4 escort services and the actual costs per prisoner movement to date.

  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 14 June 1993.
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about unit costs per prisoner movement for the court escort service.
  The court escort contract is not based on a unit cost per prisoner movement since costs are related not only to the number of prisoner movements, but also to the geographical distribution and the length of the journeys involved. The contract price is based on an estimate of the peak demand and distribution of journeys with which the contractor is expected to cope.

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

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 June 1993]: Salary information for the years prior to 1985–86 is not available separately. The available information is as follows:

  Temazepam
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had recently about a possible rescheduling of temazepam; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  In view of the current level of misuse, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has been reviewing the statutory controls on temazepam. In November 1992 the council recommended in principle that the supply and possession of the drug should be subject to stricter controls and that it should be transferred from schedule 4 to schedule 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985.

  The Home Office subsequently sought comments on this proposal from over 100 organisations and profession-al bodies, including the principal manufacturers of temazepam. The advisory council has recently considered the responses to this consultation, and I expect shortly to receive its conclusions.

  Prisons
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place copies in the Library of the specifications for the contracts to run the Wolds and Strangeways prisons.
  433
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Reponsibility 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.

  Leter from Derek Lewis to Mr. John McAllion, dated 14 June 1993:

  WOLDS AND STRANGEWAYS PRISONS
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking if copies can be placed in the Library of the specifications for the contracts to run Wolds and Strangeways prisons.
  A copy of the operational specification for HM Prison Wolds, which formed part of the tender documents and the contract service requirement, was placed in the Library of the House on 2 May 1991. Similarly, a copy of the operational specification for HM Prison Manchester was placed in the Library on 27 October 1992.

  Rape
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by year for the last five years, and for the current year to date(a) the number of cases of (i) rape and (ii) attempted rape of women reported and (b) the number of successful convictions that ensued.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of offences recorded by the police and the number of males convicted of rape is contained in the table.

  England and Wales

  Year

  Number of offences recorded1

  Number of males convicted

  Rape

  Attempted rape

  Other2

  1988

  2,855

  413

  79

  7

  1989

  2,305

  471

  111

  6

  1990

  3,391

  455

  78

  8

  1991

  4,045

  466

  64

  7

  1992

  4,142

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1 Offences of attempted rape are included in the rape classification and cannot be separately identified.

  2 Includes man having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective (Sexual Offences Act 1956 S7 as amended by Mental Health Act 1959, S127); male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home having unlawful sexual intercourse with female patient (Mental Health Act 1959 S128(l)(a)): and man having unlawful sexual intercouse with mentally disordered female patient who is subject to this care (Mental Health Act 1959 S1 28(1)(b)).

  3 Not yet available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken since the publication of his Department's research and planning unit paper 71 relating to rape.

  Mr. Maclean
  This research examined court cases dating from 1985 and was published in March of this year. Government policies on rape since the time of the original research have focused on achieving improvements in the treatment of victims and in encouraging them to report these crimes. As the research paper acknowledges, important changes in the handling of rape cases have also occurred, with the establishment of the Crown Prosecution Service and the issue of clear guidance from the Court of Appeal on the sentences which should be imposed on those convicted of violent and sexual crime.

  Following Home Office guidance in 1986, the police are increasingly alert to the special needs of rape victims. Rape
  434
  examination units have been set up. The aim is to treat victims sensitively and to provide them with information about medical support and counselling services. It is believed that this has encouraged more women to come forward to report to the police that they have been raped.

  Action against rape also involves a range of measures designed to ensure that offenders are brought to justice, punished appropriately, and treated, where possible, so as to reduce the risk of their re-offending. The maximum penalty for attempted rape was increased to life imprisonment in the Sexual Offences Act 1985, and anonymity for rape victims was strengthened in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. In addition, the Criminal Justice Act 1991 provides courts with powers to impose sentences which reflect the need to protect the public from serious harm.

  Bosnian Refugees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the quota of 1,0000 ex-detainees to be accepted from prison camps in Bosnia, together with their families/dependants, to be reached.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No estimate can be given. The rate of arrival in the United Kingdom is dependent on the rate of referral by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The referral rate is in turn affected by the rate at which releases can be negotiated by the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the international organisations' ability to transport dependants across difficult and dangerous areas in Bosnia to Croatia.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what official monitoring is taking place at the transit camp in Karlovac, Bosnia, of the processing of ex-detainees' applications to come to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The arrangements for the protection, accommodation, screening and monitoring of former detainees at the transit camp in Karlovac, Croatia, are the responsibility of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The UNHCR is in regular contact with the British embassy in Zagreb but there is no official United Kingdom representation at the camp.

  Animal Testing
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidelines he has introduced to control and monitor non-medical testing on animals; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what controls and safeguards he has introduced to ensure that essential medical research experiments on animals are carried out humanely and with the minimum of suffering; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Section 5(3) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 specifies the purposes for which scientific work on living animals may be performed. Most of these are concerned in some direct way with human, animal or plant health, but the definition extends also to work designed to promote progress generally in the biological or behavioural sciences, or undertaken in the context of tertiary and higher education and training or forensic science. Other provisions of the Act ensure that
  435
  work is permitted for any of these purposes only where fully justified, and subject to strict controls designed to protect the welfare of the animals concerned.

  Metropolitan Police (Attacks)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women police officers serving in the Metropolitan police suffered physical injuries by being attacked either with a firearm or a knife in the course of their police duties during the year 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  During 1992, 46 Metropolitan police officers were injured with either a firearm or sharp instrument. Of these, 44 were male officers and two were female officers.

  Police First Aid Training
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what intervals after their basic training police officers receive updating of their first aid training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  All probationary constables are trained to St. John Ambulance certificate level at the district training centres.

  After completion of the foundation course, responsibility for further first aid training falls to individual police forces. Some continue with the St. John Ambulance service, which has a re-qualification period of three years, while others run their own courses under the auspices of other bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive or the Red Cross. The re-qualification period under these schemes varies from force to force.

  Prince Tomislav of Jugoslavia
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions are placed on political activity as a condition of residence for foreigners in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on the case of Prince Tomislav of Jugoslavia.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None. Foreign nationals are, of course, subject to the normal criminal law and may be liable to deportation if they engage in activities which render their presence not conducive to the public good. Prince Tomislav Karadjordjevich has been lawfully resident in the United Kingdom for many years.

  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the theoretical entitlement, in terms of number of parliamentary constituencies, of each English county and London borough for 1991 and for 1993.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The theoretical entitlement in terms of parliamentary constituencies for counties and London boroughs in 1991 is listed. These figures form the basis on which the Boundary Commission for England is conducting its general review of parliamentary constituencies. Corresponding figures for 1993 are not yet available.436

  County

  Theoretical entitlement

  Greater Manchester

  27·78

  Merseyside

  15·72

  South Yorkshire

  14·54

  Tyne and Wear

  12·65

  West Midlands

  28·61

  West Yorkshire

  22·75

  Avon

  10·48

  Bedfordshire

  5·61

  Berkshire

  7·92

  Buckinghamshire

  6·82

  Cambridgeshire

  7·09

  Cheshire

  10·67

  Cleveland

  6·04

  Cornwall

  5·34

  Cumbria

  5·55

  Derbyshire

  10·49

  Devon

  11·34

  Dorset

  7·56

  County Durham

  6·80

  East Sussex

  7·93

  Essex

  17·06

  Gloucestershire

  5·94

  Hampshire

  17·19

  Hereford and Worcester

  7·59

  Hertfordshire

  10·78

  Humberside

  9·69

  Isle of Wight

  1·47

  Kent

  16·67

  Lancashire

  15·44

  Leicestershire

  9·69

  Lincolnshire

  6·60

  Norfolk

  8·48

  Northamptonshire

  6·32

  Northumberland

  3·44

  North Yorkshire

  8·02

  Nottinghamshire

  11·32

  Oxfordshire

  6·06

  Shropshire

  4·53

  Somerset

  5·26

  Staffordshire

  11·63

  Suffolk

  6·95

  Surrey

  11·24

  Warwickshire

  5·46

  West Sussex

  8·05

  Wiltshire

  6·21

  London borough

  Theoretical entitlement

  Barking and Dagenham

  1·61

  Barnet

  3·07

  Bexley

  2·43

  Brent

  2·54

  Bromley

  3·33

  Camden

  1·79

  Croydon

  3·42

  Ealing

  2·75

  Enfield

  2·85

  Greenwich

  2·30

  Hackney

  1·91

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1·44

  Haringey

  2·09

  Harrow

  2·12

  Havering

  2·61

  Hillingdon

  2·59

  Hounslow

  2·25

  Islington

  1·60

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1·24

  Kingston upon Thames

  1·35

  Lambeth

  2·45

  Lewisham

  2·53

  Merton

  1·76

  Newham

  2·26

  Redbridge

  2·51

  437

  London borough

  Theoretical entitlement

  Richmond upon Thames

  1·66

  Southwark

  2·57

  Sutton

  1·82

  Tower Hamlets

  1·53

  Waltham Forest

  2·38

  Wandsworth

  2·83

  Westminster

  1·57

  City of London

  0·06

  Guards Divisions (Germany)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the Metropolitan police of closing the M4 for the tanks of the Life Guards and Blues and Royals to return to Windsor on 28 May following Thursday's Horse Guards Parade ceremony and of policing the journey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The motorway was not closed. Cars were prevented from entering the motorway temporarily as the convoy approached each junction in order to allow it to proceed en bloc.

  The escort was provided at no additional cost to the Metropolitan police.

  Prison Service (Market Testing)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Prison Service staff will be involved in market-testing exercises between September 1993 and March 1995; and how many prison establishments will be involved.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The functions being market tested in the Prison Service up to September 1993 were included in the "Citizens's Charter First Report 1992". There are approximately 1,800 posts in these areas. This is still our existing programme, although some areas being market tested will overrun the original target date for completion.

  The chief executive of the Prison Service will make recommendations to me later this year on the extent, form and timetable for private sector involvement in the management of prisons. This will include recommendations on future candidates for market testing.

  Crimes (Weapons)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the number of reported criminal cases covering the Metropolitan police area for the year 1992 in which a knife or a gun was used during the furtherance of a criminal act.

  Mr. Maclean
  The number of offences in which a knife was used are not collected centrally.

  The latest available figures for notifiable offences recorded by the Metropolitan police in which a firearm was reported to have been used, for 1991, were published in "Criminal statistics, England and Wales, Supplementary tables 1991", volume 3, table S3.1(A), a copy of which is in the Library.

  False Arrest
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now introduce a scheme to compensate all those held in custody and subsequently 438
  found innocent of charges aganist them on a daily payment basis between the times they are first charged and the day on which they are released.

  Mr. Maclean
  Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides for compensation to be paid to a person whose conviction is quashed on an appeal out of time where a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice. In addition, I am willing to authorise ex gratia payments in cases not falling within the statutory provision in the circumstances set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) on 29 November 1985, at columns 691–92. In all cases where the payment of compensation is approved, the amount awarded is determined after consideration by an independent assessor, who applies principles analogous to those governing the assessment of damages for civil wrongs.

  It has been the long-standing policy of successive Governments that compensation should not be payable merely because at the trial or on appeal the prosecution was unable to sustain the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to the specific charge that was brought, and I have no plans to change this policy by introducing a scheme of automatic compensation for all persons held in custody and subsequently acquitted.

  Operation Bumblebee
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the success of Operation Bumblebee in the London borough of Newham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Operation Bumblebee, the Metropolitan police service's campaign against burglary, was extended to all its areas, including that covering the London borough of Newham, on 1 June 1993. It is too early to assess its success. However, 40 premises have already been searched and 22 arrests have been made within the borough. It would seem that the success of the operation in drawing on the support of local people, is likely to be repeated in Newham as it has been elsewhere in London.

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications from(a) husbands, (b) fiancés, (c) wives and (d) fiancées have been (i) decided, (ii) granted and (iii) refused in (A) Bombay, (B) New Delhi, (C) Madras, (D) Calcutta, (E) Islamabad, (F) Karachi, (G) Dhaka, (H) Colombo, (J) Manila and (K) Bangkok in each quarter since March 1992; how many such applications in each category and for each quarter were refused (1) wholly and (2) partly because the officer was not satisfied (I) that the primary purpose of the marriage was not immigration or (II) that the couple could support and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds; what was the refusal rate in each instance; and what percentage of these refusals was (v) wholly and (w) partly on primary purpose grounds, and (x) wholly and (y) partly on support and accommodation grounds.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information for the Indian sub-continent for each quarter of 1992 and for the first quarter of 1993 is given in the tables. Where the numbers
  439
  are small, figures for the individual posts have been combined. Information on refusals which takes account of

  Table 1

  Decisions on applications from Spouses and Fiance(e)s applying in the Indian Sub-continent for entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom

  Number of persons or percentage Husbands

  1992

  1993

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  Year

  1st quarter

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Applications decided

  70

  60

  120

  100

  360

  90

  Applications granted1

  50

  40

  90

  70

  250

  60

  Application refused initially

  30

  30

  40

  30

  130

  30

  Refusal rate (percentage)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  28

  n/a

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Applications decided

  110

  80

  150

  70

  420

  90

  Applications granted2

  50

  50

  150

  60

  320

  70

  Application refused initially

  70

  40

  40

  30

  170

  30

  Refusal rate (percentage)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  21

  n/a

  Dhaka

  Applications decided

  110

  160

  340

  250

  880

  n/a

  Applications granted

  70

  110

  290

  250

  730

  n/a

  Application refused initially

  50

  70

  90

  60

  270

  n/a

  Refusal rate (percentage)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  15

  n/a

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Applications decided

  730

  620

  1,080

  1,030

  3,480

  1,090

  Applications granted2

  340

  470

  840

  730

  2,370

  660

  Application refused initially

  520

  290

  340

  400

  1,550

  550

  Refusal rate (percentage)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  28

  n/a

  Number of persons or percentage Fiances

  1992

  1993

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  Year

  1st quarter

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Applications decided

  60

  20

  30

  40

  160

  50

  Applications granted2

  30

  10

  10

  10

  70

  20

  Application refused initially

  30

  10

  20

  30

  100

  30

  Refusal rate (percentage)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  54

  n/a

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Applications decided

  50

  40

  30

  60

  180

  40

  Applications granted2>

  10

  20

  20

  30

  70

  20

  Application refused initially

  50

  30

  20

  40

  140

  30

  Refusal rate (percentage)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  61

  n/a

  Dhaka

  Applications decided

  (1)

  (1)

  (1)

  (1)

  (1)

  n/a

  Applications granted2

  (1)

  (1)

  (1)

  (1)

  (1)

  n/a

  Application refused initially

  (1)

  (1)

  (1)

  (1)

  (1)

  n/a

  Refusal rate (percentage)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  (3)

  n/a

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Applications decided

  40

  60

  40

  40

  190

  40

  Applications granted2

  30

  30

  30

  20

  110

  30

  Application refused initially

  30

  50

  30

  30

  140

  30

  Refusal rate (percentage)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  42

  n/a

  Number of persons or percentage Wives

  1992

  1993

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  Year

  1st quarter

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Applications decided

  200

  170

  240

  230

  830

  00

  Applications granted2

  180

  160

  190

  190

  700

  160

  Application refused initially

  30

  30

  50

  50

  150

  40

  Refusal rate (percentage)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  15

  n/a

  440
  successful appeals is not compiled for periods shorter than 12 months. Corresponding information for Colombo, Manila and Bangkok is not available centrally.
  441

  Number of persons or percentage Wives

  1992

  1993

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  Year

  1st quarter

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Applications decided

  370

  290

  320

  290

  1,270

  210

  Applications granted2

  330

  270

  300

  260

  1,160

  200

  Application refused initially

  50

  30

  30

  40

  140

  20

  Refusal rate (percentage)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  8

  n/a

  Dhaka

  Applications decided

  260

  180

  220

  350

  1,000

  n/a

  Applications granted2

  220

  160

  200

  290

  870

  n/a

  Application refused initially

  40

  30

  30

  60

  150

  n/a

  Refusal rate (percentage)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  12

  n/a

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Applications decided

  950

  680

  680

  730

  3,040

  920

  Applications granted2

  830

  620

  590

  630

  2,670

  780

  Application refused initially

  140

  80

  100

  120

  440

  160

  Refusal rate (percentage)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  12

  n/a

  Fiancees

  Number of persons or percentage

  1992

  1993

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  Year

  1st quarter

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Applications decided

  50

  40

  50

  50

  170

  50

  Applications granted2

  30

  20

  30

  30

  110

  30

  Application refused initially

  20

  20

  20

  20

  70

  20

  Refusal rate (percentage)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  35

  n/a

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Applications decided

  40

  40

  30

  60

  180

  30

  Applications granted2

  30

  20

  20

  50

  130

  30

  Application refused initially

  10

  20

  10

  10

  50

  1—

  Refusal rate (percentage)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  25

  n/a

  Dhaka

  Applications decided

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  20

  n/a

  Applications granted2

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  10

  n/a

  Application refused initially

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  10

  n/a

  Refusal rate (percentage)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  46

  n/a

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Applications decided

  60

  40

  50

  50

  190

  40

  Applications granted2

  40

  30

  40

  40

  150

  30

  Application refused initially

  20

  10

  10

  10

  40

  10

  Refusal rate (percentage)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  20

  n/a

  1 Five or fewer.

  2 Granted initially or on appeal.

  3 Percentage not calculated for five or fewer applicants refused.

  n/a = Not available.

  Note: All figures are rounded to the nearest 10 except percentages.

  Table 2

  Spouses and fiance(e)s in the Indian sub-continent refused2 entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom in 1992 on grounds of primary purpose or accommodation and maintenance

  Number refused because primary purpose of the marriage was to obtain admission to the United Kingdom

  Number refused because couple could not accommodate and/or maintain themselves without recourse to public funds

  Soley for this reason

  Partly for this reason

  Soley for this reason

  Partly for this reason

  (a) Number of persons refused2 for year 1992

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Husbands

  70

  10

  1—

  10

  Fiances

  70

  10

  1—

  10

  Wives

  70

  20

  10

  20

  Fiancees

  40

  10

  1—

  1—

  442 443

  Number refused because primary purpose of the marriage was to obtain admission to the United Kingdom

  Number refused because couple could not accommodate and/or maintain themselves without recourse to public funds

  Soley for this reason

  Partly for this reason

  Soley for this reason

  Partly for this reason

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Husbands

  80

  10

  1—

  10

  Fiances

  90

  10

  1—

  10

  Wives

  50

  20

  10

  20

  Fiancees

  20

  10

  1—

  10

  Dhaka

  Husbands

  50

  40

  30

  30

  Fiances

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Wives

  10

  10

  40

  20

  Fiancees

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Husbands

  560

  430

  110

  380

  Fiances

  60

  10

  10

  10

  Wives

  40

  40

  200

  40

  Fiancees

  1—

  10

  10

  10

  (b) Number of persons refused2 as a percentage of total refusals2 for year 1992

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Husbands

  69

  12

  3—

  12

  Fiances

  82

  11

  3—

  10

  Wives

  59

  16

  9

  16

  Fiancees

  66

  21

  3—

  3—

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Husbands

  82

  11

  3—

  10

  Fiances

  80

  8

  3—

  7

  Wives

  50

  14

  11

  14

  Fiancees

  46

  18

  3—

  16

  Dhaka

  Husbands

  35

  29

  20

  20

  Fiances

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Wives

  9

  7

  31

  20

  Fiancees

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Husbands

  51

  39

  10

  35

  Fiances

  65

  13

  7

  12

  Wives

  10

  10

  54

  11

  Fiancees

  3—

  30

  30

  38

  Notes: All figures are rounded to the nearest 10 except percentages.

  1 Five or fewer.

  2 Applications refused initially, minus applications granted on appeal.

  3Percentage not calculated for five or fewer applications refused.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken or plans to take to adopt into domestic legislation the resolution concerning host third countries adopted in London on 30 November by the Ministers responsible for immigration.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The draft immigration rules on asylum that have been made available to accompany the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill are consistent with the principles of this resolution. A final version of the rules will be laid before Parliament following enactment of the Bill.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a draft convention parallel to the Dublin convention will be placed before the meeting of the Ministers responsible for immigration of the EC states at their meeting on 1 and 2 June in Copenhagen; and to which countries the draft convention will be opened.
  444
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Ministers have agreed that substantive negotiations with third countries on a draft convention parallel to the Dublin convention cannot take place until all 12 member states have ratified the Dublin convention. However, preliminary discussions have been conducted with Austria, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden and Canada and these are being extended to other interested European states.

  Automated Fingerprint Recognition
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the report submitted to the Ministers responsible for immigration at their meeting of 30 November in London by the ad hoc group, immigration, on the establishment of a European automated fingerprint recognition system (EU RODAC).
  445
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No, it was not a public document, but a working paper reporting progress. Current work on EURODAC concerns the technical practicalities of such a system. No final decision has been taken on its creation.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis giving details of how many Metropolitan police officers have been suspended from duty for(a) more than one month, (b) more than three months and (c) more than one year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Of the 52 officers suspended from duty as at 1 June 1993, two officers have been suspended for less than one month, 13 have been suspended for one to three months, 34 have been suspended for three to 12 months, and three have been suspended for more than one year.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those parliamentary constituencies where the Metropolitan police area extends beyond the boundaries of the London boroughs.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The parliamentary constituencies where the Metropolitan police area extends beyond the boundaries of the London boroughs are:

  Brentford and Ongar

  Broxbourne

  Epping Forest

  Epsom and Ewell

  Harlow

  Hertsmere

  Reigate

  Spelthorne.

  Firearms
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the national rules of member states of the putative European union concerning the sale of firearms and other offensive weapons, including gases; and if he will state the number and title of any existing or forthcoming regulation or direction related thereto.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  European Community directive 91/477/EEC on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons was adopted in June 1991. The Firearms Acts (Amendment) Regulations 1992 implemented provisions of the directive in Great Britain with effect from 1 January 1993.

  The directive sets minimum standards which all member states must achieve in their domestic firearms controls including controls oil sales. Member states can have stricter controls than the minimum. The directive leaves it to member states to decide their own national controls on offensive weapons and gas spray devices. Full details of the extent to which other member states' controls exceed the directive's minimum requirements and of their controls on sales of other weapons have yet to be received.

  Turkish Cyprus
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps is he taking to prevent the entry into the United Kingdom of visitors from Turkish Cyprus who have no valid or internationally recognised travel documents;

  (2) what steps he is taking to prevent illegal travel documents issued by the Turkish Cypriot authorities being used for travel between Cyprus or Turkey and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The territorial entity calling itself the Turkish republic of northern Cyprus is not recognised by the United Kingdom and the travel documents which it issues are not accepted by the United Kingdom as valid travel documents. It is our present practice, however, to regard such documents as providing satisfactory evidence of identity and Cypriot citizenship, so that Cypriot citizens living in northern Cyprus are not on that ground prevented from entering the United Kingdom, provided that the other requirements of the immigration rules are met.

  Drugs (West Yorkshire)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many class A drug users were estimated to be in west Yorkshire; and how many drug-related criminal offences took place in west Yorkshire in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  The total number of persons notified to the Home Office as being addicted to class A drugs in west Yorkshire in 1992 is given in table A3 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Statistics of drug addicts notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom, 1992" (area tables). It is impossible to estimate the total number of class A drug users because of the clandestine nature of drug misuse.

  The number of persons found guilty or cautioned for offences against the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in west Yorkshire is given in table A2.1 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Statistics of drugs seizures and offenders dealt with, United Kingdom, 1991" (area tables). Copies of the bulletins are in the Library.

  Immigration (Channel Ports)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people arriving on a cross-channel ferry have been refused leave to enter the United Kingdom and removed since I January at(a) Dover western docks, (b) Dover eastern docks, (c) Folkestone and (d) Ramsgate.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is given in the table:

  Passengers refused leave to enter, and removed from,. selected ports in the period January to April 1993

  Port

  Number of persons

  Dover west

  42

  Dover east

  808

  Folkestone

  16

  Ramsgate

  11

  EC Immigration Ministers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what matters were discussed in the ad hoc group meeting of the Home Affairs Ministers responsible for immigration matters in the European Community at its meeting in June; what discussions arising from the meeting are continuing; and in what form conclusions will be presented to Parliament.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer to the answer which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary gave on 9 June 1993 at column 246, which gave an account of this meeting. Discussions will continue on a range of matters set out in the working programmes on immigration and asylum agreed by the European Council at Maastricht in December 1991.

  Admissions of working holidaymakers at United Kingdom ports

  Number of persons

  Nationality

  1990, May to December

  1991

  1992

  1993, January to March2

  Australia

  11,600

  14,200

  15,400

  3,540

  Canada

  1,800

  1,750

  1,750

  230

  Jamaica

  50

  30

  70

  1

  Malaysia

  30

  40

  30

  1

  New Zealand

  6,440

  7,260

  6,500

  1,290

  Zimbabwe

  160

  190

  170

  50

  Other Commonwealth

  120

  120

  130

  50

  TOTAL

  20,100

  23,600

  24,000

  5,160

  1 Five or fewer.

  2 Data are provisional.

EMPLOYMENT

  Coal Mine Statistics
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many fatalities per 1,000 manshifts there were for each of the last 10 complete years for which statistics are available(a) in private coal mines, (b) among subcontract workers doing work for British Coal and (c) among British Coal's employees.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A fatality rate based on manshifts is not available for private mines.

  The table shows the fatalities per 100,000 manshifts at British Coal Corporation—BCC—mines from 1985–86, the first year for which a discrete rate for BCC mines was calculated by the Health and Safety Executive's—HSE —inspectorate of mines.

  Fatal accidents to subcontractors at BCC mines are included in the rates shown in the table. Separate records for subcontractors have not been maintained by HSE.

  British Coal Corporation Mines

  Year

  Fatal Injury Rate per 100,000 Shifts1

  1985–86

  0·08

  1986–87

  0·05

  1987–88

  0·04

  1988–89

  0·08

  1989–90

  0·01

  1990–91

  0·07

  1991–92

  0·08

  1992–932

  0·03

  Working Holidaymakers Scheme
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the numbers and nationalities of individuals from the Commonwealth entering the United Kingdom on the working holidaymakers scheme for each year since 1990, and the first quarter of 1993; and what plans he has to alter the scheme.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 11 June 1993]: Reliable figures on admissions of working holidaymakers are available only from 1 May 1990 and are given in the table. The operation of the scheme is under review but there are no plans to abolish it.

  1 Includes accidents to contractors working at BCC mines

  1Provisional

  Women Chief Executives
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many women are currently chief executives of nationalised industries; and what monitoring he carries out of the number of women in chief executive positions in the private sector.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Currently there are no women chief executives of nationalised industries, although there are women on some of their boards. The Government encourage all employers to make the best use of women's talents at all levels in their organisations. It is for employers to ensure this is happening by monitoring. We firmly believe that women should be given every opportunity to advance their careers and progress to higher levels.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of people aged 18, 19, 20 and 21 years are currently out of work.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on claimant unemployment by pre-determined age bands, expressed as a percentage of the work force in those particular age bands, is available on a quarterly basis and only at national level. The latest available data for April are as follows:
  449

  Age group

  Unemployment rate

  18–19

  18·1

  20–24

  16·7

  The latest available labour force survey (LFS) data on unemployment by age in the United Kingdom—using the ILO measure of unemployment—are given in the following table:

  Unemployment by Age, United Kingdom, Spring 1992 LFS

  Thousands

  Age

  Unemployment rate1

  18

  14·8

  19

  18·3

  20

  17·9

  21

  16·8

  1 Unemployment as a percentage of those who are economically active.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish figures showing for each occupational group within the standard occupational classifications(a) the numbers currently employed and (b) the number of long-term unemployed claimants whose previous occupation fell within that group, giving the most recently available data.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The most recent available information from the labour force survey is given in the following table:

  Persons in employment by current occupation and long-term ILO unemployed claimants by previous occupation

  Great Britain (thousands)

  SOC major Occupations

  In employment1

  Long-term ILO unemployed Claimants2

  All persons

  324,967

  3759

  1. Managers and administrators

  3,803

  46

  2. Professional occupations

  2,494

  10

  3. Associate professions and technical occupations

  2,239

  28

  4. Clerical, secretarial occupations

  3,827

  56

  5. Craft and related occupations

  3,386

  177

  6. Personal, protective occupations

  2,492

  43

  7. Sales occupations

  1,975

  35

  8. Plant and machine operatives

  2,382

  106

  9. Other occupations

  2,200

  127

  1 Includes employees, self-employed, those on government employment and training programmes, and unpaid family workers.

  2 Includes those who are ILO unemployed for more than a year and claiming unemployment related benefit.

  3 Includes those who did not state their occupations.

  Source: Labour Force Survey—Autumn (September-November) 1992 (not seasonally adjusted).

  Employee Representation
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the case submitted by the Government to the European Court of Justice, setting out its interpretation of the directive concerning employee representation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I assume that the question refers to applications lodged by the European Commission with 450
  the European Court of Justice which allege that the United Kingdom has failed fully to implement the acquired rights and collective redundancies directives. Communications between the court and the Government relating to these applications are confidential between the parties concerned.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many work permits were issued to non-EC persons in each of the last three years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of work permits issued by the Department in each of the last three years is as follows:

  Year

  Number of work permits issued

  1990

  43,619

  1991

  37,989

  1992

  37,917

  Apprentices
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of apprentices in each of the last 20 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available for the period requested. Estimates from the labour force survey since 1979 of the number of people in Great Britain undertaking apprenticeships are given in the following table:

  Numbers of apprentices by year

  (Great Britain)

  Spring each year

  Thousands

  1979

  367

  1981

  n.a.

  1983

  363

  1984

  332

  1985

  357

  1986

  318

  1987

  314

  1988

  329

  1989

  367

  1990

  352

  1991

  330

  1992

  325

  Source: Labour Force Survey.

  Working Hours
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment his Department has made of the health and safety implications of working long and unsocial hours.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department is advised on such matters by the Health and Safety Commission, which through its Executive, has commissioned or supported a wide range of research, including two reviews of the scientific evidence on the health and safety implications of shiftwork. In the light of available evidence we do not consider that there is a need for general restrictions on hours of work on health and safety grounds.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consultancy reports his Department has received concerning the misuse of funds and of independent bank accounts in relation to TECs; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department has received no consultancy reports concerning the misuse of funds and of independent bank accounts in relation to TECs.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, (1) pursuant to his answer of 25 February,Official Report, column 715, how many instances have now been notified to him of jobcentres advertising jobs at rates of pay below the relevant wages council minimum;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 25 February, Official Report, column 715, how standard managerial controls operate in cases where jobcentres have advertised jobs at rates of pay below the relevant wages council minimum.

  Mr. Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Alan Milburn dated 14 June 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Questions to him about Jobcentres advertisting jobs at rates of pay below the relevant Wages Council minimum and how standard managerial controls operate in such cases. This is something which falls within the responsibilities he has delegated to me as Chief Executive.
  One of your questions is about the number of instances of Jobcentres advertising jobs at rates of pay below the relevant Wages Council minimum. Jobcentres should not handle such vacancies and the number of cases where they do so are few and far between. I am of course aware of the recent case in Darlington where a vacancy was accepted which did not meet the minimum wage requirement. Previous to this two vacancies were inadvertently accepted last Autumn which were publicised in the Channel 4 programme "Cutting Edge".
  Your other question was how the management controls operate where such cases do arise. I can best answer by describing what happened in the Darlington case.
  When the case was brought to the attention of my Jobcentre Manager, the vacancy was immediately removed from display. The employer was contacted and the Wages Council minimum rate of pay was explained.
  After contacting the Wages Inspectorate the employer agreed to pay the minimum wage for the job. The vacancy details have been updated and put back on display.
  As well as informing the employer of the requirements of the Wages Council minimum wage my manager arranged for all 400 displayed vacancies to be double-checked to ensure that any which fell within the scope of the Wages Council Order did comply with the minimum rates of pay.
  I am sorry this incident arose. It has highlighted a possible loophole in our guidance, in that the employer's business was not covered by a Wages Council Order, though it is accepted that the particular occupation was. My people are looking again at the guidance issued to my Jobcentres, which was substantially revised just six months ago. Further guidance will be issued from my Head Office within the next four weeks.
  It is up to individual managers to determine how best to monitor the many requirements we have about receipt and display of vacancies in a way which best meets the local labour market situation and I can assure you that the arrangements work well.
  452
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Trentham Colliery
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much new money has been allocated to date and for the future to counter unemployment caused by compulsory redundancies at Trentham colliery; what percentage that is of the total money allocated to alleviate job losses in coal mining areas; and how that money is to be spent and by which department or agency acting on his behalf.

  Miss Widdecombe
  An additional £4·9 million has been made available to Staffordshire training and enterprise council (TEC) and the employment service to provide a range of further help for unemployed people in the Trentham colliery area. This is 6·5 per cent. of the extra £75 million available for additional assessment, jobsearch, training, retraining, assistance for new businesses and voluntary work. Staffordshire TEC plans to supplement this with a further £2 million of its own resources.

  This provision forms part of the £200 million regeneration package for pit closure areas made available by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of the Environment and English Estates. There is also help for redundant coalworkers provided by British Coal Enterprise.

  North Staffordshire Coalfield
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to keep all hon. Members representing the North Staffordshire coalfield fully and regularly briefed on all relevant initiatives undertaken by his Department, agencies or consultants acting on his behalf.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Major national initiatives are announced by the Department. Hon. Members are welcome to approach me at any time, but it might be quicker and more effective if they kept in touch with the Staffordshire training and enterprise council (TEC) and the local employment service (ES). Both Richard Ward, chief executive of Staffordshire TEC at Festival way, Festival park, Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire, ST1 5TP, and Joy Cross, ES area manager, Blackburn house, The Midway, Newcastle under Lyme, Staffordshire, ST5 1TJ, will be pleased to take inquiries from hon. Members at any time.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  United States Citizens
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Glasgow, Garscadden, (Mr. Dewar) of 29 April,Official Report, columns 526–27, how many other residents of the United States have received United Kingdom social security, housing or other benefits this year.

  Mr. Burt
  In December 1991, the latest date for which figures are currently available, 67,596 people resident in
  453
  the United States of America were receiving United Kingdom retirement and widows pensions. There are currently 1,080 residents of the United States of America in receipt of war pensions. Information on other benefits is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many requests for an appeal against a disability living allownce or attendance allowance decision for claims made on or after 3 February 1992 have been received; and how many of these and what percentage(a) have been successful, (b) have been unsuccessful and (c) remain outstanding.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested in connection to disability living allowance is in the table:

  Disability Living Allowance

  (Social Security and Disability Appeal Tribunals)

  3 February 1992 to 31 May 1993

  Number of Appeals

  Percentage

  Registered

  12,345

  —

  (a) Successful

  265

  2·1

  (b) Unsuccessful

  527

  4·3

  (c) Outstanding

  11,553

  93·6

  The information relating to attendance allowance is not available in the form requested. Information on attendance allowance cases heard at disability appeal tribunals is not currently available. The most recent information is as follows:

  Attendance Allowance

  (Social Security Appeal Tribunals only)

  1 January 1992 to 30 September 1992

  Number of appeals

  Percentage

  Registered

  309

  —

  Cases heard and decided

  175

  —

  (a) Successful

  60

  34·3

  (b) Unsuccessful

  115

  65·7

  (c) Outstanding at 30 September 1992

  313

  —

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to amend the entitlements currently enjoyed by those in receipt of disability living allowance to exemption from vehicle excise duty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the March 1992 Budget, the Chancellor announced the repeal of the disabled passengers scheme which grants exemption from vehicle excise duty to certain disabled people in receipt of attendance allowance or the care component of the disability living allowance. As my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General said in the Finance Bill debate on 12 March 1992, Official Report, columns 148–52, the repeal is to be effected by an appointed day order which will contain provisions to ensure that anyone currently benefiting from this scheme will continue to do so. The appointed day order has yet to be made.

  The repeal does not affect entitlement to VED exemption granted under the war pensioners mobility supplement or the higher rate mobility component of the disability living alowance, or to invalid carriages.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many invalidity benefit recipients in Great Britain received(a) invalidity benefit alone, (b) invalidity benefit with disability living allowance or attendance allowance but no income-related benefits and (c) invalidity benefit supplemented by one of the income-related benefits, at the latest available date.

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

  Number of Invalidity Benefit recipients in Great Britain—1,490,0001.

  Number of Invalidity Benefit recipients also receiving Attendance Allowance, but no Income Support—65,9002.

  Number of Invalidity Benefit recipients also receiving Income Support-—130,0003.

  Number of Invalidity Benefit recipients also receiving Housing Benefit/Community Charge Benefit but no Income Support—366,0004.

  Notes:

  1 Source: Departmental Report 1993—estimated average numbers receiving benefit at any one time in 1992–93. The figure includes Invalidity Benefit recipients who receive another benefit.
  2 Source: One per cent sample of incapacity benefit claimants at 30 March 1991. Information about the number of Invalidity Benefit recipients getting Disability Living Allowance is not available.
  3 Source: Annual Statistical Enquiry May 1992. Figures include beneficiaries also receiving Housing Benefit/ Community Charge Benefit.
  4 Source: One per cent sample of Housing Benefit/ Community Charge Benefit cases at May 1991.

  Income Support
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what considerations underlay his decision to delete paragraph 1(h) of the Income Support General Regulations 1987.

  Mr. Burt
  Paragraph 1(h) of schedule 3 to the Income Support (General) Regulations provided for housing costs analogous to those listed in preceding sub-paragraphs to be included in the calculation of benefit entitlement. This gave rise to inconsistent decisions by the independent adjudicating authorities. To clarify the position, an amendment was made to replace this with individual provisions for specific costs. A further addition in respect of chief rents will be made shortly.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make an income support payment to Mrs. J. Young of Melton road, King's Heath, in respect of buildings insurance obtained as a condition of a mortgage.

  Mr. Burt
  The Secretary of State has suspended payment of any awards in respect of buildings insurance following a commissioner's decision of 14 October 1992, pending the outcome of an appeal to the Court of Session.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support claimants who had to pay buildings insurance as a condition of their mortgage obtain their entitlement to receive payments for this in their income support housing costs for any appropriate period between 11 April 1988, when the flat rate supplementary benefit allowance for such costs was abolished, and 2 February 1993, when paragraph 1(h) of the Income Support General Regulations 1987 was abolished.
  455
  Mr. Burt
  On 14 October 1992 a social security commissioner decided that buildings insurance payable as a condition of a mortgage could be paid as an income support housing cost. At that time, there were some 500,000 people receiving help with their mortgages through income support. The Secretary of State has appealed against the commissioner's decision to the Court of Session and suspended payment of any awards made as result of it pending the outcome.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what instructions have been issued to officers of the Benefits Agency with regard to applications for income support from the spouses of EC citizens who have travelled to the United Kingdom for a treaty purpose; and if he will publish those instructions.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 11 June 1993:
  As Chief Executive to the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what instructions have been issued to officers of the Benefits Agency with regard to applications from spouses of EC citizens who have travelled to the United Kingdom for a treaty purpose; and if he will publish those instructions.
  It may help if I explain that instructions on dealing with claims from EC Nationals are held in the Adjudication Officer's Guide (AOG) and the Income Support Manual, which are available for inspection at Benefits Agency Offices, the House of Commons library and some public libraries.
  It should be noted that certain EC nationals may only remain in the UK under a treaty purpose on the proviso that they are not dependent on public funds. Where entitlement conditions are satisfied and payment due action is taken as with a claim from a United Kingdom citizen. Therefore, if a claim is received from one of a couple who are living apart, the Agency would ensure action was taken to contact the spouse and seek maintenance to reduce or remove the need for payment from public funds.
  Offices have recently been issued with an internal memo advising them of an amendment to Regulation 21 (3) of the Income Support (General) Regulations from 12 April 1993. This provides that a national of a Member state who is subject to a requirement to leave the United Kingdom will no longer be entitled to income support.
  The requirement to leave the United Kingdom will be issued by the Home Office to an EC National who has been seeking work in the United Kingdom and receiving Income Support for six months and has neither found work nor has any reasonable prosper of doing so.
  I hope this information is helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Benefits
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, what plans he has to reduce the nominal amount of income assumed on savings for calculation of benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  Although the rules on the treatment of savings are kept under review, we have no plans for change.

  Welfare State Review
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the insurance and pension companies he has met in the course of his review of the welfare state.

  Mr. Hague
  Ministers and officials regularly meet insurance and pension providers to discuss issues relevant to the policies of the Department.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Regional Orchestras
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy on regional orchestras; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Arts Council and the BBC are responsible for formulating policy relating to regional orchestras. They are collaborating on a joint review of orchestral provision, and a report will be considered by their governing councils later this year. A period of public consultation is planned subsequently.

  Longford Hall, Stretford
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the actions he has taken to secure the future of Longford hall, Stretford.

  Mr. Sproat
  I have received a report by English, Heritage on the works it considers urgently necessary for the building's preservation and am seeking the council's views.

  Channel 3 (Takeovers)
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to extend the moratorium on overseas takeovers of Channel 3 franchise companies.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have no present plans to do so, but I am meeting the ITV companies later today to hear their views on this, and other related issues.

  Stonehenge
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he next plans to visit Stonehenge to discuss the amenities there.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have no plans to visit Stonehenge in the near future in an official capacity.

  Magic
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he will take steps to encourage the promotion of magic as an art in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sproat
  Government support for the arts is provided at arm's length through the Arts Council of Great Britain. The council is prepared to consider any application for support on its individual merits.

  Departmental Building
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how the move to a new headquarters building will affect the discharge of his Department's responsibilities.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Department's move to a new headquarters building has enabled its three policy groups and other key elements to be brought together in one central location. This will greatly improve internal communication and lead to greater efficiency as well as enhanced co-ordination of the policy responsibilities.

  Tourism
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what initiatives he is taking to promote tourism in London.

  Mr. Sproat
  Government support for tourism is channelled through the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board. Via the English tourist board, support is also made available to the eleven regional tourist boards, including the London tourist board (LTB). The LTB has a number of initiatives to promote tourism in London, many involving partnerships with private sector organisations.

  In addition, the Government have set up the London Forum with the specific task of promoting London overseas. It will operate through two subsidiary companies. One of these, London Visitors, will be chaired by Sir Hugh Bidwell, chairman of the LTB, and will work closely with the LTB to promote tourism in the capital.

  Radio Frequencies (London)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to meet the director general of the Radio Authority to discuss AM/FM frequency allocations in London.

  Mr. Brooke
  I meet the chairman of the Radio Authority from time to time and discuss a range of issues. However, it is for the Radio Authority to determine the allocation of AM/FM frequencies assigned to the authority for services in London.

  Hotel and Catering Industry (Deregulation)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has made recently for deregulation in the hotel and catering industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe).

  Ancient Monuments
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage to what extent he has a duty to protect and restore ancient monuments, antiques and other important artefacts which are within public ownership.

  Mr. Sproat
  I have duties to compile a list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest and a schedule of monuments, the purpose of which is to provide these 458
  with statutory protection, whether they are in private or public ownership. In the case of listed buildings, the protection extends to objects or structures fixed to them or within their curtilage.

  I am also responsible for the maintenance of a number of buildings, memorials and statues directly in the care of my Department.

  The care of artefacts within museums and galleries is the responsibility of those institutions.

  Football Ground Safety
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress has been made on ground safety improvements at second and third division Football League clubs.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since 1990, £4,515,269 has been awarded by the Football trust for ground safety improvements by clubs in the second and third divisions of the Football League. Considerable progress has been made by a number of clubs, and I shall be looking to the Football Licensing Authority to ensure that clubs continue to improve the structure and management of their facilities.

  Television Signals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will take steps to impose an obligation on the BBC and ITV companies to transmit signals that can be received throughout the relevant regional television or franchise area.

  Mr. Brooke
  No. It is for the broadcasters to determine their own engineering priorities.

  British Library
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress has been made on the construction of the new British library.

  Mr. Sproat
  The first phase of the new building is substantially complete. Construction of the final phase began in May this year.

  Tourist Attractions (Signing)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the signing of tourist attractions.

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend and I receive correspondence on a wide range of issues of relevance to the tourism industry, including signing to tourist attractions. I have received a small number of letters concerning cases where applications for tourist signing have been refused since the basic criteria have not been met.

  London City Ballet
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with the Arts Council chairman concerning the impending closure of the London City Ballet.

  Mr. Brooke
  While I regret that London City Ballet has decided that it can no longer continue to operate, I cannot
  459
  intervene in matters relating to the funding of individual arts organisations, which under the arm's length principle are the responsibility of the Arts Council.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he is to have with the Arts Council chairman regarding funding support for organisations which find 90 per cent. of their income from private sources.

  Mr. Brooke
  I regularly meet the chairman of the Arts Council to discuss a wide range of issues. Decisions on the funding of individual arts organisations are a matter for the Arts Council.

  Libraries (Privatisation)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which local authorities have agreed to participate in the pilot scheme on privatising public libraries.

  Mr. Sproat
  I have no current plans, and have proposed no pilot schemes, for privatising public libraries. Every local library authority is statutorily responsible for providing a comprehensive, efficient and—for the most part—free library service in its area.

  As my right hon. Friend announced in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on 10 November 1992, at columns 685–87, we are examining the scope for contracting out the actual delivery of all or some aspects of the public library service. I propose as part of this examination to use as pilot projects some of the various models for specifying and contracting for library services which library authorities are themselves currently investigating.

  From those initially expressing interest, my Department has invited the following authorities to be involved in the exercise on this basis: Bromley; Cambridgeshire; Hereford and Worcester; Kent; Lincolnshire and Birmingham Libraries Co-operative Mechanisation Project—a co-operative group including several library authorities. Discussions with these authorities are continuing—though Bromley has indicated that it no longer wishes to proceed with its proposed project, and has consequently withdrawn its interest. It may be that other authorities and projects will be added before the overall coverage of the exercise is finalised.

  Football
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information he has on attendance figures at soccer matches held between clubs at a senior level of the game in leagues in the pyramid below those of the Football League.

  Mr. Brooke
  The average home attendance figures for matches in pyramid leagues for 1991–92—the latest year for which complete figures are available—are as follows:

  Attendance

  GM Vauxhall Conference

  1,214

  Diadora League

  512

  Beazer Homes League

  558

  Northern League

  348

  Statues
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what action his Department is taking to protect statuary for which he is responsible from further damage due to the careless and unsupervised cleaning of the external fabric of buildings of which they form a part;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the damage done to the statues of Inigo Jones and Andrea Palladio by Michael Rysbrack during the external cleaning of the fabric of Chiswick house, London; and what lessons have been learnt arising from this incident.

  Mr. Brooke
  The two statues by Michael Rysbrack were cleaned in 1987, at the same time as the decorative architectural detail of the house, using an air, water and abrasive mixture. Though the cleaning process was criticised at the time, both English Heritage and the leading conservators who were consulted found no evidence of significant damage. English Heritage has since made a major commitment to the conservation of the statuary at Chiswick house and has commissioned a survey of the condition of individual sculptures. On the basis of this survey, it plans to spend over £70,000 over the next five years on the outside statuary at Chiswick. Last autumn, it opened a new gallery at Chiswick house devoted to housing the garden statuary, and it plans to move the Rysbrack statues there next year, until such time as their security can be safeguarded.

  English Heritage now has full condition surveys for sculpture at all of its sites, with prioritised action plans, and its architectural conservation branch is currently engaged in Britain's largest research programme on stone decay and treatment.

  BBC Governors
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to make an announcement on the appointment of the new governors of the BBC.

  Mr. Brooke
  As soon as Her Majesty the Queen has made the appointments.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much public money has been distributed(a) to arts activities and (b) sports activities in the past five years; how much is expected to be distributed to each as a result of the National Lottery etc. Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government fund the arts mainly through the Arts Council of Great Britain. The Arts Council's grant in aid for each year since 1989 is as follows:

  £ million

  1989–90

  155·5

  1990–91

  175·9

  1991–92

  1194·2

  1992–93

  221·2

  1993–94

  225·6

  1 Plus a special payment of £10·8 million to enable the English National Opera to buy the freehold of the Coliseum.

  461
  The Government also fund the business sponsorship incentive scheme, the theatres restoration fund and various research projects. For 1993–94, total central Government expenditure additional to the Arts Council's grant in aid will be approximately £5·6 million.

  Local authorities also fund arts activities but no definitive figures on their overall expenditure are available.

  My Department's funding of sport in the current and previous four years has been as follows:

  £ million

  1989–90

  42

  1990–91

  45

  1991–92

  47

  1992–93

  50

  1993–94

  55

  In addition, the Government provide substantial support for the local authority expenditure on sport, through the revenue support grant arrangements and basic credit approvals for capital expenditure. Sport has also benefited through the Government's inner-city program-mes. The Government are also making up to £75 million available to support Manchester's bid to host the Olympic games in the year 2000. Reductions in the rate of pool betting duty are contributing approximately £44 million per year to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and to the Football Trust.

  The amount of funds distributed to arts, sport and other activities as a result of the national lottery will depend on the total turnover of the lottery and the amounts devoted to prizes and expenses.

  British Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage in what form information is available to his Department as to the circumstances in which the gifts of Sir Leonard Woolley of archaelogical objects found at Ur of the Chaldees and other sites in Mesopotamia came into the possession of the British museum.

  Mr. Brooke
  All the results of the excavation carried out by Sir Leonard Woolley are published in 10 volumes. Archives and records are held by the department of western Asiatic antiquities of the British museum and can be inspected on request. The records relating to the financing and organisation of the expedition, and correspondence with the Iraqi authorities, are in the museum's central archive and are also accessible under the terms of the Public Records Act. If the hon. Member would like any further information on this matter, the director of the British museum would be happy to supply it.

  Regional Tourist Boards
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to reform the structure of regional tourist boards following the review of local government.

  Mr. Sproat
  The regional tourist boards (RTBs) are independent, non-statutory membership organisations and the Government have no power to impose changes in their structure. Local authorities have always been active partners in the work of the regional boards, and I am sure 462
  that the RTBs and the new authorities which emerge from the review of local government will wish to ensure that an effective working relationship continues.

  Blind People (Television)
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the arrangements which exist to advise blind people of the availability from the Royal National Institute for the Blind of a specially adapted monitor which receives broadcast television signals in sound only.

  Mr. Brooke
  I understand the RNIB catalogue, which is readily available, includes information about a television sound receiver, which does not need a television licence.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the latest available figure for his Department's funding of the United Kingdom film industry; what was the equivalent figure in 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Department plans to spend £24·4 million on film support in 1993–94.

  In the financial year 1979–80, direct Government support for film amounted to some £12·5 million, at 1993 prices. The Eady Levy on box office receipts raised a further £17·25 million, at 1993 prices, in support of the film industry.

  S4C
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if the accounts of the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority, S4C, will be submitted annually to the Comptroller and Auditor General; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  No. Under schedule 6 to the Broadcasting Act 1990, the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority (S4C) submits its annual report and statement of accounts to me to lay before Parliament. I can give S4C directions about the form of the accounts, and the appointment of its auditors is subject to my approval.

WALES

  Northern Snowdonia
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to designate northern Snowdonia as an environmentally sensitive area.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no current plans to designate northern Snowdonia as an environmentally sensitive area. I will study the ADAS report on this matter.

  Welsh Chamber of Commerce and Industry
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to model the Welsh Chamber of Commerce and Industry upon similar organisations in Baden-Württemberg, Denmark and the Emilia-Romagna region.

  Mr. Redwood
  As independent private companies, change is a matter for individual chambers and the chamber movement itself.

  Mining Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the interim development orders in force in Wales giving framework permission for mining development.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not held centrally. Local planning authorities are required to enter details of applications for registration of interim development order permissions, together with details of final determinations, in their planning registers which are open to public inspection.

  Tourist Board Grants
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the names and addresses of private companies and hoteliers who have received a Wales tourist board grant; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally. However, the Wales tourist board publishes a list of grants and loans of £10,000 or more for specific years in its annual reports.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales further to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 134, regarding radon in homes, how many of the homes surveyed in each year since 1989 in postal district SA and in Wales had radon gas concentrations of (a) 0 to 25 bq/cu m, (b) 26 to 50 bq/cu m, (c) 51 to 100 bq/cu m, (d) 101 to 200 bq/cu m and (e) more than 200 bq/cu m.

  Activity under Part III of the Housing Act 1985 (Housing the Homeless)

  Enquiries made

  Cases Presented

  Cases1Accepted

  Cases accepted1 as a percentage of those presented

  1991

  1992

  1991

  1992

  1991

  1992

  1991

  1992

  Aberconwy

  196

  199

  144

  131

  37

  52

  26

  40

  Alyn and Deeside

  252

  292

  220

  246

  186

  245

  85

  100

  Arfon

  45

  57

  35

  41

  35

  34

  100

  83

  Blaenau Gwent

  434

  242

  377

  223

  321

  203

  85

  91

  Brecknock

  114

  127

  114

  130

  100

  117

  88

  90

  Cardiff

  3,163

  4,943

  2,134

  2,592

  1,752

  2,232

  82

  86

  Carmarthen

  87

  153

  90

  153

  87

  143

  97

  93

  Ceredigion

  152

  141

  152

  140

  150

  140

  99

  100

  Colwyn

  83

  100

  50

  70

  50

  70

  100

  100

  Cynon Valley

  576

  515

  556

  262

  360

  210

  65

  80

  Delyn

  1,176

  897

  766

  520

  283

  213

  37

  41

  Dinefwr

  237

  267

  237

  267

  187

  221

  79

  83

  Dwyfor

  90

  58

  84

  57

  45

  42

  54

  74

  Glyndwr

  46

  31

  34

  23

  34

  23

  100

  100

  Islwyn

  376

  350

  334

  324

  181

  201

  54

  62

  Llanelli

  153

  116

  154

  116

  153

  116

  99

  100

  Lliw Valley

  175

  159

  143

  194

  103

  127

  72

  65

  Meirionnydd

  187

  110

  111

  82

  100

  71

  90

  87

  Merthyr Tydfil

  156

  93

  156

  93

  129

  93

  83

  100

  Monmouth

  237

  184

  237

  184

  147

  113

  62

  61

  Montgomeryshire

  170

  186

  122

  128

  121

  118

  99

  92

  Neath

  531

  539

  383

  481

  353

  392

  92

  81

  Newport

  1,074

  935

  1,074

  914

  1,074

  905

  100

  99

  Ogwr

  941

  914

  836

  872

  707

  903

  85

  104

  Port Talbot

  525

  578

  482

  560

  124

  164

  26

  29

  Preseli

  153

  238

  121

  179

  102

  146

  84

  82

  Radnorshire

  19

  30

  19

  30

  19

  30

  100

  100

  Rhondda

  146

  165

  141

  165

  138

  163

  98

  99

  Rhuddlan

  146

  96

  76

  60

  51

  34

  67

  57

  Rhymney Valley

  1,077

  1,188

  215

  165

  146

  129

  68

  78

  South Pembrokeshire

  96

  93

  96

  93

  86

  80

  90

  86

  Swansea

  1,368

  1,288

  941

  932

  792

  765

  84

  82

  Taff-Ely

  649

  513

  617

  513

  272

  306

  44

  60

  464
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The figures requested are shown in the table:

  Radon concentrations in the homes surveyed since 1989, in postal district SA and Wales

  Number of Homes

  Concentration range Bq m3

  Postal District SA

  Wales

  0–25

  138

  538

  26–50

  55

  260

  51–100

  29

  183

  101–200

  20

  107

  >200

  8

  55

  Homelessness
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the number of homeless inquiries made under part III of the Housing Act 1985 by district(a) in 1991 and (b) in 1992;

  (2) how many cases were accepted expressed as a percentage of those presented under part III of the Housing Act 1985 by district (a) in 1991 and (b) in 1992;

  (3) how many cases were accepted under part III of the Housing Act 1985 by district (a) in 1991 and (b) in 1992;

  (4) how many cases were presented under part III of the Housing Act 1985 by district (a) in 1991 and (b) in 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is given in the table:
  465

  Enquiries made

  Cases Presented

  Cases1 Accepted

  Cases accepted1 as a percentage of those presented

  1991

  1992

  1991

  1992

  1991

  1992

  1991

  1992

  Torfaen

  1,485

  2,403

  921

  840

  522

  471

  57

  56

  Vale of Glamorgan

  956

  975

  1,095

  639

  416

  474

  38

  74

  Wrexham Maelor

  973

  978

  851

  397

  408

  487

  48

  123

  Ynys Mon

  91

  92

  54

  80

  42

  78

  78

  98

  1 In some instances, the number of cases accepted during the year can be higher than the number presented due to some presentations being carried over from the previous year.

  Source: Local authority returns.

  BTEC Courses
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have undertaken Business and Technician Education Council courses in Wales in each year since 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The total number of student enrolments on BTEC courses at colleges of higher and further education in Wales in each year since 1988–89 is as follows:466

  Number

  1988–89

  20,453

  1989–90

  22,061

  1990–91

  24,190

  1991–92

  27,448

  Sheep Farmers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a Monday morning visit to Welshpool Smithfield to meet Montgomeryshire sheep farmers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no current plans to visit Welshpool Smithfield, but would consider doing so when the opportunity presents itself.

SCOTLAND

  Sheep Quota
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish, on a regional basis, the number of farmers deprived of quota as a result of the new sheep quota regulations.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The main allocations of sheep annual premium quota are still being made and it will also be open to any farmer to apply to the national reserve for allocation from that source. Until those applications have been received and processed it will not be possible to say how many have been successful.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce details of the distribution of reserve sheep quota.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Details of how national reserve quota will be allocated will be announced once the necessary legislation has been placed before the House. We hope to be able to do this before the summer recess.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial plans he has to support those farmers deprived of sheep quota after the national reserve is exhausted; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  It remains to be seen what will be the level of demand for allocation from the national reserve of sheep annual premium quota. The national reserve is the mechanism laid down in the European legislation to deal with producers who have not received an initial allocation of quota.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline the proportion of Forestry Commission land used for(a) commercial forestry and (b) leisure and recreation.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 June 1993]: The Forestry Commission follows a multiple-purpose land management policy which integrates recreation, wood production and conservation. It is not therefore possible to classify commission land in the way requested.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Vote Office
  Ms Quin
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission if he will make a statement on the work of the Vote Office.

  Mr. Beith
  The main work of the Vote Office is the distribution of parliamentary papers and documents necessary for the conduct of House business and for the parliamentary duties of hon. Members. Certain other documents are held in the Vote Office, at the request of Ministers, for issue to hon. Members. The Deliverer of the Vote, as head of the office, is available to advise hon. Members on their access to other official documents.

  Sitting Hours
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to bring forward the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House for implementation.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he will introduce proposals for the reform of hours of sitting.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

  Select Committee (Sanctions)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will establish a select committee to investigate the actual effect of the imposition of sanctions on countries such as Iraq and Libya.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so. However, the hon. Member may wish to suggest the topic to the relevant departmental select committee, which could perhaps allow him to expand on the points he raised only last Friday during the debate on manufacturing and productivity.

  Forestry
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what action he proposes to take to ensure that questions relating to forestry in the United Kingdom will continue to be answered in the House following the implementation of the proposals for a Question Time in the Scottish Grand Committee.

  Mr. Newton
  The proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland entail no diminution of opportunities for questions, whether on forestry or other matters, to be put for answer in the House.

  Overseas Development Administration (Questions)
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make more time available for Overseas Development Administration questions.

  Mr. Newton
  Having recently revised the oral questions roster to incorporate slots for Duchy of Lancaster and National Heritage questions, I do not think it would be possible to find extra time for ODA questions.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to change the procedure for Government replies to Select Committee reports and debates on them.

  Mr. Newton
  None. However, the hon. Member may care to submit any proposals of his own to the Procedure Committee.

  Procedure (Reform)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to be able to make progress on reforming the procedure of the House; and if he will make a statement.

  Select Committee on Members' Interests
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to alter the powers of the Select Committee on Members' interests.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no proposals to alter the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Members' Interests.

  Visitors
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what plans he has to enable increased n umbers of people to visit the Palace of Westminster during the summer recess.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  During the last summer recess there was spare capacity on all but three of the clays the Line of Route was open for Members' parties. In these circumstances it is not considered necessary either to increase the maximum number of visitors allowed entry each morning or to increase the number of days when the Line of Route is open.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to prohibit the deposit in the Library, or the insertion in the Official Report, of material from the chief executives and other officers of next steps agencies.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the study prepared by the National Radiological Protection Board on the effects of radiation exposure to British service men in nuclear tests.

  Mr. Hanley
  The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) published in 1988 a study of mortality and cancer among former participants in the British atmospheric nuclear test programme. A follow-up study has been undertaken by the NRPB and I understand that it hopes to publish it later this year. The timing of the publication is, of course, entirely a matter for the NRPB. I know of no new evidence, however, that would change the current position that the overall incidence of death and malignant disease has been no greater among nuclear test veterans than among the general population.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage bonus has been paid to the crews of(a) foreign-registered and (b) United Kingdom-registered vessels chartered in the last 12 months to transport United Kingdom Army vehicles or personnel to the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Hanley
  Payment of crew bonuses are made from the owners' account and we therefore have no records of percentages paid.
  470
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the seamen's unions with which he has had negotiations over the level of bonus paid to their members for the transport of United Kingdom Army personnel and military vehicles to the former Yugoslavia for United Nations peacekeeping purposes.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has had no such negotiations.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many foreign vessels have been chartered over the last 12 months to transport Army vehicles and personnel to the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Hanley
  A total of 12 foreign-flagged ships have been chartered for this purpose during the last 12 months.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British-flagged merchant vessels have been chartered by his Department over the last 12 months for the purpose of transporting Army personnel and military vehicles to the former Yugoslavia; and what rates have been paid for such chartered vessels.

  Mr. Hanley
  No British-flagged ships have been chartered for this purpose during the last 12 months. One British-flagged ship was offered but was not competitively priced.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consideration he has given to declaring the former Yugoslav an operational theatre.

  Mr. Hanley
  The former Yugoslavia was declared an operational theatre on 20 May 1993.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what amount of money he estimates will be spent by his Department on military operations in the former Yugoslavia in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is estimated that the extra cost to my Department of United Kingdom participation in military operations in the former Yugoslavia for the current financial year will amount to some £82,000,000, although in accordance with established arrangements we will be seeking reimbursement from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. No prediction can usefully be made for 1994–95 as this will depend on the level of our participation.

  Explosive Devices
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the explosive devices cleared from the north Gower marshes in 1992 were transported to Porton Down for decontamination.

  Mr. Hanley
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) and I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Dr. Graham S. Pearson to Mr. Gareth Wardell, dated 14 June 1993:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many of the explosive devices cleared from the North Gower marshes in 1992 were transported to Porton Down for decontamination (Question 11, Order

  471
  Paper, 8 June 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. A total of 29 explosive devices, all shells, suspected of containing or possibly containing materials requiring decontamination and disposal were transported to CBDE in 1992. It has since been confirmed that none contained chemical warfare agents.

  Vanguard Submarine
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the first Vanguard submarine will be fully operational.

  Mr. Aitken
  The first Vanguard class submarine will enter operational service with the Royal Navy towards the end of 1994 or early in 1995.

  Uranium Shells
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will institute an inquiry into the possibility of troops having been contaminated during the Gulf war as a result of the use of uranium-tipped shells; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has 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 inquiry. The health of all service personnel will of course continue to be monitored as a matter of routine.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what health checks have been carried out by his Department on MOD personnel who have(a) handled depleted uranium shells, (b) handled materials which have been struck by depleted uranium shells or (c) been exposed to material from detonated depleted uranium shells on British or NATO firing ranges at which British soldiers have trained.

  Mr. Hanley
  Health checks are carried out at the two test and evaluation ranges—Eskmeals and Kirkcudbright —where virtually all depleted uranium firing has taken place. At Eskmeals, health checks and radiation protection measures are fully in place to ensure that any contamination that might occur through the handling or firing of depleted uranium shells can be identified and dealt with quickly. At Kirkcudbright, exposure of staff to radiation is monitored on an individual basis.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what tests have been carried out for radioactivity(a) at British and NATO firing ranges at which British soldiers have changed or (b) the area surrounding such firing ranges where depleted uranium shells have been test fired; and if he will list the ranges and define the areas surrounding them;

  (2) how many British and NATO ranges at which British soldiers have trained and areas surrounding them have been found to be contaminated by radioactivity from depleted uranium shells.

  Mr. Hanley
  Depleted uranium is not used by the British Army in peacetime training. Depleted uranium ammunition has however been test fired at three United Kingdom trials ranges—Eskmeals, West Freugh and Kirkcudbright—and soldiers have occasionally trained at 472
  all of these, although they no longer train at Kirkcudbright. Tests for radioactivity have been carried out at all three ranges as follows:

  At Eskmeals, a regular programme of area monitoring has been undertaken since test firing started in 1980 and air, grass, water, animal faeces, foliage and dust samples analysed. In recent years the analysis has been done by the Atomic Energy Authority. Off-range monitoring is also carried out at two sites; at Welbank, three miles South East of the range, and Corney Fell, three miles to the East. Monitoring also covers the nearest centres of population.

  At Kirkcudbright, soil, vegetation, seawater and silt samples are taken on a regular basis; analysis is carried out by BNFL and analysis is undertaken by the defence radiological protection service.

  At West Freugh, the latest firing was in 1990 and a radiological survey was subsequently carried out by the Atomic Weapons Establishment of beach sand and seawater.

  No detectable contamination has been found at West Freugh and only very low levels of radioactivity from depleted uranium ammunition have been detected at Eskmeals and Kirkcudbright. In both cases, the levels detected were well below anything which could be considered a health hazard either to those who work on the range or those who live near it.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MOD personnel have been found to be contaminated with radioactivity from test-fired depleted uranium shells.

  Mr. Hanley
  At Eskmeals, no staff have been found to have been exposed to any level of radioactivity that would require investigation. At Kirkcudbright, no detectable exposures have been found.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the ranges(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) overseas at which the British armed forces have test fired depleted uranium armour-piercing shells.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since the programme was first authorised and announced to the House,Official Report. 8 March 1979, columns 777–78 and 25 January 1980, column 395, all United Kingdom depleted uranium firings, with the exception of a few small calibre rounds trialed at test and experimental establishment (T&EE) West Freugh in 1988 and 1990, have taken place at either proof and experimental establishment Eskmeals or T&EE Kirkcudbright. The Ministry of Defence has test fired depleted uranium armour-piercing shells at White Sands, New Mexico and Aberdeen proving ground, Maryland in the United States and at Grammat in France.

  Belize
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reassessment he has made of his policy relating to the withdrawal of the British garrison from Belize as a result of recent events in Guatemala.

  Mr. Hanley
  Recent events in Guatemala have been of an internal nature and there is no evidence that Guatemala's attitude to relations with Belize has changed as a result. Whilst we are monitoring the situation, we see no reason to change our plans for the garrison.
  473
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications he has had with the Belize Government concerning recent events in Guatemala.

  Mr. Hanley
  Prime Minister Price visited the United Kingdom on 9 and 10 June and had discusisons with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Recent events in Guatemala were among the subjects discussed.

  Conventional Forces in Europe
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the negotiation of further reductions in conventional forces in Europe.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no current plans for further negotiations on reductions in conventional forces in Europe. The immediate priority is to ensure that the force level reductions in the conventional forces in Europe treaty are properly implemented.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 May,Official Report, column 522, if he will provide details of the teething difficulties that have occurred with the practice inspections that have been carried out as part of the preparation for the conventional forces in Europe treaty.

  Mr. Hanley
  Most of the difficulties encountered so far during practice CFE inspections have concerned minor differences of interpretation of procedures such as the standard of site diagrams to be produced.

  Helicopter Landing Ship
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he gave to the need to retain a viable and effective defence industry when making his recent decision about the procurement of the helicopter landing ship.

  Mr. Aitken
  The need to retain a viable and effective defence industry was carefully taken into account in reaching the decision.

  Tornado
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 April,Official Report, column 394, if he will state the number and nature of the problems identified during a recent modification programme on Tornado aircraft; and if he will provide details of the financial consequences of these problems.

  Mr. Aitken
  Evidence of structural damage to a number of Tornado aircraft modified by Airwork Ltd. has led the Ministry of Defence to terminate the relevant contract on grounds of substantial failure of performance by the contractor. My Department intends to claim against Airwork for the rectification and consequential costs arising from the company's failure to execute the modification contract properly. Assembling a 11 the relevant evidence, which includes the details requested, and determining the amount of the claim will take some time.

  Army Officers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) of 21 April,Official Report, column 133, what percentage of the total number of officers has been commissioned from the ranks for each regiment in the British Army.

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

  Married Quarters
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 31 March,Official Report, column 197, what progress has been made in the establishment of a non-profit-making housing trust; and what representations he has received on this matter.

  Mr. Hanley
  Good progress has been made. My Department has now engaged the services of Major General (Retired) J. F. J. Johnston CB CBE, to act as a consultant to the Department as the chairman (designate) of the embryo housing trust. In broad terms, his task will be to develop an organisation which would be capable of receiving the married quarters estate from the Department and providing a housing service to meet the requirements of the services. This will provide the opportunity to develop a coherent long-term policy for the Department's married quarters estate.

  My Department has received no representations on the matter since 31 March.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 April,Official Report, column 193, on how many occasions in the last year negotiations with housing associations relating to the sale of married quarters have been terminated due to the inability of housing associations to secure the necessary funding.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the housing associations that have purchased MOD married quarters, and the housing associations that have expressed an interest in the purchase of MOD married quarters.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Forces Dwellings
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings owned by his Ministry were unoccupied on(a) 31 March 1992 and (b) 31 March 1991; how many of these were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation; how many were already allocated to service families; how many were in the process of being sold; and how many were being held for agreed deployments.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:
  475

  31 March 1992

  31 March 1991

  Married Quarters

  Unoccupied

  9,364

  10,111

  Undergoing or awaiting major maintenance or modernisation

  2,829

  3,675

  Allocated to Service families

  2,255

  1,569

  Held for agreed deployments

  290

  337

  MOD Civilian Houses

  Unoccupied

  140

  170

  A breakdown into the above categories is not available for the MOD civilian houses.

  In addition, 1,816 former married quarters were in the process of being sold on 31 March 1992 and 1,864 on 31 March 1991. Figures for the number of vacant MOD civilian houses in the process of being sold on these dates are not available.

  Tank and Naval Ammunition
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath of 17 May,Official Report, column 82, on what dates he intends to announce his decisions concerning the tenders for tank and naval ammunition.

  Mr. Aitken
  The tenders are currently being assessed and an announcement will be made within the next few months.

  Rapid Reaction Corps
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what details of national contributions to the ACE rapid reaction corps have been finalised; and what details have yet to be finalised.

  Mr. Hanley
  The outline structure of the ACE rapid reaction corps was published in the 1992 Statement on the Defence Estimates. In addition to the HQ framework, the United Kingdom will assign the 1st UK Armoured Division, 3rd (UK) Division, and combat service support for both these divisions. The United Kingdom will also assign 24 Airmobile brigade to the multinational division (Central) (MND(C)), together with a contribution to the divisional HQ and communications elements. The German, Dutch and Belgian Governments have also agreed to assign brigades to the MND(C). The Greek, Turkish and Italian Governments have provisionally agreed to assign brigades to the multinational division (South).

  On current plans, six nations will also provide a division if required; these are: Germany, Italy, Turkey, Greece, the United States and Spain. Other contributions are also under consideration, and details will be clarified as part of the normal NATO force planning cycle.

  Military Information (Exchanges)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 May,Official Report, column 522, whether he will place copies of the exchanges of military information resulting from the 1990 Vienna document and its successor in the Library.

  Mr. Hanley
  It was agreed during negotiations that information exchanged under the 1990 and 1992 Vienna 476
  documents should be for official use only. I am, however, arranging for the United Kingdom returns for 1991, 1992 and 1993 to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  D-Notices
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cunninghame North (Mr. Wilson) of 21 April,Official Report, column 133, what consideration has been given to the progress of the D-notice review.

  Mr. Hanley
  I understand that the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Committee met on 6 May and had preliminary discussions on the review of the D notice system, announced by my predecessor on 26 October 1992,Official Report, columns 509–10, which is now well in hand; and that it plans to meet again in July to consider a draft report of the review.

  Iraq
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 March,Official Report, column 175, if he will make a statement on the performance of the defence intelligence staff in its provision of assessments relating to (a) Iraqi defence policies, (b) Iraqi intentions and (c) Iraqi military capabilities.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Defence intelligence staff (DIS) had been monitoring the development of Iraqi military capabilities and defence policies for some time. The build-up of Iraqi forces on the Kuwait border in late July 1990 was recognised as a major escalation although there was no information on the precise intentions of Saddam Hussein to determine the timing of the hostilities. The availability of a comprehensive intelligence data base on Iraqi military capabilities, to which the DIS contributed significantly, was an important factor in the coalition effort.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what immediate actions he is taking to implement the recommendations of the National Audit Office report on movements of personnel, equipment and stores to and from the Gulf (HC 693).

  Mr. Hanley
  The National Audit Office's (NAO) work builds on extensive earlier studies by my Department including a detailed internal audit report of the lessons of Operation Granby. As the NAO report acknowledges, the Department has already instituted changes to procedures and has taken initiatives to introduce new systems, which will greatly reduce the movement problems identified for a large-scale out-of-area deployment.

  Bosnia-Herzegovina
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received on the role of British military forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina in safeguarding the property and lives of Croats coming under attack from muslim forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  British forces undertook a recent mission, on request from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
  477
  (UNHCR), to help evacuate some 186 people—mostly Croat women and children—from a church at the village of Guca Gora in central Bosnia, which was coming under small arms and mortar fire. During the evacuation, which was completed successfully, the soldiers themselves came under fire and returned fire in self-defence.

  FR Aviation
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for defence what electronic warfare training services are provided by FR Aviation for the Royal Navy and at what cost; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the service provided.

  Mr. Hanley
  FR Aviation holds the current contract for the provision of various electronic warfare services for the Royal Navy, mainly concerned with threat simulation and communications jamming. The contract price is a matter of commercial confidentiality. The effectiveness of the service is kept under review under the terms of the contract.

  RAF Electronic Warfare Training
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which airspace areas will be used for RAF electronic warfare training; how the costs of any additional transit flying by contractors' aircraft will be met; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Electronic warfare (EW) training for RAF aircraft may take place anywhere in the United Kingdom air defence region. Under the proposal to contractorise EW training the amount of transit flying will depend on the contractor's choice of airbase, and is a factor which has been taken into account during the tender evaluation. As officials from my Department are in the final stages of tender selection, it would not be appropriate to give any further details.

  US Bases
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the United States bases in England to which the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 or the provisions of the NATO status of forces agreement of June 1952 apply.
  478
  Mr. Hanley
  The Visiting Forces Act 1952 and the NATO status of forces agreement apply to all United States visiting forces in the United Kingdom. The full list of United States bases and facilities in England is as follows:

  RAF Alconbury

  RAF Barford St. John

  RAF Barkway

  RAF Bentwaters

  RAF Bicester

  Botley Hill

  Bovingdon

  RAF Burtonwood

  RAF Chelveston

  RAF Chicksands

  RAF Chilwell

  Christmas Common

  Coldblow

  RAF Croughton

  Daventry

  Dunkirk

  Eastcote

  RAF Fairford

  Felixstowe

  RAF Feltwell

  Framlingham

  High Wycombe Air Station

  RAF Hythe

  RAF Lakenheath

  RAF Little Rissington

  London USN Europe HQ

  Marchwood

  Menwith Hill Station

  RAF Mildenhall

  RAF Molesworth

  RAF Nocton Hall

  RAF Oakhanger

  Oakington

  RAF Ruislip

  RAF Spadeadam

  RAF St. Mawgan

  RAF Swingate

  RAF Upper Heyford

  RAF Upwood

  RAF Uxbridge

  RAF Watton

  RAF Welford

  West Ruislip

  RAF Woodbridge

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury
and Ipswich.

The Royal Marsden Hospital
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to keep the Royal Marsden Hospital in full operation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, Ministers are currently considering independent advice from the team reviewing specialist cancer services in London. They will also shortly receive independent advice about research at the Royal Marsden Hospital. These reviews will help to inform decisions about the future pattern of cancer services in London.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that somewhat imprecise reply. Is she aware that the proposal—first put forward a short time ago and dropped, and now apparently revived—to demolish this world famous hospital, with its wonderful premises and high standards, would be regarded as an outrage by a great many people, who would never forgive a Secretary of State who destroyed it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I regret being imprecise; but I fear that I shall have to continue to be so. Until the reviews have reported, it is impossible for the Government to reach a decision.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, as the only Peer in the House today (as I hope) whose wife is at the moment in this splendid hospital, is the Minister aware that, for once—and it is unusual for me—I fully support what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am aware of the superb work that is carried out at this hospital in terms of the service that it provides; and I know that its research too has in the past been outstanding.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Royal Marsden, where I myself was treated (and I therefore declare a very grateful interest) has a collection of accumulated experience and wisdom in dealing with cancer such as is the envy of the world? Is she also aware that people are sent there from the four corners of the world? Ought she not to hurry up and be precise?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I accept that advice from the noble Viscount.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the noble Baroness clearly understand that some of these hospitals,
1212
including the Royal Marsden, are held back because of lack of decision? Does she agree that that is a very worrying thing? Is she aware that, for example, I have £1.5 million to give away, but to Guy's only, which cannot take it because of the Government's threat of the merger of Guy's with St. Thomas's? For goodness sake, can we have a decision soon one way or the other about the Royal Marsden, Guy's and the rest (I do not quarrel with all that has been said) so that I can give this money back?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am very aware of the planning blight that exists while these reviews take place. But the situation in London is extremely complex. It would be dilatory of the Government not to study this matter with due care. We have been anxious to employ people from outside London in order to give an unbiased view, both of the research that is carried out in London and also of its services. The intention is that the specialty reviews should report towards the end of this month and the research reviews at the beginning of next month. The final proposals will be presented to Ministers in the autumn.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that the revival of an ill-starred proposal such as this, once it has been rejected, or seems to have been rejected, by Ministers causes very widespread dismay indeed? Will she remind herself of what she said previously on this subject?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that uncertainty is very damaging, and so is indecision. Unfortunately I cannot, however, prevent speculators from speculating. In this case the Government have reached no decision and they will not do so until they have the result of the two reviews.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, does the Minister agree (almost alone in the whole world) with Tomlinson's description of the Royal Marsden in paragraph 136 as an "isolated and vulnerable" institution? To what is it vulnerable? In my view, it is vulnerable only to the predations of this Government. Are the Government unaware of the pioneering work at the Royal Marsden, which cannot in any way be described as isolated? Has the Minister taken sufficient notice not only of the high level of research and treatment, but of the very important training, which many people in this Chamber must have experienced, of specialist cancer nurses, including the Macmillan nurses, who do so much work at home for the terminally ill? As for isolation, is the noble Baroness aware that it was in the Royal Marsden that the European Oncology Nursing Society was set up and that it is flourishing? If that is isolation and vulnerability, have I misunderstood those terms?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am not sure what was in Sir Bernard Tomlinson's mind when he wrote that particular sentence. There are 13 cancer units in London. They are isolated in terms of being fragmented. It is important when one is a world leader, and indeed an international leader in terms of research, that units are big enough to sustain the

1213
quality of the research that is required in competition. With regard to the skills and expertise that are incorporated not only in the Royal Marsden Hospital but in other London teaching hospitals, the Government certainly want to maintain, enhance and preserve that expertise regardless of the building in which it is housed.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, are the Government aware that £25 million has been raised in charitable donations for the Royal Marsden and that has been used to build a new clinical block with four new operating theatres and four new wards, including a radiotherapy unit? Are they further aware that the wards for the radiotherapy unit must have concrete walls which are three feet thick? How can that unit possibly be moved to a flimsily built tower block such as the Charing Cross Hospital?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is reaching conclusions that have not yet been made. As I said before, we have to wait for the results of the specialty and the research reviews. I am very much aware of the generosity of the people of London and far beyond in giving money to the National Health Service and in particular to the Royal Marsden Hospital.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the blight to which she referred is not merely a planning blight but one which afflicts the lives and work of the staff in such institutions, whose work and attitudes are wholly disoriented by uncertainty? Will she accept that I know such matters directly, not from the Royal Marsden but from the situation at Bart's?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is absolutely true. That is why the Government are anxious to come to a conclusion as soon as possible. But I should like to stress to the House that this issue has been outstanding for many decades; indeed, some would say for centuries. It is important that the Government get things right and that they reach their decisions on the best information that they can glean. That is what we seek to do at the moment: to get that information.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in the event of the Royal Marsden being liquidated, what plans are there for the future of the Institute of Cancer Research? That is an entirely independent organisation which is nevertheless sited alongside the Marsden and which can act as a focus of concentration for clinical material of relevance to its current research.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is those and other issues that the research reviews will take into account.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Professor Tomlinson made it clear that costing was not part of his brief and that he had to rely on the health authority figures? Does she agree that it is now known that Ernst and Young have produced figures showing that the cost of closure of the Royal Marsden will be much greater than the figures given in
1214
Tomlinson? Whose figures do the Government intend to rely on when they make their decision regarding the future of that great hospital?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the London Implementation Group, the management executive and indeed the Royal Marsden Hospital itself will all be party to the proposals that will be put forward to the Government. At that time the figures, the working and the thinking informing those figures will be revealed to your Lordships.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the very great local support for that hospital, which admirably reflects the regard in which it is held and the quality of service that it supplies to the general public, certainly in that part of London and elsewhere?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am aware of that and also of the support that the Royal Marsden receives for its bigger branch, which is in Sutton, Surrey.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, when the noble Baroness reflects on this matter, as she must do, will she bear in mind when considering the whole question of value for money, which appears to be a dominant consideration, that it is highly probable that the value to the nation of the Royal Marsden is much greater than that of her own headquarters at Richmond House, 79 Whitehall?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, at Richmond House we make no pretence of treating patients.
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that there is not a single consultant with long-term personal knowledge and experience of London's cancer needs either on or advising the specialty committee which is reviewing cancer needs in London? Is she further aware that such deliberate omission causes Londoners to view any recommendations with alarm and suspicion?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I have already stated, there are 13 cancer units in London. When an independent inquiry takes place, I think it correct that the Government should put on that inquiry people who are independent of London, who have no axe to grind, who are experts in their own field and who will come to an unbiased decision.

War Crimes Act 1991
2.50 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect there to be sufficient evidence for a prosecution to be brought under the War Crimes Act 1991.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot anticipate when, or if, sufficient evidence will be available for a prosecution to be brought.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, while I thank the noble Viscount for his reply, it causes me a great

1215
deal of concern. The investigation has been ongoing for over two years. The Bill was passed over two years ago and still no prosecutions have been brought. Can the noble Viscount say how much money has been so far expended on the exercise? Also, can he say how many of the 93 investigations are likely to result in a realistic prosecution being brought? Finally, can he assure me that the investigations are secure and that no further information will be leaked to the press or elsewhere which may put at risk the people who are under investigation should they be prosecuted?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the costs in England and Wales were £2,600,000 to the end of 1992 and in Scotland, £620,000. In addition to the 300 cases identified by the Hetherington-Chalmers parliamentary inquiry, a further 43 cases have been brought to the attention of the Metropolitan Police war crimes unit. All the cases have been reviewed. Currently there are 72 cases under investigation in England, Wales and Scotland. There have been no arrests to date.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, several months ago a Scottish court found a resident of the United Kingdom to be a war criminal after investigating evidence in Eastern Europe in a defamation case. Does my noble friend agree that such matters would be more suitably dealt with under the 1991 Act?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, prosecutions are a matter for the prosecuting authorities to decide, when and if they wish to do so.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords is the Minister aware that, according to parliamentary replies, £3.9 million has already been spent and £10.6 million is provided for 1993–94? There are 21 staff involved, including 14 police officers, who have been examining cases for over two years. Why is there such slow progress?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, they are complicated cases. In order to see witnesses and to visit archives, police officers and Crown Prosecution Service staff have travelled to Russia, the Ukraine, Latvia and Germany and also to Poland, Israel, the United States of America, Canada, Australia and South Africa. The crimes happened a long time ago and the evidence is difficult to obtain. However, it is important to remember that Parliament passed the Act and it is the duty of the police to investigate.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, have not Ministers done enough to try to satisfy the demands of the other place, which were widely regarded in this House as extremely ill-advised?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the prosecution of alleged war criminals will be subject to the consent of the Attorney-General, who will be advised by the Director of Public Prosecutions. In Scotland, such decisions are for the Lord Advocate.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that it is an appalling waste of money when we are looking for cuts?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have said before and say again to my noble friend that Parliament passed the Act and therefore it is the duty of the police to investigate.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does not the Minister agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who, in response to a previous similar Question, said that the issue was not the cost but the likelihood of a successful prosecution? Is it not the case that the likelihood of a successful prosecution diminishes rather than increases as the years go by?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot comment on the likelihood of a successful prosecution. Proceedings can only be instituted when there is sufficient and reliable evidence available to afford a reasonable prospect of conviction. Police inquiries are continuing. As yet, no investigation has reached the stage where such evidence has become available.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the Minister say how many suspects have died since we started this long drawn-out, expensive investigation?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, no. However, I repeat that 300 cases were identified, together with a further 43. All those cases have been reviewed and there are currently 72 cases under investigation.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend regard the public purse as being bottomless for this purpose? If so, are there other areas of government expenditure where the public purse is regarded as being bottomless?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I have said, where Parliament passes an Act it is the duty of the police to investigate.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in the light of those replies, can the Minister give an assurance that expenditure under the Act will not be exempt from scrutiny in the current public spending round? Ministers constantly tell us that they are not afraid of unpopular decisions. I hope that they are not afraid of popular ones either.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe that there is already a budget set for the expenditure on the matter.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, in view of the fact that it is murder that is being investigated, is it not right to assume that the question of time has nothing whatever to do with it? As long as there was a murder committed, there should be action. Are not Her Majesty's Government or those responsible for making inquiries lagging behind other countries in Europe which are taking action and prosecuting?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not believe that we are lagging behind other countries in Europe or in the United States of America, Canada or Australia. However, a prosecution can only be instituted when there is sufficient and reliable evidence. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, that murder is a serious and awful allegation and must be investigated under the Act.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that in Australia, which has brought only one case under the Act, the jury took just one hour to throw it out? Is it not time for the whole matter to be reviewed to ensure that we are not throwing good money after bad?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I repeat that a prosecution can only be instituted when there is sufficient and reliable evidence. I hope that I have made that clear. I cannot answer for any other jurisdiction in any other country.

Prosecuting Authorities: Payments for Legal Services
2.57 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will refer the policies in the purchasing of legal services by the various prosecuting authorities and the criminal legal aid authorities to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the purchasing policy of any prosecuting authority which forms part of central Government is a matter for the authority itself, subject to overall government policy. Even if the Government were aware of abuses, which they are not, those would be best dealt with directly. Similar considerations apply to the criminal legal aid authority. A reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would be neither necessary nor appropriate.
Lord Spens: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware—I imagine that he must be—that three weeks ago he lost an appeal in the Queen's Bench Division from a leading defence counsel who wished to be paid at least the same rate as the junior barrister on the prosecuting side? Is he aware also that the payment of exorbitant fees to prosecution counsel and niggardly fees to defence counsel—I have personal experience of both—is one of the underlying causes of unacceptable delay in the criminal system?
Does not the noble and learned Lord think also that the quantum of the prosecution pay-outs is unlikely to encourage the much-vaunted barristerial independence? Consequently, the problem may be at the root of many of our more infamous miscarriages of justice, another of which was exposed last Friday. In all, does he not think it is time that there was a thorough professional investigation so that we can all see the facts?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not believe that the basis of payment to those who act for the prosecuting authorities contributes to miscarriages of justice. The responsibilities of those who prosecute and defend are distinct and the appropriate payments for them may therefore differ. In a recent case, which may be the one to which the noble Lord referred, it was made clear that it is appropriate to have some
1218
regard to what was paid to the other side in considering what is appropriate to the side in question.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to clarify some aspects of his answer. Am I wrong in assuming that the lawyers in these cases would charge what the market would bear and that therefore, if one were dealing with a narrow group of lawyers, one could certainly end up with very high fees indeed? Would it not then be reasonable for the prosecuting authorities, which, after all, are public authorities in many cases, to look at the wider public interest? I speak as an entire layman on this matter, but did the noble and learned Lord say that he thought that there was no role generally for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission or no role in this specific case?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I said that I did not think that reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would be either necessary or appropriate. As the noble Lord may recollect, the Director General of Fair Trading has a role in giving advice to the designated judges—the heads of division and myself—in relation to the consideration of who should have rights of audience in the courts. Therefore, this aspect to which the noble Lord has referred is taken account of appropriately in considering who should be regarded as qualified to present such cases either for the prosecution or for the defence.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is this a matter which will fall within the remit of the Royal Commission under the chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Royal Commission has a very wide remit. We are awaiting its report with great interest and we hope that it will come quite soon. As I said, it has a very wide remit. There is no particular reference to this matter in it but I have no doubt that matters of this kind will have come before its consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Spens, has drawn some of these matters to the attention of the Royal Commission in the evidence which he has submitted.

Electricity Generation, Pentland Firth
3.2 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What conclusions they have reached on the recommendations in a recent report, Tidal Stream Energy Review, that electricity could be generated efficiently by underwater installations from currents in the Pentland Firth.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the report Tidal Stream Energy Review provides an assessment of the relevant technology. The report identifies sites that could generate around 20 per cent, of the United Kingdom's

1219
electricity requirements. However, the report estimates that the cost of generating this electricity is between lOp and 16p per kilowatt hour at the Pentland Firth, the most promising site, and more than£2 per kilowatt hour at the most expensive site investigated.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. Is this not a very promising scheme, as appears to be suggested in the report, because it would not alter water levels, as happens in estuaries, where wildlife and farming are affected? Do not the particular advantages of no gas emissions or landscape intrusions make it worth pursuing because it is green and clean?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to tell my noble friend that this Government have a record second to none in their support for the development of renewable energy sources. However, I must contrast the price that I quoted of lOp to 16p per kilowatt hour at the most promising site with the current typical electricity pool price of 2.5p per kilowatt hour.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I am led to believe that the technology here is extremely complicated. I am sure that the noble Baroness understands it fully, although I do not. But would it not always be the case that a new technology of this kind would be bound to be more expensive than a conventional technology? Therefore the real question is how much we are willing to invest initially to get to grips with it in order to know what it can do. Do I understand the Government's view to be that we already know enough to know that it simply will not pay? Is that the point that the noble Baroness is trying to make—that we have done some work, that it looks as if the electricity, at least in the short term, will be expensive and that we do not believe that it will ever be economic? Is that what the Government are now telling us?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we felt that it was worth looking at and we therefore commissioned the review. However, the indications are that the technology is not far enough advanced for us to be able to make a judgment and there are many other sources of renewable energy which look more promising at this stage.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, on the wider issue of renewable energy, to which the noble Baroness has said the Government are committed, can she give us a broad indication of the contribution from renewables in, say, about 10 years' time compared with their contribution today?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, what I can give the noble Lord is a figure that the Government are working towards for the year 2000. We hope that, by the year 2000, 1,500 additional megawatts of electricity generating capacity will be from renewable sources. That is the target that we are working towards.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, on the subject of technology, might not the experience gained in the North Sea by the offshore industry in the past 20 years prove helpful?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sure indeed that that is taken into account by the people who develop devices. The work done by British companies in the North Sea is much to be praised.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness assure the House that in giving consideration to these matters she will not pay undue attention to the persistent advice given to her by her officials and that she will, of her own volition and on the basis of her own knowledge and conviction, arrive at a conclusion on these matters?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is not asking me to make uninformed decisions. But having taken information, I join with my right honourable friends and other colleagues in aiming to ensure a competitive energy market which will be the best aid to British industry.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, as someone who is fairly near Pentland Firth, I do not entirely share the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for trusting these matters to the intuition of the Minister, excellent though it may be. Is she aware that I have some sympathy with her view? We all hope that natural sources of energy will eventually prove much more possible than they are today. Is she further aware that there is a huge windmill in Orkney? However, it appears that the wind is nearly always either too fast or too slow. The windmill spends most of its time tied up. Obviously modern technology has not yet reached the point at which we are able either to foretell the wind accurately or to make use of the pace at which it takes it into its mind to blow.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comment on the fact that ministerial intuition is not necessarily the best basis for policy decisions. Perhaps I may say, although it is slightly outside the Question, that we are looking very closely at wind sources of energy. There is in that area considerable potential for costs to fall. We will stay alongside the issue.

Business
3.8 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 about one hour and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill and the Second Reading of the Local Government (Amendment) Bill will be taken.

Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill consolidates the Orders in Council under Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 relating to private occupational and personal pension schemes, other than those relating to the treatment of such schemes for taxation purposes. The earliest of these orders to be consolidated in the Bill goes back to 1973, and the volume of legislation on this topic since then makes a consolidation of this kind highly desirable.
The Bill contains a number of corrections and minor improvements to the existing law which are needed in order to facilitate the consolidation. These are contained in a memorandum which I laid before Parliament on 6th May this year pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. This memorandum, which will be considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, is similar in purpose to the reports of the Law Commissions which often recommend minor amendments to the existing law in order to achieve a satisfactory consolidation.
If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Crofters (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is a consolidation measure which incorporates amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission. It consolidates certain enactments relating to crofting. Apart from amendments which are intended to remove certain minor anomalies in existing law, the Bill makes no change in the existing law. If your Lordships approve, the Bill will in the usual way be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills which will consider it and make its report to the House in due course.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I have had only one communication from the crofting counties. They seem to be very pleased with the progress of the Bill so far and they look forward to the work of the joint committee and the results that that will bring forth.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Scottish Land Court Bill [H.L.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Again, this is a consolidation measure. It consolidates certain enactments relating to the constitution and proceedings of the Scottish Land Court and repeals provisions of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886 relating to the Scottish Land Court, those being no longer of practical utility. The Bill is pure consolidation: it is intended to make no change in existing law. If your Lordships approve, it will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills which will consider it and make its report to the House in due course.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Osteopaths Bill
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Walton of Detchant.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Bill
3.13 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 79 [Maintenance grants]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 160A:
Page 48, line 25, leave out from second ("regulations") to end of line 28 and insert ("shall provide for determination and revisions under this section to be calculated by the addition of the following two amounts only —

(a) The amount applicable to the school under the formula for local management of schools in the area approved by the Secretary of State for the financial year concerned; and

(b) the amount determined by the local education authority as representing the actual cost to it of the provision to the school of its services, where the cost of such services does not fall to be met within the formula for local management.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I am also speaking to Amendments Nos. 160B to 160E which are grouped with it, and also to Amendments Nos. 160G and 160H. These amendments stand in my name, that of my noble friend Lord Judd and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord that I have just been given a change to the grouping. I have been told that Amendment No. 160A will not be moved. I do not mind, but I am reorganising my notes and if that amendment is to be moved then I need to go back to base as regards my response.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I beg the noble Baroness's pardon. I am sorry that I misled her. I shall not be moving Amendment No. 160A, but since that amendment is in the grouping it did not seem to me that I was about to change the grouping. I intended to say that Amendment No. 160A would not be moved. However, I am perfectly happy to do so if it will help the noble Baroness and we can then deal with the grouping. We have these difficulties all the time because of the groupings. I shall now sit down and not move Amendment No. 160A. I shall then continue.
[Amendment No. 160A not moved.].
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 160B:
Page 48, line 25, after second ("regulations") insert:

("(a) shall where not all the schools for pupils of the age range concerned within the local education authority area are grant-maintained provide for determination and revisions under this section to be calculated by the addition of the following two amounts only—

(i) the amount applicable to the school under the formula for local management of schools in the area approved by the Secretary of State for the financial year concerned; and

(ii) the amount determined by the local education authority as representing the actual cost to it of the provision to the school of its services, where the cost of such services does not fall to be met within the formula for local management; or"

(b) where all the schools providing relevant education within the meaning of section 10(7) above for pupils within the local education authority area are grant-maintained.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will have noted that this amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Judd and I am sure that they would prefer that he took over. I certainly would, but it is still me. I am still speaking to the grouping specified but leaving out Amendment No. 160A. I pause to make sure that all noble Lords who intend to take part in the debate now know what we are talking about.
What we are talking about is very simple and straightforward. The amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, are all concerned with the equitable or equal funding of GM and LEA schools. Noble Lords will recall that the Government said, when dealing with the Education Reform Act 1988, that the financial position of GM schools would be broadly neutral. I emphasise the word "broadly", although I am not going to push strongly on that. In other words, the Government, which favoured GM schools, and the Opposition, including me, who were against GM schools, were at odds as to whether we favoured them or not.
At no point was the point at issue a matter of finance. I understood the Government to be saying at the time of the 1988 Act that they hoped that parents would choose GM schools on their merits. It certainly did not occur to me at that time that the financing
1224
would be restructured so that there would also be financial benefits to voting for a GM school as opposed to any other sort of school. What has emerged increasingly clearly in our current deliberations is that the Government have shifted their position. There is little or no doubt that GM schools are being treated financially very much more generously than LEA schools. I believe that that is wrong as a matter of principle. In so far as we have criteria for the use of taxpayers' resources in education, those resources should be used in ways which respond to needs and efficiency and which essentially help the people who have to take decisions in schools to come to better, as opposed to poorer, decisions.
I say in terms that what should not be the case is that taxpayers' money should be used to "bribe" (I use that word advisedly) parents or voters in the case of GM schools to go for particular outcomes. Given the philosophy of those who favour grant-maintained schools, which I take to mean the Government in particular, I would have thought that if to the extent that those schools are successful—I underline the word "if" —the Government would wish to be able to claim in due course that those schools were successful because they were better schools. The Government have fallen into the trap of my being able to say, "That GM school is doing better and it is getting 50 per cent, more money than the maintained school next door." It would be a disaster, from the Government's point of view, if they were to do that, but that is precisely what they have done.
What is certainly the case is that in August about two years ago the Prime Minister wrote to the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers and said that the Government were looking favourably at GM schools in order to encourage the growth of that sector. Despite that, we were again told that the GM schools would receive only a proper estimate of what LEAs would have spent had they continued to maintain those schools. The difficulty here is the worst difficulty of all; namely, that of fact. The fact is to some extent hypothetical, which makes the difficulty even harder to cope with.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has said—and no doubt she will say again—that she believes that the financing arrangements for GM schools do not give them any advantage whatever. She has said that, and I look forward to hearing her say it again. My difficulty is two fold. The first is that a great many local authorities say that that is simply not the case and they are the ones who are handing out the money in that sense.
The other is the famous Coopers & Lybrand study, to which my noble friend Lord Judd referred, which has examined the methodology and come to three conclusions. The first is that GM schools are more favourably treated. Secondly, it has come to the conclusion—and last time we did not get a very good answer on this—that GM schools are so well treated that if a sufficient fraction of schools were to become grant-maintained there would be nothing left (on the simple arithmetic) in the LEA budget to finance the remainder of its schools. My noble friend Lord Judd

1225
made that point following the Coopers & Lybrand study, but we did not receive an answer to it. Thirdly, we were also told—and again I await hearing more by way of reply from the noble Baroness—that Coopers & Lybrand gave examples of specific funding allocated to grant-maintained schools where those schools were not working on the projects for which the specific funds had been allocated. That matter is not unrelated to a point to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and I shall return when we come to the audit of grant-maintained schools, which I hope we can reach fairly quickly because it is equally important.
Perhaps I may now hurry through the remaining considerations that we have to bear in mind on these matters. A further difficulty has arisen with the so-called "double funding". Essentially, what appears to have happened during the past two years —and, as I understand it, will happen in 1993–94 —is that GM schools will be funded twice over because the main part of their grant (based on the 1993–94 LEA scheme) will be higher, and the percentage increase in their grant will be larger than it otherwise should be. Local authority associations have complained about the double funding. They have certainly complained to me and I am told that they have written to the noble Baroness's department but I have no knowledge of that.
Tower Hamlets has claimed that the method of funding for grant-maintained schools has been such that it has placed an unacceptable burden on the remainder of the local authority's programmes which are aimed at addressing specific needs to do with economic and social disadvantage. I believe that the education chairman of Tower Hamlets has written to the Secretary of State on this. He has also said — again, I only know what he has said; I have no direct knowledge of it—that the effect of the funding in Tower Hamlets has been discriminatory on racial grounds. I say that with great caution because I know nothing about it directly but I am aware that that has been said. Similar problems of funding have arisen in Birmingham.
Because of the great range of amendments, I am having to cover a whole range of arguments in one speech, but another problem that has arisen is that the schools that have already opted out have their grants protected in cash terms. What is peculiar—again, I should like the noble Baroness's advice to your Lordships on this matter—is that the protection that is given in cash terms to the schools that have already opted out will not apply to schools that opt out from now on. So, we have the further anomaly which, to say the least, is disturbing in that not only does there seem to be discrimination between GM schools and LEA-maintained schools that remain with the LEA, but it looks as if within the same authority some GM schools will be treated more generously than others. To my mind, that has led to the ultimate paradox that the London Borough of Wandsworth—a favourite
1226
borough of the noble Baroness—has itself complained that some of its schools are being better financed than others for no good reason that it can think of.
Another point that has been raised before by my noble friend Lord Judd—I do not want to go into detail but I wish to place it on the record for the last time—is that there does not seem to be anything remotely resembling equality of treatment about the use of capital funds. The one thing that is most disturbing about what has happened in schools under this Government following the alleged "economic miracle"—I visit such schools—is that our schools now seem to be in a worse state of repair than when the Labour Party was last in power. The extent to which some of our schools have deteriorated physically is now so patent and so unacceptable that then to discover, as I believe is the case, that grant-maintained schools are getting favoured treatment with respect to capital funding—often sums of a different order of magnitude from what is then left over for the remainder maintained schools—is, to say the least, very unattractive and grossly unfair.
I return to one final point that I think the Government have tried run away from, but which they cannot run away from. If one looks at education as one ought to—in terms of the young people being educated and forgetting everything else; the teachers, us here and all the people pontificating—the one rule that seems to stand out and which goes all the way back to 1944 is that every young person deserves to be treated equally with every other, and in particular according to what that young person requires by way of education.
Having introduced grant-maintained schools, the Government have now introduced a new principle whereby within the maintained sector a pupil attending a certain type of school —a GM school within a particular borough—will be treated better, particularly with regard to physical resources, than a pupil in an LEA-maintained school. I find that so intolerable that I cannot believe that the Government really wish to espouse that as a principle. It seems to me to be wrong.
My final remark is totally cynical. The Government have a £50 billion deficit which they do not seem to have the faintest idea how to deal with. One way in which they could save a little bit of money would be to forget the whole grant-maintained schools programme. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in replying to the amendment that he has moved, which stands also in my name. Perhaps I may first return to the main thrust of his argument, which was that the Government's central theme as they have presented it throughout the stages of this Education Bill has been, as I understand it, the right of parental choice and that parents should, in the end, be able to decide which school they wish their children to attend. That choice should be based upon an absolutely level playing field and a fair consideration of all the various factors that parents making a responsible decision

1227
should take into account. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out in speaking to Amendment No. 160B, the Government have already gone a very long way towards changing the nature of that choice by weighting the economic conditions that apply to schools in a way that will favour the grant-maintained schools and particularly those grant-maintained schools that started a couple years ago.
Perhaps I may draw the attention of your Lordships to three factors which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, mentioned but say a little more about each one. I refer, first, to the complex arrangements for maintenance grants which mean that, because the central element of grant is steadily diminishing as powers pass from the local authorities as a result of the creation of grant-maintained schools, the central grant lags behind the allocation made to grant-maintained schools in such a way that grant-maintained schools gain a benefit which is sometimes described as "double funding". I shall pass over the fact that many local authority services are of crucial importance to children with special needs or marked disadvantages because we shall be discussing that under separate amendments. However, one of the purely administrative consequences is that grant-maintained schools benefit as against local authority-maintained schools in a way that simply cannot be justified by looking at objective factors.
A second factor creates a double jeopardy. It is not only that grant-maintained schools benefit because of the way in which the formula has been devised, but also that because the entire cost of the grants made to grant-maintained schools is deducted from the local authorities, any element of favouring the grant-maintained schools is double in its effect because that element is then deducted from local authorities which have to finance those schools that remain within the maintained, local authority-controlled sector. That is the first factor that affects the decision that any parent approaching the matter with an open mind would make. Any such parent is bound to take into consideration the facilities and factors available to schools in making a choice.
The second factor to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has pointed is the very sharp discrimination in the degree of capital spending as between grant-maintained schools and local authority-maintained schools. I want to draw attention to just two factors in this respect. The amount of money, as I understand it, allocated to the capital programme over the next three years is —at least this side of whatever decisions the Chancellor may make on expenditure cuts —£501 million. That is not a great deal of money at a time when, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out, schools are deteriorating rapidly and need a great deal of capital work done on them.
Let us consider for a moment how that money is distributed. It is distributed to the extent of one-third allocated for grant-maintained schools, where just over 2 per cent, of all children in the nation currently go to school, and two-thirds allocated to the schools to which 98 per cent, of children go. Let me give a precise figure which I hope will be of concern to the right reverend Prelates. In 1993–94, the current annual
1228
capital programme year, the amount allocated to grant-maintained schools (with about ½ million children in them) is £86 million. The amount allocated to voluntary, mainly church, schools is £85 million, although those schools have 1.3 million children in them. Anybody who has frequently visited voluntary schools will know that many of them were built a long time ago. They are some of the oldest—in particular the primary schools—that we have in this country. Their needs for repair and additional capital are very great indeed, all the more so because many of them are in rural areas and have not been rebuilt for many years past. These schools will be among the greatest sufferers from the rather biased allocation of capital that the Government have seen fit to make.
There is a third area which this distinction affects quite profoundly. In the decisions to favour grant-maintained schools there will be a substantial effect on the ancillary services available for children: such things as music education, sports, additional language teaching, special remedial help and so forth. Yet again, by and large, it is the children in the inner cities and the older rural schools who have the greatest need for these ancillary services. Therefore the first part of the case of those of us who are moving this amendment rests upon the argument that the decisions parents make should not be biased by favouritism on the part of Her Majesty's Government both in revenue and in capital allocations towards these schools— many of which, incidentally, are in any case relatively favoured.
Let me come to the second part of the argument of those who support this group of amendments, and ask your Lordships to be so kind as to look at Amendment No. 160C, which affects Clause 80. The wording of Clause 80 is quite extraordinarily vague, as your Lordships will see if you turn to page 48 of the Bill. I will refer to the wording in two or three places. It says that:
"grants … in respect of expenditure, of any class or description specified in the regulations",
can be incurred by governing bodies,
"for or in connection with educational purposes of class or description so specified".
It goes on to say that the funding authority can be required to meet any special needs of the population of the area served by the schools in question. It makes it plain that the funding authority can decide on virtually anything it likes and regards as any kind of educational need. That is as it appears from the wording of the Bill as it stands.
I have always been frightened by vague legislation. It is difficult for people to understand their responsibilities and obligations under legislation which is expressed in such extraordinarily broad ways. I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the possibility that in a democracy the government can change and therefore legislation should be framed in a way that can be utilised without exceptional behaviour or unacceptable extremes by any government that may come to power. The terminology in this clause is unbelievably wide and would make it possible for any government at any time to do virtually anything they wanted, provided the Secretary of State was prepared to authorise it.

1229
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has proposed very much more precise wording for this clause, wording that would in effect once again put additional grants on the basis of what I might describe as a level playing field, for purposes that I think your Lordships would all regard, whatever your political point of view, as widely acceptable in terms of the needs and welfare of the people of this country and of their children. The amendment suggests that the purposes of these grants should be:
"to support curriculum, resource and staff development".
I think we would all agree that this would be an essential part of strengthening schools. The amendment also proposes
"to assist schools with costs associated with school premises which cannot reasonably be met from the maintenance grant".
That again is a very reasonable proposal that would apply to any school with special capital requirements. The amendment also proposes to insert the words,
"to assist with staff restructuring during the first year of operation".
That is a very helpful amendment from the point of view of schools which are caught up in the difficult business of reorganisation. Finally, the amendment proposes
"to compensate grant-maintained schools for their liability to value-added tax" —
which of course is special to their particular situation.
I do not believe that your Lordships could take exception to any of these proposals. Each one of them is eminently sensible. But in attempting to replace the original wording of the Bill—and it may be that the Minister can assure us that the Bill is not intended to be interpreted as widely as it is expressed—there would be some insistence on educational purposes for this additional money it is proposed to be spent.
This entire Bill gives extraordinary powers to the Secretary of State, and such wide-sweeping powers that one can only describe this process as the nationalisation of education. That is perhaps a strange thing for somebody on this side of the House to say, but that is what it is all about. It is passing education over to a bureaucracy drawn from elected local authority members; and that is profoundly disturbing. If we decide to go down that route, let us at least ensure that the additional money payable, substantially at the discretion of the Secretary of State—a Secretary of State, I repeat, who could come from any party which forms a future government in this country—is used expressly for educational purposes and for no others.
I commend these amendments to the House, first, on the basis that we should not try to change the playing field in such a way as fundamentally to bias the choices that parents need to make and, secondly, that we should try to ensure that money voted by Parliament should be used for educational purposes and not simply at the discretion of any Secretary of State for any purpose that he or she may intend.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness has throughout her comments ignored the fact that the system and the formula for funding grant-maintained schools come before both Houses of Parliament on an
1230
annual basis and there is no question whatever that a Secretary of State sitting in Sanctuary Buildings somehow or other has absolute licence to do what he wants when he wants and how he wants. He is absolutely subject to the will of Parliament in a very detailed way when he has to come forward in this way each year. The funding system for grant-maintained schools comes before both Houses in regulations on an annual basis.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister urging us to vote down regulations?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no, I am not. I am saying that the House has an opportunity to discuss them. I was responding to the noble Baroness who gave the House the impression that the Secretary of State has a free hand to hand out largesse at a whim. I am merely saying that that is not true. The noble Baroness went on to talk about the nationalisation of education. More has been done through the 1988 Act and this Bill to devolve power to the unit of management that makes most sense; that is, parents, the staff, the head, and governors of respective schools. That too is an argument that has been much overplayed during our deliberations.
The noble Baroness referred to 2 per cent. of the population when speaking of a sum of money that relates to a three-year period: this year and the two subsequent years. Over 900 schools have now voted for grant-maintained status. That is 4 per cent. of schools overall. They are predominantly secondary schools so the number of children will be well in excess of the 2 per cent. that she mentioned and the 4 per cent. of schools which will be grant-maintained when all the submissions are processed, even given that some of them will not become grant-maintained schools. Those figures are rising all the time. So the 2 per cent. figure given by the noble Baroness does not stand up.
On the comparisons for capital funding for grant-maintained schools and voluntary schools, again the grant-maintained capital budget has to cover formula capital allocation for schools joining the self-governing school sector throughout the year. The per-pupil funding comparisons with the voluntary sector are therefore a little misleading. It is not comparing like with like. There is likely to be a significant increase in grant-maintained pupil numbers over the year with a consequent increase in capital expenditure. So the noble Baroness is not in a position to make comparisons in that way now because neither I nor the noble Baroness knows how many grant-maintained schools there will be by the end of this year, by the end of next year, and by the end of the following year for which period the £500 million to which the noble Baroness referred applies.
We have in place funding arrangements which provide for grant-maintained schools to receive the additional funding appropriate to their additional responsibilities as self-governing schools. Those arrangements are fair, and it is right that Clauses 79 to 89 should provide for them to continue. As now, the detailed funding arrangements for any financial year will be the subject of regulations, as I have already

1231
said, enabling the Secretary of State to introduce necessary changes, including the introduction of a common funding formula for grant-maintained said, enabling the Secretary of State to introduce necessary changes, including the introduction of a common funding formula for grant-maintained schools.
Amendment No. 160B is clearly about equitable treatment of funding for grant-maintained schools and LEA schools, but as I have said many times, I believe that the arrangements we have in place now for the annual maintenance grant of grant-maintained schools, and the AMG arrangements we have proposed for the future, already achieve such equitable treatment.
The main form of funding for grant-maintained schools, and the only one which is paid for from LEA funds, is AMG. That is currently calculated to include three main elements. The core element is based on the LMS scheme of each school's former maintaining authority. On top of that there is a percentage addition to reflect the LEA's spending record on services it has provided centrally to its remaining maintained schools. The final main element is for school meals, which is again based on the level of the individual LEA's spending. Noble Lords will therefore see that the calculation of AMG is equitable and takes account of the funding in each LEA.
For the future, we have proposed the gradual introduction of a common funding formula for grant-maintained schools. That will provide a new alternative way of calculating AMG. That will be a vitally important option in areas— and there are many already—where a significant number, if not the majority of schools in a particular phase are grant-maintained not LEA-maintained.
The CFF will distribute in each LEA area a total based on the relevant standard spending assessment for the LEA concerned. It will do so using a formula that is as simple and transparent as possible. We shall pilot the CFF in a small number of areas from April 1994. There is no shortage of volunteers to pilot that scheme. Two consultation papers have now been issued about the CFF, the latest last Thursday. Consultation will continue throughout the year.
I believe that Amendment No. 160B is unworkable in either the short or the longer term. Except where all pupils in the relevant age range were in the grant-maintained school, it would require the main element of annual maintenance grant of grant-maintained schools to be an amount applicable under the LMS scheme for the local authority area. That is broadly what happens now, but the amendment does not allow the necessary flexibility to deal with situations where an LMS scheme changes because no LEA school has a particular characteristic, such as a sixth form, while grant-maintained schools continue to do so. It would be unfair to disadvantage a grant-maintained school because the LMS scheme changed in such a way.
The amendment would not allow the introduction of the CFF which it is our intention to introduce in a small number of pilot areas from April next year until every pupil in the relevant age group was in a grant-maintained school. We need a system for funding GM schools when there is no LMS scheme available, and it does not make sense to wait until
1232
every pupil is in a GM school. We might then arrive at the absurd position where the funding of a hundred schools was calculated by reference to the LEA's funding of one remaining school, which might be completely untypical.
The amendment is also unworkable in suggesting that the central spending element of AMG could be determined by LEAs according to their actual spending on central services to particular schools. Apart from the difficulties local authorities would have in disaggregating every item of spending to a school level, the amendment appears to forget that some schools have been grant-maintained since 1989. How on earth could a local authority determine an amount representing its actual provision of central services to a school it has not maintained for four years?
I hope that noble Lords will see the fairness in both our current arrangements for AMG, which will continue for many schools for some time, and of the CFF, which will gradually replace them. Both will provide for schools a level of funding that is equitable, and which recognises their particular circumstances and extra responsibilities, compared with LEA schools in the area.
Amendments Nos. 160C and 160G relate to special purpose grants. Special purpose grants are needed merely to ensure that grant-maintained schools continue to benefit from schemes under which LEA-maintained schools receive funding but which are not reflected in a grant-maintained school's maintenance grant. For example, the scheme for grants for educational support and training (GEST) is a DFE specific grant regime for LEAs. That must continue to find a counterpart for grant-maintained schools in the form of a special purpose grant; or is it the wish of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that grant-maintained schools should not benefit from grants that aid education support and training which is designed in the main to support special educational needs but also the national curriculum and its implementation? Special purpose grants are also needed to ensure that grant-maintained schools are not disadvantaged, bearing in mind their extra responsibilities compared to LEA schools. For example, they must pay VAT whereas LEAs can reclaim the cost.
Amendments Nos. 160C and 160G which would have the same effect in relation to schools in Wales are misguided in seeking to write the detailed purposes for which grant is to be paid into primary legislation. It is appropriate for the Secretary of State to have flexibility to respond to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances. He may, for example, need to mirror for grant-maintained schools a new form of funding for local authorities, as happened when the existing power to pay grant to support special provision for the education of travellers was written into the regulations. Again, would it be the wish of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that if travellers are to be funded in this way they should be in LEA-maintained schools but not in grant-maintained schools?
Local authorities have flexibility within their budgets for responding to unforeseen circumstances.

1233
There are no implications for them in allowing the Secretary of State the same flexibility since these grants are not recovered from authorities, as was mentioned and implied by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. In short, the detailed purposes for which the Secretary of State can pay grant are quite properly the subject of regulations which we have brought to Parliament annually since 1989. Therefore, I must resist Amendments Nos. 160C and 160G.
It has been claimed that the current capital grant is unfair to LEA schools. However, as in previous years, each grant-maintained school's entitlement to capital grant continues to depend on the relative merits of its bids and the total sum available for allocation for grant-maintained schools. It would be a mistake to believe that funding for grant-maintained schools is at the expense of schools remaining in the LEA sector. Separate bids are made to the PES from the voluntary sector, from the LEA-maintained sector and for the grant-maintained schools sector. The arithmetic used by the noble Baroness was even as of today misleading. We decide the allocation of public spending looking at competing priorities across all public services. Allocations are made separately to the LEA and grant-maintained schools. Less for grant-maintained schools would not necessarily mean more for LEA schools.
I wonder whether I detect in Amendments Nos. 160D and 160E — and in No. 160H, which would have the same effect in relation to schools in Wales—a misunderstanding of how the capital funding for LEA schools actually works. There is a long-standing system under which we consider LEA bids for borrowing approvals. We assess the bids on the basis of a set of published priority criteria which broadly allocate resources in respect of projects at individual schools. After approved bids in the priority categories have been met, the residual amount remaining is allocated on a formula basis. It is then for local authorities to determine how this should be distributed among schools. But this is only one small part of the arrangements for allocating capital resources to schools and it is difficult to see how the much wider-ranging formula which would be required by the amendment could be devised. Indeed, a formula would have to be devised for the amendments to have any meaning at all. So I do not think that this amendment could work as it stands: the drafting implies that a formula exists by which capital funding can be determined, but that is far from the case.
We have made no secret of our intentions to set up grant-maintained schools on a sound basis. I am afraid that a weakness of noble Lords opposite is to take into account only money spent. First, the efficiency factor is never referred to by noble Lords. I know that the efficiency factor is great in some local authorities which manage their property portfolios extremely well. In other authorities it is very poor. Therefore, the state of school buildings is not always about money spent; it is also the way in which money is spent and the way in which the portfolio is managed.
1234
Secondly, it is for local authorities to use capital receipts, which have been relaxed in recent months. It is also possible for them to use local taxes to fund and to complement and supplement their capital spending which is not available to grant-maintained schools. Many local authorities have had wholly inadequate arrangements for maintaining their capital stock. The Prime Minister made it clear in a letter, which was released to the press last summer and quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that we do look favourably at grant-maintained schools in allocating grants for capital expenditure. In all the circumstances, I believe that the treatment is fair.
The point which has not been made in this debate but was made in other debates is that some local authority schools now in the grant-maintained sector suffered miserably during the years. That was not because local authorities did not have the money but because of the way in which they managed that portfolio. There has been a great deal of catching up for some schools to do.
The only point which I have not addressed is that made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about Tower Hamlets. I believe that he was referring to Section 11 funding, which is a matter for the Home Office. I take the point which the noble Lord made and can inform him that there is a review in train as Section 11 money is adjusted by our colleagues in the Home Office. There is a lot of dialogue between my department and the Home Office as it impacts on schools.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the Minister sits down I wish to ask for clarification. She said that all regulations from the Secretary of State will come before Parliament. Will they be of the affirmative and not the negative nature? Secondly, the Minister explained the inaccuracies, as she saw them, in the figures given by my noble friend Lady Williams. It appears to me that the Minister's calculations were made in anticipation of the growth rate of the grant-maintained sector. That appears to be an odd way of allocating money. Surely it is more efficient to discover a way in which the funding can be brought forward when the actual number of grant-maintained schools has been established and not in anticipation of what it might be. Even if the 2 per cent. that my noble friend gave was too low, there is still a yawning gap, which cannot be bridged by the information given by the Minister, between what is going to the grant-maintained sector and to the local authority schools.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the regulations will come before the House, as they have for many years, under the negative resolution procedure. That does not prevent the House from discussing the matter and in extremis from voting on it. That point was pre-empted by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned the figure of £500 million. That is the figure for three years: the present year and the two subsequent years. It is entirely reasonable that that should be so. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams and Lady Seear, know, there is always an annual look at expenditure which can be modified upwards or downwards. When

1235
I took this job in April last year there were 217 "Yes" ballots. That figure is now more than 900 and it is fast approaching 1,000. We have no reason to believe that the growth will not continue. If it falls away altogether or comes to a grinding halt, it is inconceivable that the Treasury will not wish to claw back some of the money. We believe that we have an anticipated growth and at this moment that growth is a reality.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, did she choose not to answer my question about the Coopers & Lybrand argument, which was a matter of arithmetic and which intrigues me? Do the Government agree with what Coopers & Lybrand estimate; namely, that if half the schools in a local authority become grant-maintained, on current funding the local authority will have zero money left for the remainder? I have always been intrigued by that and wish to know whether the Government say that Coopers & Lybrand cannot do elementary arithmetic.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no, I do not agree. The first schools that came into the grant-maintained sector operated on a fixed, central additional sum; that was 16 per cent., which fast became 15 per cent. As of this year the central additional money is related precisely to what the local authorities are holding back centrally. The impact of that is neutral. Therefore, if we continue with the present system—given that direct AMG, which is the bulk of the money, replicates exactly what local authorities are doing and the central AMG is realistically related to what local authorities are holding back—I do not agree. The only area in which there is an argument—it is a decreasing and not an increasing area—is the degree of protection which relates in particular to the early 16 per cent. additional add-ons and the 15 per cent. additional add-ons. But they are cash protections and, therefore, as year goes on year and as the figure is reviewed every year it is reducing because it is discounted by the rate of inflation.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I interpret her as saying that it is the Government's view that the position of the schools which remain under local authorities will not deteriorate financially if more schools become grant-maintained. The point made by Coopers & Lybrand was the reverse; it said categorically that the schools remaining would suffer the more schools went grant-maintained. The noble Baroness said—and of course I always accept anything that she says of that kind—that there is no possibility that the remaining schools could lose out as a result of other schools becoming grant-maintained. It is worth having that on the record.
I am totally mystified by the noble Baroness's inability to accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said about capital expenditure. There is no need to go into the minutiae of this. For the 1993–94 financial year, one-third of all the available capital will be allocated to grant-maintained schools. By no stretch of the
1236
imagination will one-third of Britain's schools be grant-maintained. It is neither here nor there whether the figure is 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. The inequity is overwhelming; that is the point.
Secondly, in so far as capital expenditure is allocated according to explicit criteria I have to say in terms—no one currently holds the Minister's department in lower esteem than I do as regards its ability to do anything of an arithmetic nature—that by no strength of the imagination can one believe that one-third of all capital expenditure has been allocated by objective criteria to do with the needs of schools. I am not usually nasty, as the Minister knows, but I simply do not believe that. I do not believe that any objective analysis of the requirements of schools would lead to one-third of all capital expenditure going to grant-maintained schools.
I am totally at a loss as regards what the noble Baroness said about a common funding formulae because the whole point of Amendment No. 16OB is to say that the local authority will have a funding formula which should be the formula that applies in practice. I take it that the noble Baroness is saying that one day there may be a common funding formula for all schools. I am amazed that she says that we are not heading for even more nationalisation of education when that comes about, but that is by the way. Amendment No. 160B merely provides that the local authority shall invent a formula which will contain criteria to be applied to all schools. That seems to me to be quite reasonable. It is my concept of equitable. There is no reason to believe that such a formula would not apply equitably to the needs of GM schools as it would to other schools. Therefore, I am not persuaded by the Minister's view that Amendment No. 160B is defective.
As regards Amendment No. 160C, I have been around your Lordships' House long enough now to be aware that one gets caught either way. If you put down a list, you are always told that something is there which should not be on the list. When the Government provide a list, they say that that should be the list. If we ever had an example of Morton's Fork where you can never win, this is it. I am fully aware that there is a need for flexibility. Equally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, pointed out, I am aware that it is worthwhile in a democracy spelling out specifically how that flexibility will be used. I am sure that the noble Baroness and I would be happy to accommodate the Secretary of State should he wish to add to the list. However, it is important that one should know beforehand on the face of the Bill the matters which the Secretary of State will include in the orders.
As for the notion that we might one day reject a negative instrument, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, I should like to live to see that day. The Secretary of State makes up his mind and wields his power more or less uncontrolled by the legislature. Having said that, I commend the amendment to the House.
4.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 160B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 137.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L. I [Teller.]

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Annan, L.

Judd, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Aylestone, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Mallalieu, B.

Banks, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Blackstone, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Meston, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ogmore, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Peston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

Redesdale, L.

Desai, L.

Richard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rochester, L.

Eatwell, L.

Russell, E.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Seear, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Serota, B.

Fitt, L.

Shepherd, L.

Galpern, L.

Stallard, L.

Geraint, L.

Stedman, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Glasgow, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Gregson, L.

Thomson of Monifleth, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Hanworth, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hayter, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

White, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wigoder, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jeger, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Carnock, L.

Arran, E.

Cawley, L.

Astor, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Auckland, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Cockfield, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Bellwin, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Beloff, L.

Craigavon, V.

Bessborough, E.

Cranborne, V.

Birdwood, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blake, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Blatch, B.

Davidson, V.

Blyth, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Boardman, L.

Digby, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dudley, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Eccles, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Elles, B.

Butterworth, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Cadman, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Caithness, E.

Elton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Foley, L.

1238

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Nelson, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Norrie, L.

Gainford, L.

Northbourne, L.

Gainsborough, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Goschen, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Orkney, E.

Greenway, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Grey of Codnor, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gridley, L.

Pender, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Porritt, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Renton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Richardson, L.

Harrowby, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Harvington, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rodney, L.

Henley, L.

Romney, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Hives, L.

Salisbury, M.

HolmPatrick, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hood, V.

Seccombe, B.

Howe, E.

Selborne, E.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Sharp of Grimsdyke, L.

Kitchener, E.

Sharples, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Liverpool, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Soulsby of Swaflham Prior, L.

Long, V.

Strange, B.

Lucas, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.[Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sudeley, L.

Manchester, D.

Swinfen, L.

Manton, L.

Teviot, L.

Marlesford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marsh, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mersey, V.

Trumpington, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Ullswater, V.

Morris, L.

Vivian, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wakeham, L.[Lord Privy Seal]

Moyne, L.

Munster, E.

Westbury, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.13 p.m.
Clause 80 [Special purpose grants]:
[Amendment No. 160C not moved.]
Clause 81 [Capital grants]:
[Amendments Nos. 160D and 160E not moved.]
Clause 83 [Grants: further provisions]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 160F:
Page 51, line 11, at end insert:
("and in particular so as to enable the governing body of each such school to satisfy the requirements of regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 10 of the Education Act 1944.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 160F and I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 286A. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is not with us at the moment but I should like to thank him most warmly for his very cogent trailer for the amendments. They follow logically from the powerful case that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, in her welcome début to the proceedings on the Bill.
The Government have postponed the full implementation of the 1981 School Premises Regulations by exempting schools that were built before 1981 from those regulations until 1996. It is even more disturbing

1239
that it is being held in some quarters that the Government may decide to exempt those schools altogether.
The 1981 Education (School Premises) Regulations replace the earlier 1972 Standards for School Premises Regulations. With a few exceptions, at the time of their introduction in 1981 the regulations applied only to new buildings. They were to apply to existing buildings from September 1991.
The Government's decision to delay implementation until 1st September 1996 followed the announcement in October 1990 of a review of the regulations. Those regulations could potentially make a very significant contribution to ensuring decent classroom conditions and proper safety requirements for teachers and pupils. However, a great deal remains to be done before 1996. The current climate of uncertainty surrounding the regulations, and the Government's intentions surrounding those regulations, are not encouraging local authorities to take the necessary steps to ensure compliance.
It is relevant to note that meanwhile the 1992 European Community Workplace Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations, although not targeted specifically at schools, nevertheless apply to schools in the same way as they apply to other workplaces. They do not deal with teaching area requirements and recreation areas for pupils, but in most other areas (for example, in relation to cleanliness, conditions of doors and windows, provision of sanitary and washing facilities and rest facilities) they are more detailed and more comprehensive than the School Premises Regulations. Can the Minister confirm that existing schools have only until 1st January 1996 to comply with the regulations? The regulations were required to implement an EC directive; therefore, the Government will not be able to abolish them in the same way as they could abolish the School Premises Regulations.
I hope that the Minister will not take offence when I state that my mind was very much on the implications of the amendments when I went to visit her recently in her department. What a building it is. It reminds me of a five-star Philippino hotel, with fountains and indoor greenery. I felt humble in those tremendous surroundings; in my recent life with Oxfam it is a context I am not used to. I made some inquiries. Perhaps I have been ignorant and should have known about it earlier, but I understand that the Government spent nearly £14 million on adapting the building for their computer system alone. They are paying the staggering sum of £12 million a year in rent for that building. By my rough reckoning, more than 300 of Britain's crumbling schools could be made fit enough for our children to learn in for that kind of sum.
To compound that experience, this past weekend in the course of my other activities I have been driving widely across the United Kingdom. I have taken the opportunity to look at schools while travelling up and down the country. It was not a reassuring prospect. Looking casually at that kind of setting, in these days when we talk so much of the environment, there was nothing to make me come home and say what a fine
1240
environment it was for our children to grow up and undertake their education in order to prepare for the 21st century. By the time I got home I felt ashamed to think that many of our youngsters were condemned to follow education in that kind of environment.
Those who read the same periodicals as I do will have had their attention focused on Parkhurst Road School in Haringey, where the classrooms have been boarded up. That was the situation in May when I last checked. They were boarded up because of rotting frames. Roofs are leaking so badly that staff have to put out buckets to catch the rainwater. Paint is peeling, ugly stains are spreading; PE lessons for the school's 310 five to seven year-olds are constantly cancelled after heavy cloudbursts because of waterlogged floors. It could all be put right for £35,000. However, the Government's cash squeeze on local authorities has made it impossible for the local authority concerned to find that cash. The headmaster is recorded as having said in despair, "It looks as though we will have to put up with it all for at least another 12 months". What a record!
I now turn to more authoritative comment than newspaper accounts on this situation. The National Audit Office has estimated that half of England's 7 million school children study in schools that need urgent repair and refurbishment. The inspectorate has said in the past that one-third of secondary school children study in such bad accommodation that it is adversely affecting their education. I am amazed that against that kind of background Ministers who pride themselves on decisiveness have, instead of facing up to it and determining that something must be done, begun to claim —we have had indications of this already this afternoon—that LEAs have spent their capital allocations unwisely and on the wrong activities. But let us consider what happened in the Education Select Committee in 1991. One of the Members of that Committee asked quite specifically:
"As far as I am aware the majority of local education authorities apply for capital allocation and in the main spend that capital allocation on what they have actually asked for it for. Is there any evidence to show they are not doing this?".
Mr. Nicholas Sanders, the accountant general at the then DES, a responsible public servant and not a politician, replied:
"There is no evidence in particular to show they are not doing it in the case of education. I think there is evidence to show they have vired funds into education as it happens".
I believe that this is, distressingly, one area where it is conspicuous that the Secretary of State does not appear to feel any responsibility whatever for putting things right. It appears that the regulation of school buildings is just about the only issue on which, he has declined to take draconian powers.
I wish to put some specific questions to the Minister before I sit down. Does she consider the regulations are too generous? Does she believe that a primary school of 80 pupils should have less than 144 square metres of teaching accommodation? That is in Schedule 4 of the 1981 school regulations. Does the Minister believe that the regulation which ensures that there is one toilet for every 20 pupils is too generous? That is contained in Regulation 10(1b). Does she believe that the regulation which ensures that every

1241
primary school with between 200 and 300 pupils has two hectares of playing field is too generous? Does she believe that the regulation which ensures that every school for children over eight years has a readily accessible changing room is too generous? That is contained in Regulation 10(5b). Does she believe that the regulation which ensures that there is separate provision of accommodation for the storage of fuel is too generous? That is Regulation 7d. Does she believe that the regulation which provides 0.2 square metres for sixth formers' private study use is too generous? That is Regulation 9(2).
I know the Minister felt I had been a little unfair on her last week. I want to place it on record that she does write to me, and I appreciate that. My argument is that the letters arrive at the last moment. I am sorry that she took offence at my remarks as I did not intend to criticise her personally in that way. While I appreciate her correspondence, I have three questions to ask with regard to the 1981 regulations which I believe the Minister needs to answer categorically in this House this afternoon. Which of the regulations does she regard as too generous? When exactly will the review of the 1981 school regulations report? Will the review lead to the abolition of the regulations?
In the meantime, these amendments seek to ensure that the action that is necessary is undertaken. I argue that it is bizarre and insensitive to lay down the law on educational practice in so much detail, as the Government do, while the buildings in which that education takes place crumble around children and teachers. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, anyone who has experience of university buildings, just like anyone who has been on a local authority housing committee, knows that the 1960s are not the period of greatest glory in the history of building in this country. A great many buildings were put up which have begun to decay extremely rapidly. Those of us who are householders know perfectly well that if one defers repairing a building which is letting in water the costs are likely to increase in geometrical progression. That means that if one does nothing the costs rapidly escalate until they become out of reach. I do not know what will happen when we reach that point. It would be good housekeeping and a prudent use of public money for the Government to accept this amendment. I am happy to support it.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, it is difficult to add anything to the comprehensive contribution made by my noble friend Lord Judd on this important topic, but I shall say a few words on the amendment. I hope it is not necessary to remind the Government, and the Minister in particular, that school buildings are the basic tool in education. I am tempted to say they are the only tool but as a fervent supporter of the teaching profession I must add that both buildings and teachers are essential.
It appears to me that the Government simply have not grasped the importance of the need to provide
1242
adequate, and indeed more than adequate, buildings. We tend to draw on our own experiences on these matters and perhaps that is proper in some circumstances. I well remember that when I was an education officer I was at my most popular when I mended roofs, provided additional lavatories or repaired broken lavatories and that kind of thing. This matter is very important. It must be stated over and over again that these matters have to be attended to.
I hesitate to say this, but my noble friend may have misjudged the EC regulations on this matter. What he said was absolutely right but I should add that I believe the EC regulations will affect schools. My noble friend may have hesitated to mention that matter but, having looked at the regulations, I have no doubt in my own mind that we will be subjected to them. When I spoke in the debate on the Maastricht Bill last week one of my grumbles was that we are to be subject to too much detailed control from Brussels and Luxembourg. However, I am certainly in favour of the EC regulations on school buildings. I hope that at the end of the day action will be taken on this important matter.
My noble friend referred to the National Audit Office. I presume that most noble Lords who have participated in these debates have received a document today which is a summary of the Audit Commission's report. I underline everything that my noble friend said, but I hope that the House will forgive me if I quote two or three of the astonishing points made in that report which are relevant to repairs, crumbling schools and everything we are discussing today.
The first point was critical. It concerned,
"the allocation of repairs work to the husband of a member of staff, even though his quotation was £2,500 higher than the lowest with the reasons for this not apparently being reported to the school governors".
In the second and third examples,
"three teachers formed a consortium to undertake repairs and maintenance on a commercial basis for the school at which they were employed as teachers and were awarded a contract by the school, undertaking the work in the evenings and at weekends"
and
"a head teacher awarded over £3,000 worth of work to her husband without getting competitive quotations or discussing this with the governors".
In the final case,
"a school awarded one of its teachers a contract for £1,600 of electrical work, without other quotations being sought or the health and safety implications being fully covered".
I find those examples breathtaking.
I know that the Minister will say, and rightly so, that those are matters which need to be tightened up as we make progress with grant-maintained schools. However, the picture, which was painted by my noble friend, and those examples, highlighted by the much respected Audit Commission, must surely cause great concern, not only to everybody in this House but in the education world and to the taxpayer at large.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question relating to a point which she made in the early part of her contribution concerning the previous amendment. How are we to judge the progress of grant-maintained status? Perhaps the best way is not to consider the number of schools opting out, which is what we have

1243
been doing. The noble Baroness said that many of them are secondary schools with larger numbers of pupils. That is correct. However, if that is the case it is a change from saying that GM status is a success or otherwise. I hope the noble Baroness or her civil servants will be able to provide that information. If we are to count numbers of pupils in grant-maintained schools we ought to know the total number of pupils in the 26,000 schools. Figures of 2 per cent. and 4 per cent. have been bandied about. I have mentioned them myself because I happen to believe that the exercise has not been particularly successful so far. We have to remember that the scheme has been in operation for four years. I should like the point clarified. We should know what the percentage is. If it is to be based on the number of pupils we want to know the specific number rather than deal, as we have in the past, with the number of schools involved. So far 900 schools have applied for grant-maintained status. Perhaps the Minister can say whether those 900 schools have been approved or whether the figure includes applications in the pipeline so that there may be 100 or 200 fewer.
Every week we hear horror stories about crumbling schools. We heard them last week and again this week, largely because of the heavy rain. I should have thought that most schools would be able to cope with heavy rain without having to put pails in all the classrooms or the cloakrooms. We have been hearing about such problems for years and years. We should not be hearing about such a situation these days. In 1993 we really ought to know what the situation is throughout the country. There should be a national inventory, prepared by the Department for Education, of all kinds of repairs which are needed—structural, leaking roofs, and so on. Until we have that story this type of debate will continue for a very long time.
I remind the House that the Government have now been in power for 14 years. By any stretch of the imagination, and certainly by any political measurement, that is a long time. Many of the most important matters, not only in education but also in other fields, ought to have been corrected by now. Some of us in the Chamber today think that there is nothing more important than education; that is why I am on my feet today. If the Government cannot get something like this right after 14 years, then heaven help us for the future!
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I should like to underline one or two of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand. I well remember, as an education officer, the heartache among schools with regard to their buildings. In particular two schools come to mind. One had been soldiering on for I do not know how many years, with about half of its accommodation in temporary classrooms. Again and again the work had to be put back because there simply was not the money to get the school out of those temporary classrooms. Another school had been without a decent library, and for all I know it still is. Again, I remember in the capital budget, when there were government cutbacks, having to defer the matter yet again so that that school still could not have a
1244
proper library. I do not believe that that was a matter of a local authority not being able to manage its finances.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the final points first. If we accept that money is finite—and here it does not matter which political party is in power—then the issue of how that money is managed and how priorities are determined becomes acute. That will always be the case. Indeed, I was for a long time chairman of the governors of a school. The school had a large number of portable classrooms. Year on year we were disappointed when the school came to the top of the list but was displaced by schools with greater needs. However, eventually the needs were met. The amendment is not concerned with the sum of money available to schools, but with something very different.
I agree absolutely with one phrase which the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, used. Indeed, I believe that it unites the whole of the House. There is nothing more important than education. I do not say that simply because I am an education Minister at this time. I believe that the Department for Education is the most important department in Whitehall. Education is the key and underpins almost everything else, both inside and outside Government.
The noble Lord referred to the Audit Commission and singled out some appalling cases. One of the strengths of our system, now that it is more exposed, is that such cases come to light and therefore something can be done about them. The noble Lord referred to local education authority schools, not grant-maintained schools. The same Audit Commission report says of schools which volunteered to be part of the survey that grant-maintained schools have robust systems of accountability. We shall all be able to see the report fairly soon. I met with Mr. Cooksey (who was knighted in the recent Honours List but I cannot remember his Christian name) only last week and saw the report.
The noble Lord also referred in his examples to mismanagement of funds at local authority level. I am waiting with bated breath to see what will come out of Lambeth, a local authority in which mismanagement seems to have been a serious feature of the way in which its affairs were conducted for a long time. In my view the grievance is that that was not uncovered a long time ago.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She is disagreeing with me on a fundamental point. The document is headed "Schools' Management of Their Finances". I know that that does not preclude local education authority control or supervision, but the whole tenor of the document —which I am sure she has seen—concerns what has been happening under grant-maintained schools. That is mentioned several times. I do not say that I am right, but the document suggests that what the Minister said is not relevant. I hope that at some time later in this debate, or at some other time, the position can be clarified.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that the examples given concern LEA schools. The reference to accountability and systems in grant-maintained schools in that report shows them to be robust. I shall read the report from cover to cover between now and the next time we meet on the Bill. If I am wrong I shall stand corrected and come before the House and say so.
The noble Lord asked how we would count the progress of grant-maintained schools. First, the progress of grant-maintained schools is in the public domain. Questions are being asked almost weekly by Members in another place. There is no secret: there have been over 900 "yes" ballots. Some of those schools are up and running; some have been approved and are simply waiting to start; and some are waiting to be processed. Indeed, when I spoke in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, I made no secret of the position: I stated that not all those schools would be approved. Some will not. That is the whole point of their coming before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. However, the number goes inexorably upwards.
I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that the schools have until the 1st January 1996 to comply with new European Community regulations on health and safety.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. Will she also confirm that schools must take action by then?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there are regulations; and we are absolutely committed to abide by the law, whether it is European or domestic law.
The noble Lord made reference to his visit to my office. I have no difficulty in identifying with his feelings when he came into that building. However, I wonder whether he would like to suggest to the staff associations and unions representing the people who work for the Department for Education and Science that they might like to return to Elizabeth House, which I believe was almost unfit for human habitation. I certainly am not defending opulence. I believe that we shall come under public scrutiny either through the Public Accounts Committee or some other body if we are misusing or abusing public funds. I believe that that is absolutely right; we have to be publicly accountable. However, I believe that Elizabeth House was beyond redemption.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene, perhaps I may ask her whether her experience is similar to mine as a denizen of Elizabeth House for three years: that it is not the most agreeable place in the world, but certainly a great deal nicer than many primary schools.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not spend my life looking at the negative in the world. I spend my life seeing the enormous change made to schools—the schools that are now carpeted, well furnished and well built. I see local authorities battling, as they always will do, with finite sums of money, making excellent
1246
use of resources in doing what they can to maintain schools, to provide for new schools, and indeed facing the very difficult task of closing schools to rationalise provision where that money can be recycled to improve schools.
I do not say that there are not some poor schools. We have heard them described today. However, my whole world is not coloured by those poor schools. I think positively and, where I can, encourage the best use of those resources that are available to schools.
Mention was made of a school in Haringey. I would be surprised if the long catalogue of items wrong with that school, named by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, could be put right with £25,000. Either the noble Lord exaggerates his case or underestimates the cost of repair. However, before I make judgments about that school I should wish to examine carefully the whole budget of Haringey, how it determines priorities, and how it manages its portfolio.
It is typical of noble Lords opposite to be negative. They are delighted to spend unspecified, unbounded amounts of taxpayers' money. But we all wish to see school buildings repaired. We want to see them in better shape—the best shape possible. However, there is no point in setting artificial time limits which often cannot be met, or indeed to prescribe expenditure for local authorities when they would rather spend the resources on something else. We shall do our best. The taxpayer will always do his best. But it will take time. As I have said already, it will also mean closing unpopular schools. That is why the Secretary of State is keen to use the new powers in the Bill to take tough decisions—decisions which at times we all know will be unpopular with parents. However, we have to live in the real world. Resources are finite. We shall spend whatever is available for education as best we can, but artificial time limits are no way forward.
I was asked whether I saw the regulations as generous. I shall not answer the noble Lord's question in detail because I need to wait for advice. My right honourable friend will come before the House if there is to be any modification because it will be in the form of regulations. However, as someone who was involved in a local authority when the 1981 regulations were brought in, I found myself seriously at odds with the requirements. We were required to spend precious resources on what might be important—changing rooms for teachers, for example, an item which is part of those regulations—when there were more important issues such as leaking windows or a leaking roof. We found the money pre-empted simply because regulations stated that those issues had to be met by a particular date. Therefore there is the effect and impact of specific dates by which work must be done. If it is a health and safety matter, of course it must always take priority.
The school premises regulations—the most recent version of which was promulgated in 1981 —of course applied to grant-maintained as well as LEA maintained schools. That does not seem to be a point picked up in the amendments. In Amendment No. 286A the noble Lord proposes a time limit on the application of any regulations on school premises made under Section 10 of the 1944 Act. Setting a time

1247
limit in that way would be undesirable. Where a period of grace is necessary to enable schools of a specified description to come up to the newly promulgated standards, it would be preferable to leave the matter to be decided on the specific circumstances of the requirement. Under Section 10 of the 1944 Act the Secretary of State is already able to set a time limit on compliance for particular requirements.
Clause 83, with which Amendment No. 160F is concerned, deals with the times and the manner in which payments are to be made by the funding authority. It deals with their administration of the system of paying grant. It is important to know that the provision is not concerned with the amount of grant payable. In our view, the way in which the funding authority administers payments of grant will have little effect on the ability of the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools to comply with their duties in relation to school premises. To the limited extent that it does, the funding authority will in any event have to take account of those duties in administering the grant system. Amendment No. 160F is therefore in our view unnecessary and I ask the House to reject it.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. Perhaps I may pick up several of the points that have been made in the debate.
First, may I respond to the point made by my noble friend Lord Dormand. I am sure he will agree with me that it is not a happy prospect that, when we have been dithering over whether or not we can implement our own regulations as to what makes a decent school in which education should be carried out, we should in the end have to fall back on European Community regulations to ensure that action is taken. It seems yet again to demonstrate that we are the slow coach of Europe. I can think of a number of countries on the mainland of Europe where far higher priority would be given; hence the regulations. It seems to me a very unfortunate reflection on our own priorities that we are put into that rather shameful predicament.
We still have not had convincing replies from the Minister to the questions that I put. I believe that this underlines how timely and important those amendments are. We do not want a lot of talk about what might or might not happen; we wish to be certain that action is taken.
The Minister spoke about her headquarters building. I do not wish to turn the matter into a debate on the headquarters building. However, I believe that there is far more significance in that situation than she may have recognised in her reply. What underlies all our considerations in the debate is that there is an insulated, increasingly arrogant, centralised administration in education. Perhaps it is not intentional; that is what makes the matter so difficult. It lays down the law in every possible detail as to what should happen up and down the country. The question asked by teachers in inner city areas, struggling with appalling conditions, is often, "How can those people in that building, working in those conditions, begin to relate
1248
to the reality, the priorities, the everyday difficulties with which we and our children are confronted?". That is the problem. The situation is not good enough.
Of course no one would want to put hard-working and committed (I do not dispute that) public servants back into the previous building. Good luck to the rail tunnel if it has to base its headquarters in that particular building. All I say is that, surrounding this chemistry of the building, the facilities and the rest, there is a very real psychology which suggests an over-centralised administration which is not in touch with the everyday realities for those who make up the real life of education.
For those kind of reasons, these amendments are very important. I would have thought that the Minister might have welcomed them as a way of demonstrating her commitment —and indeed demonstrating how wrong I am to have the kind of doubts that I am expressing. But my anxieties are underlined. The National Audit Office revealed in 1991 that Ministers were planning to consider:
"any recommendations arising from the review for bringing the regulations up to date or abolishing them".
Sir Rhodes Boyson, who was himself an education Minister from 1979 to 1983, went on record as saying —and I would be glad if anything the Minister had said this afternoon seemed convincingly to repudiate these remarks:
"I have always seen these regulations as a bureaucratic monstrosity.
I'd do away with them and put the schools under basic local authority standards."—
that is an interesting contradiction in terms of centralisation—
"That decision would be in line with the instincts of the Prime Minister to cut back on useless regulation."
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. His amendment is endorsing the 1944 regulations, not undermining them. I do not understand why he is decrying them in this way on this particular amendment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the amendments are insisting that the action is taken in line with the regulations and that they are implemented.
In concluding my observations, I wonder whether I might share with the House the realities of what is happening in terms of the bids for capital allocation from the Government. We have to remember that LEAs bid for capital allocations for their county schools as a whole; they are then allocated capital and allowed to borrow that amount for school buildings and repairs. They also bid for specific grants (rather than allocations) to borrow for voluntary aided and controlled schools.
When one looks at what is happening across the country—and I cannot possibly take up time to give all the detail—it underlines why there is anxiety about commitment to building regulations. Let us look at the county councils in several regions. Avon bid for just over £13 million, and was allowed £4 million—in other words, 37 per cent. of its bid was granted; Berkshire was allowed 19 per cent. of its bid; Durham was allowed 13 per cent.; Oxfordshire, a county which

1249
I know well because I live there, was allowed 13 per cent. of its bid; Warwickshire was allowed 17 per cent. Those figures are taken at random.
If we look at the figures for London, Brent was allowed 6 per cent. of its bid; Hillingdon 9 per cent.; Richmond 5 per cent. If one looks at Inner London, Camden was allowed 9 per cent.; Islington 5 per cent.; and Lewisham 6 per cent.
If we look at the North West, Rochdale was allowed 5 per cent. In the West Midlands, Wolverhampton was allowed 14 per cent. If we move to the Yorkshire local education authorities, Doncaster was allowed 9 per cent. of its bid; Sheffield 9 per cent. Newcastle, among the Northern education authorities, was allowed 8 per cent.
With that kind of response from Government no wonder there is anxiety about any real commitment to the implementation of the regulations. The Government pride themselves on being a businesslike government. But their vocabulary and the reality become increasingly difficult to reconcile in any quarter whatsoever. For a Government who pride themselves on a businesslike, hard-headed approach, I cannot think of anything more short-sighted than to be allowing our school buildings, school capital equipment, and so on, to run down in this way. God knows what costs are building up for the future and what the bills will be.
This is short-termism at its worst. The short-termism which we are assured is not operative in government is here again, at the heart of education. Therefore, without any hesitation, so that we can reassure teachers, children and all those involved that not only are we telling them what they should do in the syllabus and the curriculum, but we are also serious in ensuring that they have the accommodation which is basic to a civilised approach to education, I shall pursue these amendments tonight. I beg to move.
4.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 160F) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ardwick, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Aylestone, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Galpern, L.

Blackstone, B.

Geraint, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Glasgow, E.

Bottomley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Broadbridge, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Grey, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Carter, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hughes, L.

David, B.

Jay, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Desai, L.

Jeger, B.

1250

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Rochester, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Russell, E.

Judd, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Kennet, L.

Seear, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Serota, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Shepherd, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Stedman, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mayhew, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Meston, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Templeman, L.

Mishcon, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Molloy, L.

Tordoff, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mulley, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Nicol, B.

White, B.

Ogmore, L.

Wigoder, L.

Peston, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Redesdale, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Richard, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Goschen, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Greenway, L.

Annan, L.

Gridley, L.

Arran, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Astor, V.

Halsbury, E.

Auckland, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Barber, L.

Harrowby, E.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Harvington, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Beloff, L.

Henley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Blake, L.

Hives, L.

Blatch, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Blyth, L.

Hood, V.

Boardman, L.

Howe, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Killearn, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Kitchener, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Knollys, V.

Bruntisfield, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Butterworth, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cadman, L.

Liverpool, E.

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lucas, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lyell, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cockfield, L.

Manchester, D.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Manton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Marlesford, L.

Cox, B.

Marsh, L.

Craigavon, V.

Merrivale, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mersey, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Davidson, V.

Morris, L.

Denham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mountevans, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Moyne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Munster, E.

Elles, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nelson, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norrie, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Flather, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Foley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gainford, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Rankeillour, L.

1251

Reay. L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Renton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Strange, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Rodney, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E [Teller.]

Romney, E.

St. Davids, V.

Sudeley, L.

Salisbury, M.

Swinfen, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Seccombe, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Selborne, E.

Trumpington, B.

Selkirk, E.

Ullswater, V.

Shannon, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sharp of Grimsdyke, L.

Vivian, L.

Sharples, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Wakeham, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Westbury, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.4 p.m.
Clause 86 [Special purpose grants]:
[Amendment No. 160G not moved.]
Clause 87 [Capital grants]:
[Amendment No. 160H not moved.]
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 161:
After Clause 93, insert the following new clause:
("Audits
The governing body of a grant-maintained school who are under an obligation to appoint a person to audit their accounts shall appoint an auditor approved for that purpose by the Audit Commission.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a short amendment but a very important one. It provides that when the accounts of a grant-maintained school are audited the auditor appointed by the governors of the school shall be a person approved by the Audit Commission. I am not concerned with local authority schools. The auditing of their accounts comes under a different regime and, as your Lordships will know, the accounts of a local authority must be audited by an auditor appointed by the Audit Commission.
The efficiency of the audit of a government-funded concern is obviously a matter of prime importance. As regards a grant-maintained school, the governors appoint their own auditor. As the Bill stands, they are entitled to appoint any accountant who is eligible under the Companies Act to audit the accounts of an ordinary company. There is no check on the suitability of the auditor chosen by the governors. However, that is not quite the end of the matter.
The Department for Education has issued a code of practice, dated February of this year, called the External Audit Code for the Grant-Maintained Sector. The code is not statutory, but it will be binding on a grant-maintained school because observance of the code is a condition of the funding of the school. So it is necessary to examine the code and see exactly how far it goes to ensure that only suitably qualified auditors are appointed. It does not go very far.
Section 3 of the code deals with the appointment of auditors. Paragraph 3.6 specifies the qualification of auditors. An auditor can be, but need not be, an employee of the Audit Commission. An auditor can be, but need not be, a person specially approved by the
1252
Department for Education to audit the accounts of a grant-maintained school. But—and this is the point—an auditor can be any ordinary accountant eligible under the Companies Act to audit the accounts of an ordinary company.
Reading on in the code, there is a paragraph headed "Criteria for Appointment". The code of practice requires the governors, before they choose an auditor, to decide the standards for which they are looking in their chosen auditor. As the code puts it, they must determine:
"the criteria for appointment before inviting firms to tender".
Those criteria must include what the code calls "the relevant experience" of the auditor. But the code does not specify any particular level of experience being required. That is left to the governing body to decide.
So at the end of the day, reading the Bill and the code of practice together, we find that the governing body is given an entirely free hand in assessing a prospective auditor's suitability, provided only that he is eligible to audit the accounts of any tuppenny-ha'penny company.
It is not satisfactory. We are dealing with a great deal of public money. I am told that the estimated expenditure in support of grant-maintained schools for 1992–93 is £279 million. If, as the Government hope, all schools eligible for grant-maintained status become in due course grant maintained, the amount involved in present money terms is estimated at £15,000 million. That is one-third of the cost of the National Health Service.
The Minister recognised how important it is that the accounts of a grant-maintained school should be audited by a truly experienced auditor. In Committee, at col. 159 on 27th April, she said,
"I take particularly seriously the importance of having a rigorous and extremely robust system of accountability for those individual establishments within the state sector of education".
Is the absence of any independent check on the suitability of a prospective auditor a proper part of a,
"rigorous and extremely robust system of accountability"?
Let me refer to, and heartily endorse, what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on 20th April, at col. 1409, when he stated,
"The development of the grant-aided system, which I welcome, makes it increasingly important that schools' accounts should be audited not by local amateurs but by professionals of high standing".
I could not agree more.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, gave three horror stories unearthed by the Audit Commission. Perhaps I may be forgiven for repeating them and adding a fourth, because they are so important to my argument. His first example was of the head teacher who awarded a contract for £3,000 of work to her husband. No competitive quotation was obtained and the governors were not informed. Example No. 2 concerns a contract for repairs awarded by a school to the husband of a member of staff, although his quotation was £2,500 above that of a competitor. No superior quality of work was identified and your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that again the governors were not consulted.
The third example concerned three teachers who set up a cosy consortium which contracted to undertake

1253
maintenance work at the school in their spare time. Finally, there was the head teacher who employed her daughter to help with the school administration during the vacation, the pay being,
"at a much higher rate",
than the normal administrative staff rate. Again, the governors were not consulted. Surely, those examples illustrate the need for a robust system of auditing.
Amendment No. 161 does not remove from the governors of a grant-maintained school the right to choose their own auditors—a point on which the Minister laid great stress at Committee stage. The amendment leaves the choice of auditor to the governors. All it does is provide that the choice shall be a suitable one, a choice approved by the Audit Commission.
There is nothing new in the concept that auditors shall, in appropriate circumstances, be approved by the Audit Commission. The Transport Act 1985 provides that a public transport company shall appoint only auditors who, in addition to being qualified under the Companies Act, shall be,
"approved for appointment as auditors of that company by the Audit Commission".
Again, the Airports Act 1986 provides that a public airport company shall only appoint auditors who, in addition to being qualified under the Companies Act, shall be,
"approved for appointment as such auditors by the Audit Commission".
I am told that there is at this moment in draft a statutory instrument called the local authorities companies order of 1993, which requires certain companiesc and in particular waste disposal companies— to have their accounts,
"audited by an auditor approved by the Audit Commission".
Amendment No. 161 is a simple one. Perhaps I shall be forgiven if I read the few lines to your Lordships. It states:
"The governing body of a grant-maintained school who are under an obligation to appoint a person to audit their accounts shall appoint an auditor approved for that purpose by the Audit Commission".
I submit that the amendment is necessary. The machinery is in place. There are two statutory precedents and there is about to be a third. There are huge sums of money involved. Surely, the finances of grant-maintained schools deserve as much care and attention as those of a waste disposal company.
Grouped with Amendment No. 161 are Amendments Nos. 200 and 277 which are merely interpretation amendments about which I need not say anything.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before he sits down perhaps the noble and learned Lord can complete his case by telling us whether the four examples he quoted were revealed to him, directly or indirectly, by auditors appointed by the schools or by some other means. Without that information the argument does not help.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I am not able to answer the noble Lord's question. My point is that there are practices which go on in some schools— I
1254
hope very few—which need to be unearthed. If they are to be successfully unearthed we need auditors who are efficient, well trained and experienced. The specific examples were unearthed by the Audit Commission, I do not know in what circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, in approaching the amendment I fear that my noble friend on the Front Bench will probably start with reference to the fact that we have discussed the matter twice before. Those fears were given an altogether new substance by an accident which happened just now to my noble friend—to whom I was listening with rapt attention, as I always do—when she had the misfortune (I wonder she does not do it more often in this sort of legislation) to turn over two pages at the same time. The words therefore intervened, "this is the third time". I suspect that that is how she is likely to start her speech, which I would not wish to spoil for her.
I would not have come back for a third bite at this cherry had it not been for two matters; first, my conviction that it is a very important issue, and, secondly, the skills and wisdom of the noble and learned Lord, who moved the amendment, which have made it possible for me to avoid the pitfalls into which I erred at earlier stages. First, because of the unwelcome cuckoo in the nest, as one might call it, of Clause 1, I was in danger of getting universities entangled in my amendment. That was not my intention. The amendment, which the noble and learned Lord has moved, is free of any objection of that kind. The second problem that I had was described by my noble friend on the Front Bench as my "flawed amendments". She made it very clear—she hurt my feelings deeply—when she said:
"I do not wish to respond to the invitation to take these flawed amendments away".—[Official Report, 27/4/93; col. 158.]
Noble Lords can imagine how cast down I was by that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, referred to the huge amount of public money which could be at stake here if, as the Government hope, local education authority schools take this course. There is no need for me to echo at any length the plea which the noble and learned Lord has made for an efficient and effective audit. I should like just to say a word or two about the idea of a code of practice. When we are involved in legislation—voluminous legislation which it is not always easy to follow—I find it very hard indeed to accept the notion of tagging on a code of practice. Even supposing that the code of practice is wholly satisfactory in its present content, and even supposing that it would be rigidly adhered to by all concerned, codes of practice are subject to change. Secretaries of State change. I do not find at all acceptable the notion that the points expressed by your Lordships can easily, conveniently and effectively be met by their inclusion in a code of practice.
With the change of status which local education authority schools will have when they become grant aided, there seems to be no accompanying reason why the audit arrangements should be changed. Indeed, the reverse is very much the case. I feel that there is much to be said for continuing existing auditing

1255
arrangements. It will make the change of status easier and not more difficult to follow. My noble friend seemed greatly wedded to the idea that the National Audit Office should do it all. Nothing in this amendment implies even the least criticism of the National Audit Office. It is a very different organisation though to the Audit Commission. The National Audit Office, under the guidance of the Comptroller and Auditor General, conducts a kind of gladiatorial inquisition in front of the Public Accounts Committee into the conduct of the affairs of government departments. The National Audit Office will, it is true, be auditing the accounts of the two funding councils. But I do not believe that that is any reason for removing from the audit of schools the experience and knowledge which has been acquired over the years by the Audit Commission.
The report of April 1993 of the National Audit Office lists in appendix 1 some 15 grant-maintained schools which have been visited by the National Audit Office. I am not aware whether the experience of the National Audit Office covers a greater number of schools than that. It may do. But the experience of the Audit Commission is far wider. The numbers of grant-maintained schools are limited —only some 45 schools have been visited by the Audit Commission —but the number of local education authority schools which have been visited since September 1989, which is the period referred to in the National Audit Office report, is between 6,000 and 6,500. So, on the basis of the experience of the affairs of schools, I do not believe that there is very much to be gained by transferring audit duties to the National Audit Office. In fact, there is a danger that a great deal will be lost.
There is widespread unease—and I choose the mildest word available—that somehow or other and for one reason or another our education system is leaving too many people who are at the end of their school careers unfit to cope either with the opportunities or the hazards of modern life. It is our habit in this country I find it lamentable—that when things go amiss our immediate reaction is to seek not how we put things right but whom we should blame. There are lots of potential scapegoats available, but hanging them from the nearest lamp-post would not be any great help.
The other alternative to which we resort only too readily is some tremendously extensive, complicated and usually incomprehensible bureaucratic exercise. Talking, as I have done recently, to teachers of all persuasions, teachers who are not known for their militancy or for their opposition or hostility to the present administration, they complain that authority has failed to understand how uncomfortable they feel with this wholly complex burden which they have been called upon to shoulder.
1 come back to this amendment and conclude by saying that I found it depressing on the previous occasion that my noble friend should resist the proposals with such vigour. Reflecting on the many things which she said in the course of those two earlier debates, I do not believe that the Department for Education can escape all blame for the deficiencies in our present educational system. That being the case, I
1256
am at least suspicious that the resistance of the department is based on a fear that if the Audit Commission is given even so much as a toe hold in its affairs the department would be faced with a whole host of questions that it would find very difficult to answer and which it would rather not have to try.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, to which my name is attached, I do not have to draw noble Lords' attention to the fact that the four signatures to it are drawn from all sides of your Lordships' House and represent a considerable variety of opinion. As I have pointed out to the noble Baroness, I certainly do not wish the grant-maintained schools well. Equally, her noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil certainly does. I have no idea where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, stands as regards grant-maintained schools, but I cannot believe that he does not wish them well. So it is not a question about grant-maintained schools. We are debating an amendment concerning auditing.
I disagree with my good friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I do not believe for one moment that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, can possibly complain about our returning to this subject because it is solely as a result of her interventions, causing us to think this matter through to a much greater depth and length, that leads us at last to a satisfactory amendment. We are indebted to, and have to thank, the noble Baroness because without her criticisms of what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, referred to as his "flawed" amendments, we would not have got to the present excellent position as regards this amendment. It does a job which I wish we had done earlier. Without the expert views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, on how to approach these matters we would have got it wrong and we did get it wrong. Therefore, I do not apologise for coming back to this amendment and I do not expect to be criticised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for returning to it because without her help we would not have got to this position.
The central problem is that there is no check on auditors under the legislation as presently drafted. As the noble and learned Lord said, there is no new principle involved in saying that there should be a list of auditors which will enable us to have a check on the kind of people doing the work. I have drawn before an analogy in that in earlier legislation schools were going to be able to choose their own inspectors. We changed the law so that there would be a list of inspectors chosen by Ofsted. It now chooses a list and the schools can select their inspectors from that list. The present situation is exactly analogous.
The central point here is clearly that there is an enormous amount of public money involved. In the interests of the taxpayers a proper independent audit is the one safeguard for public money that we can rely on. I can only underline the exact words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. He referred to rigorous auditing, by which I assume one means auditing to the highest intellectual standard. Robust auditing means that the audit will stand up and will

1257
make sense. Accountability is central to auditing. Then almost as a throwaway line in response to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the noble and learned Lord also referred to the importance of experience.
In my view, nothing can make up for experience when one investigates what goes on in a company. In my younger days when I needed to earn money as a consultant the great problem was that many of the people who acted as consultants had little experience of what was going on and therefore they did not understand that underneath what they were being told there was a good deal more to be found out. I gradually gained experience and I became useful as a consultant. The same applies here; experience is tremendously important.
Perhaps I may add two other factors at this point in my remarks. I am convinced that first-class auditing is in the interests of the school. It has been implied by the noble Baroness the Minister that the kind of auditing we have in mind might be threatening to a school. I cannot believe for one moment that that is so. I believe that independent auditing would be much more helpful to the school and that precisely this kind of amendment would be attractive to grant-maintained schools rather than the other possibility. In particular, I believe that the school would not like to be open to the accusation "You chose any old auditor and we cannot take your accounts seriously". I believe that the school would welcome this kind of amendment.
We are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for getting us this far. The amendment put forward is balanced and is not bureaucratic. I believe that is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, brought out. It is possible that his earlier flawed amendment was potentially bureaucratic, but this amendment certainly is not. It involves the Audit Commission in setting up a list and then the school chooses.
From start to finish I have not understood what is the department's objection to the flavour of this matter. I have never understood why the noble Baroness would not take the amendments away or return with equivalent amendments. I feel that there must be something underlying all this which the noble Baroness has not told us. Is there some hidden agenda?
Quite rightly, when the noble Baroness hears me speaking in favour of a certain amendment she must be suspicious of it because, as I have been at pains to tell her for some time, I do not favour grant-maintained schools. I believe that they are a serious waste of public money. She is right to be suspicious of me. But I cannot understand how she can be suspicious of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who always speaks in the interests of the Government and certainly of those of her own department. He would not dream of undermining grant-maintained schools. I am not sure that I can go that far with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, but I have no reason to feel that his motives are not of the highest order in this regard; namely, the correct use of public money.
I am strongly in favour of this amendment and I support it. I also beg the noble Baroness to think of
1258
the amendment with me as a small part of it and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridgeman, as major figures—
A Noble Lord: Lord Brightman.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon. Alzheimer's disease does hit every so often, and just like that. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. I ask the noble Baroness to think of him and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, as the great figures putting forward this amendment and of me just tagging on as best I can.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, this is one of many long nights ahead of us and I am sure that it is totally unnecessary for everyone who has their name attached to an amendment to make a long speech about it. I do not intend to repeat what has already been said with great effect by previous speakers, but I wish to make one point. We all know that school governors today are finding themselves somewhat overwhelmed, if not threatened, by the responsibilities which they have undertaken, particularly in the financial area. I am sure that it is very alarming to find oneself ultimately responsible for hundreds of thousands of pounds of expenditure when all one has done in the past is to manage or mismanage the housekeeping money.
I understand that quite a few of those who have taken on these responsibilities doubt very much whether they can continue because of the weight of the responsibility. Nothing can be more reassuring than to be able to brandish a report from a highly reputable body of accountants, which has audited the accounts, saying that the school is financially as pure as the driven snow. If only in the interests of the governors, it is highly desirable that this amendment be accepted.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I wish to speak against this amendment. I do not support it for one or two quite important reasons. The first is that it is a restraint on trade, for which I see no sufficient justification whatever. Chartered accountants are chartered to audit accounts with integrity and competence. If they cannot do that they should be struck off.
I have no evidence at all that the universities have to choose their accountants from accountants approved by the Audit Commission. If the universities are to be allowed and trusted to choose their own accountants, why should grant-maintained schools not be allowed to do so? I note that some of those who have spoken in favour of the amendment are university people. It seems that they will not trust schools to be audited in the way that they themselves are audited. That point needs to be stressed.
The second point is that I have not heard what the criteria are for firms of chartered accountants to be approved by the Audit Commission for this purpose. It seems to me that it would be a slur on the professional integrity and competence of a firm of chartered accountants if its application for approved status were refused. What are the criteria by which a firm is approved to audit schools? How can they be

1259
different from the criteria which allow that firm to practise in the ordinary world of business in the first place?
The final point that I should like to make is this: the analogy with schools choosing their own inspectors does not seem to me to be at all correct. The inspection of education is a much wider affair than the auditing of accounts since many more subjective elements are involved. That is why many of us felt that schools should not be allowed to choose their own inspectors, but that those inspectors should be appointed from a list of approved inspectors. Auditing is a very narrow, highly professional, expert business. Therefore, the analogy between auditing accounts and inspecting schools is not correct. For those reasons, I would not support the amendment but would support the Government in resisting it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it will be for my noble friend the Minister to adduce the main reasons for resisting the amendment, but I hope that in doing so she will bear one or two features of the noble and learned Lord's argument in mind. It is always with diffidence that I take the risk of crossing swords with noble and learned Lords, having been punctured so often by them in the past.
I should like first to draw my noble friend's attention to the fact that the four examples which were quoted were examples of what appear to be misdemeanours and would have been arguments in favour of the amendment were it also adduced that they had taken place without the knowledge of the auditors or that the auditors, knowing of them, had not drawn attention to them in their annual report and accounts. But the fact that there are strange practices in any branch of human activity is not a surprise, and it is the function of the auditor to discover them in these cases.
The case therefore to be made is that the auditors at present to be empowered to perform this task are not suitable. However, for the reasons which my noble friend Lord Skidelsky has advanced, I find it odd that auditors as a genus, all of whom have to be registered with their collective authority which is empowered under the Financial Services Act to maintain their standards, shall not be able to do this job.
The noble and learned Lord opened his speech by pointing out that the sector to which the amendment would apply is responsible for some £279 million of expenditure per annum, which could be expected to rise to an absolute maximum of £15.6 billion. I was not aware that the aggregate volume of business in a sector was the basis on which to choose the auditor for any particular bit of that sector, no matter how small the school might be or, indeed, how big. The aggregate figure does not seem relevant to the argument.
The noble and learned Lord finally referred to three examples of legislation—two in force and one to come. One deals with transport, one with airports and the third with rubbish disposal. He did not cite the volume of turnover in those cases, but I should have thought that, attractive as the argument is—and I see its appeal; our schools are surely more important than rubbish disposal—nevertheless, if the argument is
1260
about the volume of the money, the logic of the thing is that the volume of the money is very much less in that case than it will be in education.
I return to the principal theme advanced by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky—that auditors are subject to the regulation of the appropriate authority under the Financial Services Act. To say that they can undertake this particular class of work only if they are authorised by some other regulatory authority is to declare a lack of confidence not only in auditors as a class but also in their regulators. That might well be something to do, but it has not been debated and I do not think that it ought to be the basis for moving the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I should like to rise briefly on behalf of the auditing profession, of which I am a member, and to say how disturbed I am to learn from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, of the emergence of a two-tier profession—part just chartered accountants and part chartered accountants approved of by the Audit Commission. I am not sure at all that my institute knows that this is happening and I am certainly sure that if that sort of concept were to be introduced into a sector as large and diverse as schools it would wish to have its opinions sought and taken into account before that was made part of the law.
The audit of a school is extremely simple. I find it very difficult to think of any company of any sort of size which is an easier entity to audit than a school. Most of a school's expenditure is wages—one of the easiest elements of expenditure to control. The difficulties which were described by the noble and learned Lord as having come to light in the latest report are the sort of difficulties which I would expect to encounter in any company, and any competent chartered accountant ought to be capable of rooting out that sort of malpractice. We are not talking about consultancy. We are not talking about advice. We are talking about audit, about taking a very simple look at the figures. Are they accurate? Have they been properly compiled? It is nothing to do with the more complex areas which my noble friend Lord Peyton talked about. This is something which every chartered accountant ought to be capable of, and no chartered accountant ought to be ruled incapable of by a body which has nothing to do with his profession and which is merely, presumably, going to choose firms which are big and expensive rather than those which are perhaps run by a small number of people.
It would be very interesting to see this principle of the Audit Commission having a say in who is a good auditor and who is not applied to companies. Would any of my noble friends who run companies allow the Audit Commission to say whom they should choose as auditors? I am sure that they would not. Really, there is nothing harder than auditing a company—a school is simplicity itself by comparison.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall not disappoint my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil by saying, "Yes, we have indeed discussed this issue twice

1261
before", but I shall disappoint him on another aspect in that I shall, with some vigour, defend the system that is in place. In addition, I stood accused on two previous occasions of being in the hands of my officials in the department. I can promise not only my noble friend Lord Peyton but all Members of the House that I have expended a great deal of time and energy on this because I was constantly impressed by the force and energy with which these amendments have been pursued, believing that there must be something in them.
I fall back on a fairly simple view about the amendment. It adds bureaucracy. There is no mention of who will pay. It is double-banking in anybody's language. What we have now are professional bodies which oversee the quality of those who are selected to audit schools. The amendment wishes to put another professional body in place not only to oversee the professional quality of the institutions but to select from those institutions those whom the Audit Commission would deem to be suitable to audit school accounts. As my noble friend Lord Skidelsky asked, what of those auditors who are not selected by the Audit Commission? Where does it leave them within their institutions? Are we from an external body, through the Audit Commission, to play the role of selecting for professional reasons people qualified as suitable or unsuitable? And if they are deemed unsuitable, what recourse do they have? How is that judgment to be made? These are very important questions raised by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky.
Reference was made to the number of schools visited. The grant-maintained schools system is a relatively new one. It was very small in 1989, 1990 and 1991. It is growing. The National Audit Office has already visited 15 schools. That was the number visited for one particular report and all visits were in a six-month period. Dates in appendix 1 of the report from September 1989 are the dates of incorporation of the schools visited.
The Audit Commission visits very few LEA schools, and most of them do not have external auditors. The examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, who, I notice, is not now in his place, and also by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, were concerned with local-authority maintained schools, not grant-maintained schools. It is interesting that those particularly graphic illustrations of poor management were not picked up by the district auditor, who is in fact responsible to the Audit Commission. So it is not a question of putting the Audit Commission in place and somehow everything will come right. The report picked up glaring anomalies in the system that really do need to be exposed and dealt with. But it is true to say that the Audit Commission and district auditors, who are under the aegis of the Audit Commission, were in place at that time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the workload of governing bodies. I do not demur at that. The noble Baroness makes an important point. However, nothing in this amendment alleviates the burden or otherwise of governors. What the noble
1262
Baroness implied was that these auditors, selected from professional institutions responsible for monitoring the quality of their members, are somehow disreputable, but if approved by the Audit Commission will somehow become reputable. It is incumbent upon those who make that point to evidence it too.
The Audit Commission report, which again was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, was based on a study of 100 schools—88 local authority and 12 grant maintained—all of which were volunteers to the system. The general conclusions of the report on financial accountability, which is actually what we are talking about, were that 60 per cent. of schools had satisfactory systems while 40 per cent. were found to have unsatisfactory systems. Grant-maintained schools, and here I quote the report, "generally had robust systems" and therefore must have been included in the 60 per cent. of satisfactory systems.
Very few LEA schools are subject to external audit. The position of grant-maintained schools is quite different. With a very rigorous annual audit as a firm requirement, the Audit Commission clearly will have its work cut out sorting out the problems of financial accountability in LEA schools which to date have been found wanting. It was only when a special study was done of those schools that the particular problems were picked up.
I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced by all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and I am pleased to find that there is very little, if anything, between us on the basic principles. I repeat that I support a rigorous system, as rigorous as it possibly can be, for grant-maintained schools as they become freed from local authority control. The Government are committed to that so as to provide the necessary assurances about the proper use of taxpayers' money. We are equally committed to the need for value-for-money studies which can help to improve the cost-effectiveness of grant-maintained schools. I shall have more to say about that when we come to Amendment No. 199, which, to my regret, has been disaggregated from this group of amendments, because I was minded to accept it. However, I shall leave that until a later point in the proceedings.
The differences between us are about means rather than ends. Amendment No. 161 seeks to extend the role of the Audit Commission in the audits of grant-maintained schools. We do not believe that that is necessary. On the contrary, we believe that the present audit regime is adequate and rigorous. It is more rigorous than that required for public companies, and significantly more rigorous than the usual audit regime for local authority schools.
I noted what was said about schools choosing their own auditors. Yes, we do believe that that is an important freedom for self-governing schools. But let us be clear that it is not an unfettered freedom. Grant-maintained schools may only select external auditors from limited categories which we regard as suitable for this work. These include the Audit Commission's district audit service, and those

1263
accountants who are supervised and monitored by the main professional institutes and who are registered to audit limited companies.
Let us also be clear that the governors of a grant-maintained school cannot arrange whatever sort of audit they want. The department prescribes an audit code, which has already been referred to, and I have it now in my hand. It sets out in considerable detail what each year's audit must cover. This goes significantly beyond the usual concerns about propriety and end-of-year balance. The point has been made that governors must have regard to it because that is part of being allowed to exist as grant-maintained schools.
In particular, auditors are required to certify both that the grants received by the schools have been used for the correct purposes and that the school has complied with the department's requirements about financial controls, accounting practices and so forth. In addition, arising from each annual audit, auditors are required to report to governing bodies on the adequacy and effectiveness of a school's financial management system. Copies of the annual accounts and of these management letters have to be submitted to the department and of course to the FAS, when it is in place. I can assure your Lordships that any weaknesses that are found are followed up promptly and pointedly with those schools.
The whole process is overseen by the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General reported on it to Parliament in April. I have the report in my hand. This afternoon, probably at this very moment, the department's permanent secretary is being grilled—perhaps I should use a more colloquial word and say "roasted"—about the report by the Public Accounts Committee in another place. The conventions are that I should not comment on the report before the Public Accounts Committee has completed its review, but if I quote three extracts your Lordships will be able to draw your own conclusions.
One of the main conclusions was that,
"the department and individual schools had approached the change of status and the new financial regime positively and with a large measure of success, and both were developing sound financial procedures".
Secondly, the National Audit Office found that,
"the schools visited had … responded positively and vigorously to their new responsibilities under grant-maintained status and had developed or acquired the necessary expertise and procedures".
Thirdly, the National Audit Office nevertheless pointed to,
"some areas where improvements were required"
in particular cases, including,
"internal control, financial reporting, documentation of procedure and responsibilities, the custody and control of assets and purchasing and contracting procedures".
Those quotations have a clear message in relation to the amendments. Generally sound procedures are being developed, and the NAO already provides a mechanism to encourage improvements where they are needed.
I reiterate that the Government have no problem with many of the arguments advanced by noble Lords. However, we already have a very rigorous regime for the audit of grant-maintained schools, and in our view
1264
it is unnecessary to add the Audit Commission—at what cost, who knows?—to the present phalanx of supervising bodies. I trust therefore that your Lordships will not press these amendments. If my noble friend Lord Peyton and others have any doubts, they may find it helpful to know that they are likely to consider what I have to say later on Amendment No. 199 satisfactory, because in principle I am prepared to accept it.
I said earlier that we had already a rigorous audit regime for grant-maintained schools. Let me elaborate: it is an important point. First, let us look at the comparison with audits of public companies. Our requirements on grant-maintained schools are significantly more rigorous, as I have said. The audit must follow the detailed provisions of the department's code. The audited accounts must—I emphasise "must"—be submitted within five months of the end of the financial year. The auditors have to confirm that the grant has been used for proper purposes and that the school has fulfilled the requirements of the department's financial regulations. The auditors must review the school's management systems and report on any weaknesses needing attention. Indeed, all moneys that are in the hands of grant-maintained schools come under the remit of the audit but not so in LEA-maintained schools. Any moneys raised informally outside of the LEA financing system arc not part of the auditing system.
Secondly, let us take the comparison with audits of local authority schools. This is rather more difficult because very few such schools are subject to external audit. Most are covered only by local authorities' internal audit arrangements and their accounts may be examined only once every few years.
The noble Lord made much of the Audit Commission's expertise and how we should take advantage of it. I do not want to challenge his assessment, but we need to remember that most of that expertise relates to audits of local authorities. Audits of individual schools are a new and in the local authority sector rather slowly developing departure.
I can assure noble Lords that the Government have no intention of relaxing their existing rigorous audit regime. Indeed, we shall keep it under review to ensure that it keeps abreast of best auditing practice. Nor will we allow any diminution in the quality of the audit regime when some of those responsibilities transfer to the new funding authorities. I can give noble Lords a categoric assurance that the Secretaries of State will require the FAS and the Welsh equivalent to continue our rigorous audit arrangements.
It was said that the Secretary of State may be changed at a whim. Of course, Secretaries of State come and go, but the regime is well established. The National Audit Office, whose powers are statutory, does not change. It is a constant watchdog on government. It is my view that it will continue to be so. I believe that the Audit Commission is looking for a monopoly of business, and I believe, as my noble friend Lord Skidelsky said, that that is not good for trade.
6 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, replies, I may have missed what the Minister said about Amendment No. 199, as she was replying at such admirable length. Did she say she would accept Amendment No. 199, or did I mishear what she said?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I said that) would accept the principle of Amendment No. 199. I should prefer to come back on Third Reading with a suitable amendment, but it is my intention to accept the principle.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask her a question upon which I seek clarification. Am I right or wrong in saying that any chartered or certified accountant who is eligible to audit the accounts of any company is equally eligible to audit the accounts of a grant-maintained school? The code of practice (towards the bottom of page 7) says that the external audit of a grant-maintained school may be undertaken by the Audit Commission, or those accountants who are, first, members of one of the professional accountancy bodies and who are also registered to audit limited companies in accordance with the companies legislation. That is a perfectly ordinary provision: an accountant who wishes to audit companies must be on the companies list. There is then a wholly separate paragraph which deals with organisations under what is called the UKFA scheme, although it should possibly he the CIPFA scheme, of audit regulation.
As I understand it, any auditor who is eligible to audit the accounts of a limited liability company is equally eligible to audit the accounts of a grant-maintained school.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the short answer is yes, but I should make a qualification; members of professional accountancy bodies and recognised supervisory bodies include all the chartered institutes of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, the Association of Certified Accountants and the Association of Authorised Public Accountants. The noble and learned Lord referred also to those registered to audit limited companies in accordance with the companies legislation. That too is qualified by Part II of the Companies Act 1985, as amended by the 1989 Act. So the answer is yes.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister. We have been an hour discussing the amendment, and I shall be brief. The first thing that puzzles me is how a rigorous and robust system of accountability will be achieved if the auditor does not need to be vetted in any way by any responsible body. Those words were kindly attributed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but in fact they were invented and have been repeated by the noble Baroness. I am indebted to her for those words. They are described on the banner under which I am seeking to crusade for the amendment.
1266
The second point which puzzles me is how any member of the accountancy profession can think that the amendment creates two tiers of accountants, a sort of superior tier and an inferior tier. There are already two statutory provisions which provide that the auditor must be someone approved by the Audit Commission; that is, the Transport Act 1985 and the Airports Act 1986. So far as I am aware, the accountancy profession did not rise up in arms and say, "We are grossly offended by those provisions". It accepted them. Whether they are campaigning against the statutory instrument dealing with waste disposal that I mentioned, I do not know, but it does not seem to me that there is anything derogatory in a provision which provides that the accountant shall be someone who has been approved by the Audit Commission.
Another possible misunderstanding is that I am in some way campaigning in favour of the National Audit Office, as distinct from the Audit Commission. I am not. The amendment has nothing to do with the National Audit Office. It merely provides a check, through the Audit Commission, on those auditors who are approved for the auditing of the accounts of a grant-maintained school.
I do not understand what vast sums of money will be spent by the Audit Commission merely through having a list of auditors who are approved for the auditing of the accounts of a school. It does not seem to me that we are embarking upon a monstrously expensive process.
The relevance of the amount of money concerned in the financing of grant-maintained schools is surely that, if we are to have £270 million of government funds going into grant-maintained schools, and possiblys1.5 billion in a few years' time, surely we should have something in place so that we are certain that the expenditure of our money is being properly monitored. I ask your Lordships to back the amendment. It is sensible. There is precedent for it. It will cost nothing worth talking about. It may save millions.
6.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 161) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 138.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Craigavon, V.

Addington, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Airedale, L.

David, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Donoughue, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L

Attlee, E.

Eatwell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Blackstone, B.

Faithfull, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Falkland, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Brightman, L. [Teller.]

Gainsborough, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Galpern, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Geraint, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Glasgow, E.

Carter, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Greenway, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Grey, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Guildford, Bp.

1267

Halsbury, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.[Teller.]

Hamwee, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hayter, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richard, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rochester, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich,

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bp.

Hughes, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Jay, L.

Seear, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jeger, B.

Serota, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shannon, E.

Judd, L.

Sharp of Grimsdyke, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Lawrence, L.

Shepherd, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stedman, B.

Longford, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McIntosh of Hanngey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mayhew, L.

Tordoff, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Meston, L.

Warnock, B.

Molloy, L.

Whaddon, L.

Monson, L.

Wharton, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Crosby, L.

Ogmore, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Parry, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Peston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Davidson, V.

Aldington, L.

Denham, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Derwent, L.

Eccles, V.

Arran, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Astor, V.

Eiles, B.

Auckland, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Barber, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elton, L.

Blake, L.

Flather, B.

Blatch, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Blyth, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Boardman, L.

Gainford, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Goschen, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Hardwicke, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Harvington, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Cadman, L.

Henley, L.

Caithness, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hives, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hood, V.

Carnock, L.

Howe, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Cawley, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Kinnoull, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Kitchener, E.

Cockfield, L.

Layton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Leigh, L.

Cox, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Long, V.

Cranborne, V.

Lucas, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Cumberlege, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

1268

[Lord Chancellor.]

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Manchester, D.

Rodney, L.

Marlesford, L.

Romney, E.

Marsh, L.

St. Davids, V.

Merrivale, L.

Seccombe, B.

Mersey, V.

Selkirk, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Sharples, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Morris, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mottistone, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Munster, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, [Teller]

Norrie, L.

Northbourne, L.

Sudeley, L.

Onslow, E.

Swinfen, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Teviot, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Trumpington, B.

Pender, L.

Ullswater, V.

Pike, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Vivian, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Reay, L.

Wakeham. L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Rees, L.

Renton, L.

Waverley, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington Lord Young of Dartington moved Amendment No. 162:
After Clause 93, insert the following new clause:
("Establishment of grant-maintained hospital schools
—.(1) This section has effect in respect of the area of a local education authority if an order under section 10(1) of this Act applies to the area.
(2) Where the promoters of a school for sick and invalid children propose to establish a school on hospital premises which will have home tutors on its staff they shall—

(a) publish proposals for that purpose in such manner as may be prescribed, and

(b) submit a copy of the published proposals to the Secretary of State.

(3) Before publishing any proposals under this section the promoters shall consult—

(a) the funding authority, and

(b) such other persons as appear to them to be appropriate;

and in discharging their duty under this subsection the promoters shall have regard to any guidance from time to time by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope, not unavailingly, that the amendment will prove to be a non-party matter and that it will have support from all sides of the House. I thank the Minister for the consideration that she has given to what I recognise is a difficult matter. I also thank her advisers in the Department for Education and the many hospital teachers who have given advice and have supported the recently established National Association for the Education of Sick Children.
I begin by saying the conventional words to the Minister; that if the wording of the amendment is not acceptable, but its general intent is, I shall be happy if she agrees to take back the amendment, reconsider the drafting and return with an amended version at the final stage. Thinking that perhaps the wording of the amendment might not be exactly what the Minister would like to see I also tabled Amendment No.

1269
199ZA, which expresses the same point but in a different way. If those words are more acceptable to the Minister I shall be extremely pleased.
In the light of my particular interest one of the sad aspects of the Bill is that no mention is made of hospital schools and hospital education in specific terms. It is sad, but it also reflects what has happened over a very long time in our educational history. Hospital education and the education of sick children has not been—perhaps never has been—prominent on the educational agenda of the country.
Earlier I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, intervening in our debates. I remember what an excellent job she did when she was at Queen Elizabeth House, even though the accommodation was not all that people might have liked. As far as I can remember, even when the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was Secretary of State for Education and Science, and before that Minister of State, I cannot remember her speaking about the importance of the education of sick children.
Earlier the Minister said that nothing is more important than education. Many of us, partly because of the special interest that we have, agree with her about that. If that is so and we accept that, it follows that nothing is more important than the education of sick children. If they do not receive a decent education, they will suffer a double blow. Not only will they have their illness, which sometimes can be long lasting, but they will also be deprived of education which could keep them at the same level as their peers in school and, if all goes well, give them the opportunity to obtain employment when they leave school.
The fact is —and this may partly explain why the issue has not been prominent on the educational agenda—that the numbers of chronically ill children, who are just the kind of children who need hospital education and good home tutoring, has increased steadily. That is because of the advances in general and paediatric medicine, which have kept more children alive and given them the chance to mature into adults who will not be handicapped by diseases that would have handicapped them in the past.
Of the 600,000 or so children who are admitted to hospital every year, most stay for only short periods. Indeed, the length of time spent in hospital is decreasing while the period of convalescence is increasing. However, among that very large number there are larger numbers of chronically ill children who are in special need of the education service. That must be a special educational service because of their specific and particular needs.
This amendment, and a later amendment to Clause 274, seeks to ensure that proper attention is given—and, we would say, at long last—to an issue which is becoming increasingly important because the numbers are growing.
Not everyone knows the basic facts about the situation. There are some 44 hospital schools which are already special schools. Under the Bill, those schools can apply for grant-maintained status if they so wish. There are also some 160 educational units,
1270
many of which are not hospital schools but which do the same job. That can arise from an accident of history; for example, because of the person who happened to chair the education committee at a given time. Those units would not be able to go the way of the special schools and become grant maintained.
This amendment seeks to enable educational units to cluster together, because that would be the most sensible approach, and apply to become grant-maintained schools in certain circumstances. It should not apply in all circumstances. We are merely asking that it should be an available option. Heaven forbid that it should be compulsory. Some local education authorities do not need that option because the present position is perfectly satisfactory. For example, Leicestershire County Council has a good hospital school, which I visited recently, with outreach tutors based at the hospital school who visit homes of convalescent and other children. I do not believe that that service could be improved further beyond the state which it is in at present.
At the other extreme there are some, perhaps many, local education authorities which have done very little or nothing. They have no hospital school and perhaps no educational unit in a hospital. In some cases there is only one teacher to deal with hundreds of children. That means that not many of the children receive anything like decent attention. The question which has agitated me and others thinking along the same lines is what difference the Bill will make to those local education authorities whose priorities have not included sick children.
I admit—and I am glad to be able to admit—that the Bill will make one advance because it places a duty on local education authorities to provide that form of education along with education for children excluded from school generally. But what will that be a duty to do? The present practice which varies enormously shows that that is an extremely important issue. Generous authorities like Leicestershire and Oxfordshire, and some others, provide decent education for sick children. That is not provided while they are too ill to be able to pay attention to teachers but it is provided as soon as they are capable of learning.
Other local education authorities have all kinds of different rules; for example, only after a child has been in hospital for four weeks will he be entitled to education and, even then, it will perhaps be for only one hour each day. Some require written authorisation for each individual child before the child can receive anything in the way of education. Some education authorities provide that it is all right to teach French, but not history. They go into most extraordinary and absurd detail. I should have thought, that that absurd kind of provision would appeal particularly to our present Secretary of State.
There is an even worse situation. If an LEA is doing very little or nothing, under the Bill a complaint can be made by a parent to the Secretary of State, but the Secretary of State has rendered himself powerless to do anything about it. There is no sanction which he could impose on an authority that is not living up to and performing its duty.
I am a strong supporter of local government in general, which has made it difficult for me to see my way properly and clearly through this complicated set of issues. I deplore most heartily what has happened to local government since 1979. I support subsidiarity within the United Kingdom more firmly than I do within the European Community. Not all education authorities are perfect. They have many pressures upon them. They may decide that they cannot do much for sick children, even though that means that a child with a chronic illness may receive no education and then be doubly handicapped for life. They may have other priorities. They may decide that any money that is available should go to the growing numbers of disruptive children who will now be lumped together with sick children, in accordance with the new duty imposed on LEAs. The option of GM status could be very useful in those circumstances.
When the 1944 Act held greater sway, one could have talked about the direct grant list or voluntary aided schools and suggested that hospital schools might be added to the Church of England, Catholic and Jewish schools etc. However, those days have somewhat passed. In the context of the Bill it makes sense that there should be an option whereby GM status could be sought by an LEA.
My case is that the new status should apply to educational units in hospitals and, following from what is stated in Clause 47 of the Bill, promoters should be allowed to establish grant-maintained schools for hospital education units and to cluster them together for that purpose. It is inconsistent in relation to a Bill, the main purpose of which is to foster grant-maintained schools, to baulk at including hospital education, when a special case can be made for doing so.
I should like to say a few words in conclusion to my colleagues on these Benches. There are not enough of them here to form a lynching party, but perhaps there are supporters waiting in the Bar and Tea Room. An outside observer who did not know about our political stance might expect that I would have a harder job to persuade my colleagues than those on the opposite Benches, but over the past few weks I have not been sure which is the harder task to accomplish.
I am as strongly opposed to grant-maintained schools in general as many other noble Lords. I should like to see community schools that are responsible to the community. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, wish to see that children are treated in the same way, irrespective of what school they attend. I do not wish to see centralisation of educational policy set out in great detail. I can only say that to all rules there should surely be exceptions. I hope that I have gone some way to persuade noble Lords that hospital education should constitute a national exception.
Many hospital schools and units have national and not local catchment areas. To the Woodlands Hospital School, a famous school in a famous hospital in Birmingham, come children from Scotland, Northern Ireland and many LEAs all over the country. To Guy's Hospital school come children from Wales and Yorkshire and all over the country. To an educational unit at Newcastle-upon-Tyne come
1272
children from Wales, Scotland, London and Jersey. They are placed according to medical needs and where the children will receive the best possible medical attention, which are factors that should always go with proper educational support. Unfortunately, that is not the case at the moment.
The education of sick children is in many ways a national service and should be treated as such. It is fine when LEAs regard themselves as having that national responsibility, but when they do not and when they have no resources, there should be another option. Many thousands of hospital teachers and home tutors are doing a great job under difficult circumstances for children who are more in need of a good education than other children. They need support and noble Lords can give that support. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, you will by now be aware that there is a need to safeguard hospital schools. Unless one has had an ill child who has needed hospital treatment and who has benefited from receiving education while in hospital, or unless one has had a lot to do with hospitals, no member of the general public knows much about hospital schools. When local authorities are scratching about, trying to make savings, hospital schools would be an easy way to make cuts.
Many children who attend hospital schools come from a long distance and will come from other local authorities than the one providing the education at the hospital school. Collecting the fees from the many different local authorities for each child's education is an administrative headache.
We are trying to find a way of safeguarding that vital part of education of sick children. In some hospital schools the numbers of teachers have already been cut by 50 per cent. Some teachers have become worried about speaking out about what is happening in case they lose their jobs. I have had the pleasure of meeting some of the teachers, children and parents who are involved in hospital schools. I find that the teachers are dedicated, motivated and united in the need for safeguards. I find the children who have benefited from hospital education to be some of the most worthwhile deserving children, who have picked up the strands of their lives even after very horrendous injuries or serious ongoing illnesses. I find the parents to be concerned that there might be more cuts. They are worried about the changes that have taken place in the National Health Service and in education.
Why do the Government think that grant-maintained schools are important? Her Majesty's Government are making so many changes and approve of grant-maintained status; therefore, I do not understand why they cannot give those advantages to hospital schools.
One boy who is doing his GCSEs had a terrible accident when he was burnt by petrol. Along with serious disfigurement, he had one hand put out of action. The teacher helped him to adapt and use his other hand, and he continues his exam work even though he has suffered great physical and psychological pain. The parents of a girl who lost both legs and

1273
some fingers as a result of septicaemia told me that it was the teacher more than any other member of the hospital staff who had helped in the rehabilitation of their child. She had been brought back to normal life and been given the impetus to carry on and fight back.
If those ill children miss out on education when they are in hospital, they will be behind when they return to their school and may never be able to catch up. Why are we having to fight so hard on behalf of young patients who, by right, should have continuity of education? There are children with special needs, psychological problems and eating disorders. All those educational needs require safeguarding. It should be in the interests of a hospital trust to have a good, thriving school, but managers often do not put paediatric services very high on the list of priorities.
Recently we heard that there are not enough paediatric intensive care beds throughout the country. Is that not an example of what can happen to children's services? I should like the Minister to tell us what priority she puts on the education of those children who have to go into hospital or convalesce at home. Education is a very important part of rehabilitation. It needs full co-operation from medical, nursing and teaching staff and, of course, from the parents. I hope that your Lordships will appreciate how important and how vulnerable is the subject that is before us tonight.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in support of the amendment moved so comprehensively by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington. He made so many relevant points that I should just like to highlight two aspects. First, I want to support the possibility that the new hospital schools should be able to opt in to grant-maintained status and, if they are too small to do so on an individual basis, to consider the possibility of doing so in clusters. As the Government are committed to the concept of grant-maintained schools—I believe, rightly so—I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether she could consider very sympathetically the particular concept of a new kind of grant-maintained school.
Secondly, as a nurse, I must support the general concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I refer to the enormous importance of maintaining a good education for children who are in hospital or who are ill at home. It is crucial that their education is not jeopardised in any way by financial cutbacks or allowed to fall between the interstices of provision by local education authorities or by hospitals. The possibility of new grant-maintained hospital schools may provide an additional source for the repertoire of available possibilities.
Over all, the psychological benefits of education for sick children are of paramount importance. Here, if I may, I should like to speak as a nurse. I have seen and experienced the difficulty of maintaining adequate mental stimulus and constructive, worthwhile activities, especially for long-stay children, in hospital. Good education can provide the appropriate mental stimulus, can structure time —which can be a very
1274
important aspect of long-stay care in hospital—and help promote the psychological well-being which is so important to physical recovery. It is also crucial as preparation for discharge and/or recovery.
I once spent six months as a patient in hospital. I know as an adult how difficult it was to adjust to the outside world upon discharge from hospital. It is much more difficult for children who have to re-enter school. If they have fallen behind with their education, they not only have the difficulty of catching up on lost learning; they also risk the loss of self-esteem as they try to re-establish relationships with their peers. That can lead to extra stress and can inhibit the process of rehabilitation into the everyday world of normal healthy children.
Before I conclude, my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich has indicated to me his great regret at not being able to be here this evening to speak to the amendment. He wanted to express his support and to quote especially from his experience at Guy's Hospital. Unfortunately, he has had to attend another meeting which has clashed with this Sitting. However, I told him that I would affirm his support.
In conclusion, I should like to reaffirm my support for the amendment, which is designed to protect an especially vulnerable group of children. If they are allowed to fall through the interstices of educational provision, they may suffer long-term educational and psychological disadvantage in addition to the trauma of their physical injury or ill-health. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to offer encouragement to the amendment. It should be compatible with the Government's philosophy with regard to grant-maintained schools and their commitment to providing the best possible education for all children.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I was attracted to a previous version of the amendment on the general grounds that I, and others, wish to see the grant-maintained mechanism used to increase the variety of schools within the state system. The plan of the noble Lord, Lord Young, for a cluster of hospital units, seemed to fulfil that aim. However, since that time, further consideration of the plight of children excluded from school by illness and the Government's, in my view, rather inadequate plans for them, has reinforced in my mind the importance of the amendment, or something like it, in its own right.
Although I am aware that we are not debating Clause 274 and Schedule 17, which set out the Government's proposals, and that the noble Lord, Lord Young, and his friends have a later amendment after Clause 274, I do not think that the matter can really be discussed properly without a brief look at that clause. Subsection (4) empowers a local authority,
"to make arrangements for the provision of suitable full-time or part-time education otherwise than at school for those young persons who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them".
Therefore, in that subsection, sick children are bundled in with children excluded from school for totally different reasons.

1275
Subsection (7) of the same clause, goes on to define "suitable education"—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House and if the noble Lord will forgive me, I must point out to him that there has been a positive decision to disaggregate the amendments. I was very happy to discuss them as a group, but they have been positively disaggregated for that purpose, and for the sake of time in the House, I should be grateful if we could stick to the amendment on the Marshalled List and deal with the other amendment when we reach the appropriate stage. I would have agreed to discuss it at this point, but the noble Lord, Lord Young, asked that it should be disaggregated.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I only strayed from the straight and narrow path in order to raise the question of "suitable education" which is referred to in the clause. I am not at all convinced that the rather menacingly-named "pupil referral units" set up by Schedule 17 will be able to provide suitable education both for excluded children and for those with needs which must be closely associated with their health status and the health service.
I have a further point to make which I hope the noble Baroness will agree is of some relevance. The problem is exacerbated by the surge of exclusions with violence being the main offence. The proposal in the Bill that sick children should be consigned along with violent and disruptive children to the same kind of management seems to me to be totally inappropriate. The number of permanent expulsions rose from 2,910 in the 1990–91 academic year to 3,833 in the 1991–92 academic year. If one builds in all the shorter suspensions—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think that I am probably becoming rather tiresome but, with the leave of the House, the noble Lord is not discussing the amendment on the Marshalled List. That amendment has nothing to do with exclusions and nothing to do with policy on exclusions; it has to do with creating a new route into the grant-maintained sector by third-party sponsors.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and with the permission of the noble Baroness, I take a different view. It is quite clear that the whole of the series of amendments springs from the desire to separate the provision for sick children from that for those with whom they should not properly be associated and who have mainly been excluded on the grounds of violence, bullying, fighting, assault on their peers, disruptive conduct, unacceptable behaviour and so on. I have here a league table in that respect.
My only aim is to reinforce the need for something to be done. I am open to suggestion or to whatever the House decides on the question of which is the most suitable of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young. All I am saying is that there is here an additional ground for them. If we do not change the Bill, those sick children will be associated, under the same system of management, with the children to
1276
whom I referred. That is incontestable. In my mind, it is simply an additional ground for support of the noble Lord's amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I know that we are trying to move on, but it seems to me that the arguments so ably put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and others, are really justifying something which does not actually need to be justified; namely, that local authorities have an obligation to retain the ability to arrange for education of children in hospitals. Parents, teachers and hospitals perceive there is a danger that local authorities will not fund these arrangements adequately. Therefore it is suggested in this amendment that new schools in the units we are discussing should be eligible to apply for grant-maintained status.
There is no question in your Lordships' minds that hospital based education is not terribly important for children, especially for children who are in hospital for a considerable period of time. The noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned that point. It is also important for children who are in hospital for more than a very short time. Some local authorities are much better than others at making this provision. The question is whether the route to grant-maintained status is possible in these circumstances.
I have been contacted, as have many noble Lords, by hospital schools. They have put their case very well. However, I am not clear that a school in a single unit, or a collection of schools—I am not sure that that is what the amendment states but the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to a collection of units coming together to apply for grant-maintained status—can make a viable case in financial terms for grant-maintained status. It is important that grant-maintained schools are viable economically. We have spent an hour discussing the financial implications of grant-maintained status.
One must try to picture a single unit or a collection of units where the children are coming and going. Many of them spend quite short periods in hospital while others spend longer periods of time there. The teachers will probably change fairly frequently. One must then picture an application for grant-maintained status. The Secretary of State will have to assess whether the unit concerned is eligible for grant-maintained status.
It is interesting that some noble Lords are now in favour of grant-maintained status for certain schools when so many noble Lords have tried to move amendments to prevent schools from becoming grant-maintained. It is nice that we are approaching this matter in a constructive manner. However, as regards the units we are discussing, I wonder whether in economic terms it is viable for them to become grant-maintained as such units may be on the small side and the pupils chop and change all the time. There are already some 40 hospital schools which are eligible for grant-maintained status. We are talking about new units for sick children which promoters are seeking to establish. Presumably new, large schools would be eligible for grant-maintained status, but I am not sure that that would be the case with the smaller units we are discussing.
Baroness David: My Lords, I have the greatest admiration for my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington. I am sure that a good many of us who have received briefing from him know a great deal more about hospital schools, hospital education and what sick children need than we did before. I am grateful for that. This area certainly needs attention and sick children need better treatment. Their education deserves proper support. I am not talking just about children in hospital but also those who are convalescing at home who would be taught by home tutors.
However, despite my noble friend's pleas to his colleagues on these Benches, I am afraid I cannot go along with this amendment. I prefer Amendment No. 271 which comes after Clause 274. I shall avoid the pitfalls of which the noble Baroness has warned us, as regards talking too much about another amendment. However, that clause would give responsibility in this area to local authorities. It states,
"Each local authority shall make arrangements".
We have spoken of local authorities, some of which make good provision in this area and some of which make poor provision. Amendment No. 271 would place an obligation on a local authority to provide education for sick children. My noble friend has mentioned a figure of 44 hospital schools which can apply for grant-maintained status. However Amendment No. 162 is concerned with the situation where promoters propose to establish a school on hospital premises. I should have thought it would be difficult to apply for grant-maintained status in those circumstances, particularly if a great many hospitals were involved. I doubt whether that process would be possible.
I shall argue later for a local authority to maintain the overall strategic planning for children in its area with special educational needs. I believe sick children in hospital, and those who are convalescing outside, are children with special educational needs. I believe that a local authority should have the overall obligation to look after the needs of those children. I have every sympathy with the aim of this amendment but I cannot agree with this way of solving the problem.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, I wish to say a few brief words in support of the general thrust of this amendment. I am the newly appointed chairman of the Guy's and St. Thomas's NHS Trust and I have seen for myself something of the absolutely splendid work that is being done in terms of education, particularly in Guy's Hospital. I know that those concerned with it are worried about their future. The present arrangements are not working in an entirely satisfactory fashion and the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Young, that a route through to grant-maintained status should be made available for hospital education may be the route which will resolve these problems and give greater assurance for those involved in and receiving education in hospitals. Therefore I urge my noble friend the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to this matter. I am in no position to judge whether the administrative arrangements can properly be made, but I am
1278
absolutely convinced that something should be done to improve the present security and status of hospital education. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be equally convinced of that and will be able to give the reassurances that are requested from all parts of the House.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, the first chairmanship that I held on Birmingham City Council was that of chairman of special schools. At that time there were hospital schools in what were known as the fever hospitals and there were hospital schools in the tuberculosis hospitals. There was the Woodlands Hospital, the Fourlands Hospital, the Children's Hospital and the Accident Hospital. As certain illnesses have been cured, a number of those hospitals have been closed. For example, the tuberculosis hospitals have been closed.
I am concerned that the amendment cannot possibly work unless health authorities co-operate. I am familiar with the Woodlands Hospital. I can reach it from my home in five minutes by car. Children used to attend the Fourlands Hospital. However, that has been closed for a considerable time now. The Woodlands Hospital is in a dodgy position and the people of Birmingham are fighting to keep it open. The regional hospital board, however, has other ideas as it could be a good site on which to build a Sainsbury's supermarket.
We must ensure that before we go any further we ascertain whether the hospital authorities themselves will support hospital schools. At the present time many of these schools are being forced into smaller rooms, perhaps because a ward has closed. Lessons are being conducted in accommodation that is perhaps not the most desirable for educational purposes. Regional hospital authorities must be clear as regards what they are going to do in a particular hospital.
Perhaps I may make a special plea for the very small group of children who are born without eyes. Nobody has had to deal with that serious complaint before. At present we have schools for the blind all over the country. It is important that hospital authorities should draw to the attention of the parents of children with that serious defect the excellent facilities which are provided in schools for the blind. Local authorities already send children to such schools, which at present serve blind children only. In the main they are residential, but there are facilities for children with that particular complaint to be educated in those schools. It is important that hospitals are aware of the facilities that can be provided for the parents of those children.
7 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I agree entirely with everything she said. For many years I was chairman of an education committee and I have also had experience with handicapped people. I am certain that all that has been said today on the subject is

1279
important. I urge the Government strongly to accept what has been said and to add this provision to the Bill.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I enthusiastically support the amendment. I do so because I believe that there are people in this country who receive all of their education in hospital schools. I cite the case of Jenny Thomas, a child who was very badly burned at two years of age and lost her hands and feet and a large part of her face. She has undergone in the burns unit at Chepstow 40 operations in the past 18 years. She has received her entire education in the hospital school. The burns unit is now moving to another location.
I had no idea that there was any division on this issue. I work on the principle that every Member of this House, regardless of the politics at issue, supports the idea that children in hospital should be educated and that it is vital to their rehabilitation. I do not understand any division that might have occurred on these Benches, but I support the amendment totally. I also support the later amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will be able to give a helpful reply to the amendment. The skills required for teaching sick children in hospital, and at home, are not the same as those required for teaching children who are completely fit and able to run around and make complete nuisances of themselves. The skills built up by such special teachers in hospitals should be maintained and used. As the noble Lord, Lord Parry, said, some unfortunate children receive the whole of their education in hospital. Others are educated there for a large part of their school lives. It is important that they do not lose the habit of learning because learning itself is a skill which, if not practised, can very easily be lost.
Lord Judd: My Lords, from this Front Bench I want to put on record our unqualified admiration for my noble friend Lord Young for having put forward his case with such fervour, knowledge and expertise. Many of us feel that it is disgraceful that the situation regarding education for many young patients in hospital is deteriorating. We feel strongly that something should be done about it rapidly. My noble friend will find, when we move to later amendments, which the Minister was right to say we should not debate now, that he receives a positive response from this Bench.
It would have been dishonourable for me to have sat here and said nothing, because I have so much admiration for what my noble friend is doing. However, I want to say to him that because we believe so deeply that education belongs to the community in which people are involved we feel that a time of crisis, when a child is sick, is the very time when the community should exercise its responsibility responsibly and not contract it out to some special arrangement. That would be a failure of the principle. Therefore, however paradoxical and hurtful it may be to my noble friend, while we do not support this particular amendment or the route he has chosen we
1280
applaud what he is doing and saying. We feel that the matter must be put right and we hope to be positive in relation to his other amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I must apologise for having been out of the Chamber for some of the discussion. Therefore, I hope that I shall be forgiven if I repeat what others have said. I have had to deal with children who have been in hospital for some time. Children who have been in hospital and who have not received education are very difficult to reintegrate into their families, schools and communities. I remember two children who refused to go to school because they said that when they returned they would be two classes below all their friends. If we want to reintegrate children back into their communities, families and schools, it is essential that they receive a good education while they are ill in hospital.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend concluded on a note with which I wish to begin. There is a great deal in the Bill which will enhance provision and make sure that the loopholes which have existed hitherto are closed. Many noble Lords have not spoken to the amendment. They have made cases for more money for special education, for more resources to be applied to sick children, for better co-ordination between local authorities and hospitals. However, the amendment is not concerned with those issues.
It is also true, and it is clear from the way in which many noble Lords have spoken, that they do not understand that local hospital schools are suitable candidates for grant-maintained status. If they wish to become grant-maintained they are entitled to apply and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is obliged to consider those applications.
The House knows of the deep and understandable concern of noble Lords who have spoken for the welfare and education of sick children in hospital. I share those concerns. They are fully appreciated by the Government; hence the provisions in the Bill. As I informed your Lordships when hospital education was debated in Committee, the Government are committed to securing better co-ordinated and more coherent educational provision for sick children. That must remain our objective. However, the amendment will do nothing to achieve that end.
A route to self-governing status will exist for those schools which are established as special schools in hospitals. Indeed, the Guy's school, which was mentioned, is an eligible candidate. Clause 178 in Part III of the Bill makes careful provision for all maintained special schools to become grant-maintained special schools. Hospital special schools will not be excluded. However, we do not believe that promoters of hospital schools, or indeed any special school, should be allowed to apply directly for grant-maintained status given the present useful diversity of the system—LEA, non-maintained, independent and, in future, grant-maintained special schools.
We considered these questions in Committee, but at a very late hour, and your Lordships will forgive me if I go over the core argument as briefly as possible. The position of the noble Lord, Lord Young, is that

1281
the focus of a sick child's education should be the hospital school or teaching service and that those forms of provision should have the opportunity to be grant maintained. That, the Government believe, would—perhaps paradoxically—prove inflexible. Indeed, the point was made very well by the noble Baroness, Lady David, but I suspect from a rather different standpoint to mine.
The responsibility for making effective arrangements for the education of sick children must rest with the local education authority. It will have a new general duty to secure the education of children otherwise than at school, and the arrangements which LEAs make must be tailored to the possible circumstances of each hospital and pupil. It will not always be appropriate to establish schools in hospitals. Efficient and appropriate education can be delivered in a number of ways, according to local circumstances. We shall be issuing guidance, framed after wide consultation, as soon as practicable.
Moreover, the amendment would not work in the way the noble Lord suggested. It would not create grant-maintained hospital special schools but would create a new procedure for establishing non-maintained hospital schools. Moreover, this would only occur if a Section 10 order applied to the area and if there were teachers providing home tuition on the staff of the school.
I believe that the Bill makes good provision. However, the noble Lord, Lord Young, said that he was disappointed that there was no mention of hospital schools in the Bill. What I believe is the great strength of the Bill is that it addresses the needs of all children, wherever they are and whatever their needs may be. Provision is made within the Bill to see that there is no lacuna: that children are, indeed, provided for.
Therefore, whatever the motive underlying the amendment, I cannot believe that it is to enhance the grant-maintained sector. Most of the people who have spoken are not supporters of the grant-maintained sector. Opening up a new route to grant-maintained status does not bring more money to the system. Therefore, it is an irony that the many who oppose, and vigorously so, the establishment of grant-maintained schools (I make an exception of the noble Baroness, Lady David) are not prepared to leave the local education authority and hospitals to administer in a flexible way—which is all important for children who may be in hospital, in or out of hospital, at home, partly at school, or partly at hospital and partly at home—the less formally structured provision. Indeed, much of the discussion on the Bill has been anti-grant-maintained status. Noble Lords have appealed to the House on so many occasions for greater trust in LEAs. I have no difficulty in placing my trust in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, stated that he was disappointed that we were lumping together sick children with truanting children or children with other behavioural problems. I believe that we shall discuss that issue with another amendment. It is not that I do not wish to discuss the
1282
other amendment. I had intended to discuss the group of amendments together because, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, that made sense. It was not my choice to disaggregate but, having agreed to do so, I believe that we should shelve that debate.
We do not allow special units in mainstream campuses to become grant-maintained schools as entities. Therefore, it is very much a level playing field between the maintained and special school sectors.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, uncharacteristically referred to all the cuts in health and education. That overstates the case. Of course, if there were more money we all know how to spend it, and the priorities are clear; they have been made clear during the course of the debate. But it is almost inconceivable that one can consider the hike up in spending on health year on year and refer to cuts in health. Therefore, it is a matter of priorities both within the health service and for education within local education authorities.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may correct the Minister. I referred to the paediatric services.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, yes, but there have not been cuts in health provision. There may have been changes in priorities within the health service. That is the point that I made.
I was asked why we cannot give the hospital schools the advantage of grant-maintained status. I have made clear that we have given the advantage of grant-maintained status to hospital-maintained schools. I was also asked what priority I put on the education of those vulnerable children. It is the very highest priority. We want a system that is sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of all children wherever they are. It is this Government who, in the Bill, for the first time have placed a statutory obligation on local education authorities to provide education other than in schools.
I make no apology. The only possible connection between truanting children and children in hospital is that obligation to provide for children other than in school. Once the children are in hospital, or wherever, the local education authority must provide.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, again referred to schools for the blind. However, those are not the schools about which we speak. They provide a very valuable service and local authorities use them.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen referred to the importance of teachers of sick children, both in hospital and at home. My noble friend makes my point. We wish to be certain that the system is sufficiently flexible to provide for children both in hospital and at home. I believe that the Bill goes a long way to meet the needs of all children, and in particular sick children. I hope therefore that the amendment will not be pressed.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate, most especially those who have spoken warmly, if not about the amendment in particular, about the cause that is espoused by it.

1283
Before the debate I made a note to "express disappointment". I was expressing a belief in some kind of contrary magic: that that would not be a relevant note when the time came. However, I fear that it is and that I must express some disappointment about the reaction of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. In view of the time I do not believe that I should reply in detail to what has been said. I hope that those who have made good points which should have been answered will forgive me.
I wish to make only one comment. I refer to what the Minister said. She stated that people do not appear to understand that hospital schools, which are special schools, can apply under the Bill for grant-maintained status. Unless my memory is as bad as it sometimes is, I believe that I said the same in opening the debate on the amendment. That is, of course, true. Our case is that, among the 160 educational units, the suitable units should also be able to go along the same route. Some educational units are as large and have as long a tradition as some of the hospital schools. It is an arbitrary distinction and definition, between one and the other. Since hospital schools that are special schools are being allowed grant-maintained status, why should not hospital schools which are not special schools—they are only sometimes called schools—go along that same road?
In view of what has been said by my noble friend on the Front Bench and by other noble Lords it does not seem wise to press the amendment. We shall reserve our fire—if "fire" is the right word for such a gentle subject as education for sick children. We shall return to the subject with hopes renewed. I shall not even write, "express disappointment" at the head of my next preparatory note. I shall hope for the best. I hope that noble Lords who have spoken warmly in support of the amendment today will be able to be present —although I fear that it will be late at night—in support of the other amendment to which reference has been made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that Report stage begin again at twenty minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Baroness Flather)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Clause 1 [Power to provide advice and assistance]:
Baroness Flather Baroness Flather moved Amendment No.
Al Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("( ) Before giving any general authorisation under subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State shall consult with such persons appearing to him to represent local authorities as he thinks appropriate.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. Al, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 1A. The amendments are the result of discussions between myself, Jim Lester (the Bill's sponsor in another place) and the Government. Jim Lester and I have been impressed by the detailed consultation and constructive co-operation between central and local government that have been so much in evidence during the passage of the Bill. Jim attended a number of meetings at which he saw at first hand just how constructive that co-operation was.
There have been many occasions when the two sides together have spotted difficulties or differences in interpretation or view and have worked together to overcome them. I am told that that happens a great deal between central and local government these days and I am very pleased to hear it. It is a shame that there is not greater awareness of this behind-the-scenes co-operation. It is because we so much wish to see central/local government co-operation in implementing the powers provided by the Bill after it is enacted that I have tabled Amendments Nos. Al and 1A.
Amendment No. Al would require the Secretary of State to consult representatives of local authorities —including, I imagine, the local authority associations—before giving a general authorisation under the Bill. Noble Lords will recall that the Secretary of State proposes to give a general authorisation that will permit local authorities to carry out a wide range of activities under the Bill without having to seek specific consent. Amendment No. 1A would provide for the Secretary of State to provide local authorities with guidance about the way that their powers under the Bill can be exercised.
The Government have consulted the associations on the draft model of the general authorisation and have made clear that they will consult again after the Bill is enacted and before issuing the authorisation. Similarly, the Government have undertaken to issue guidance notes after consultation with the associations to help local authorities understand and use the new powers that the Bill will give them. Ministers have told me, however, that they have no objection to their commitment to consultation and the issue of guidance being put on the face of the Bill. They are happy that their intention to work closely with local government and the intended tone of that relationship should be flagged up in this way. I commend the amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may begin on this side of the Chamber by expressing to the noble Baroness our deepest sympathy at the circumstances which led to the postponement of this stage of the Bill from an earlier time. We understand, and we certainly grieved with her at her sad loss. We fully understand

1285
that she is determined to proceed with the Bill and we are very glad indeed that she has taken this opportunity. We on this side fully recognise that the word that she used more than once, "consultation", can be genuinely and sincerely applied to what has gone on behind the scenes in this matter. I am told that the amendment, which the noble Baroness has moved, cements an approach which the department has taken throughout the Bill. The local authority associations —she will know that I refer to the AMA, the ADC, the ACC, CoSLA and the LGIB—all share my view (although I certainly do not pretend to speak on their behalf) that the action of the Minister and of the officials in the department is most welcome indeed.
We understand that guidance, which will be helpful in a number of areas to ensure that powers are used to the fullest extent, is implied in these amendments. But it would be useful if the Minister, in his normally courteous, watchful and helpful mode, could give to the sponsor an assurance that the guidance will not limit the proper discretion which local authorities will wish to exercise within the framework of the new power. I also ask for some indication of whether or not the guidance powers may be capable of use in the future to give policy direction to the work of local authorities, for instance by stretching the desirability of assistance to particular areas of the world or types of country. In other words, we can fully endorse the purport and intent of the Bill and of the amendment. But I wonder whether the Minister has in mind that the amendment may be a useful peg for doing more than simply facilitate and enable. Perhaps he will say whether the Government have any such intention.
Viscount Goschen: The effect of my noble friend's Amendments Nos. Al and 1A is to build into the Bill a requirement for both consultation and guidance on the working of the Bill. Amendment No. Al would require the Secretary of State to consult representatives of local government before giving a general authorisation under Clause 1(3) of the Bill. Amendment No. 1A would require the Secretary of State to provide local authorities with guidance about the exercise of the power that the Bill provides.
My noble friend and the Government have worked closely together on this matter. Our intention has been to signal the Government's strong wish to take account as far as possible of local authority concerns about the operation of the power that the Bill provides. This has been our approach throughout the course of the Bill, as the local authorities have acknowledged on a number of occasions. Constructive co-operation between government and the local authority associations on this Bill exemplifies the greatly improved relationship between central and local government in recent times.
In answer to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, once the Bill is enacted the Government will consult the local authority associations on the proposed general authorisation. After that has been issued we shall also draw up, with their help, the guidance note which we hope will prove useful to local authorities exercising the power under the Bill. This will be an explanatory note explaining in simple
1286
language what, for example, the general authorisation covers, and when and how an authority may need to get specific consent. The guidance note will be discussed in detail with the associations and will be as helpful as possible. We therefore support the amendments.
Baroness Flather: Perhaps I may first thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for his kind words of sympathy. I shall attempt to answer his question. As I understand it, the amendment will strengthen the process of consultation. By putting it on the face of the Bill the Government want to flag the consultation process and make sure that the final outcome is achieved in fullest consultation rather than in any kind of one-sided way. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that it is a very worthwhile amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("(3A) The power conferred by this section shall not be regarded as restricting those conferred by any other provision including the following—

(a) section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 (power to incur expenditure for purposes not otherwise authorised); and

(b) section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (power to incur expenditure for purposes not otherwise authorised).").

The noble Lord said: This amendment has been presaged as the "without prejudice" amendment. Its purpose is to protect the existing powers to engage in overseas activities from being affected by—in other words, effectively submerged within—the creation of the new power, such activities thereby being made subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. The Minister and the noble Baroness are well aware that the local authority associations have insisted that they are not very happy in the requirement that their overseas activities must have the consent of the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, recognising the Government's insistence on that point, earlier amendments designed to delete the consent requirements were not pursued in this House. The local authorities remain adamant, however, that existing overseas activities carried out under other powers must not be allowed to come within the consent requirement.
Earlier debate has not reassured them that the Government recognise other powers and do not intend to make all local authority overseas activities subject to consent by the Secretary of State. Such activities, whether related to provision of information to overseas bodies about UK local government or concerned with economic development or promotion of twinning and other partnership links have been recognised in the past—for example, when reassurances were provided to local government during the passage of the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act, when circumstances indicated that recognition was appropriate—but have been denied at other times. During the earlier debate the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, came near to suggesting that no other

1287
powers exist. Doubtless there is scope for debate, but local government lawyers recognise that there are other powers under the Local Government Act 1972.
Sections 111 and 112 of that Act empower an authority to employ staff to engage in work which is:
"conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions".
Involving staff in overseas projects, in professional exchanges and training assignments which bring mutual benefits both to the UK authority and to the overseas partner can be recognised as a perfectly legitimate activity under the provisions. Then, under Section 137 which is well known to those involved in local government matters, there is a discretionary power to incur expenditure which in an authority's opinion is in the interest of and will bring direct benefit to its area and all or some of its inhabitants.
That is the nub of the matter. Local authority reservations may perhaps be subsumed in acceptance of the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and the Minister have indicated that there will be meaningful consultation before guidance is given as to what is or is not enabled or permissible. That is when these matters could very well be resolved.
I move the amendment to make the point but I do not intend to press it further. I hope that the noble Baroness and the Minister will recognise that local authorities do not wholly accept that there is no need to make these points. They wish to make sure that the powers under the Bill are not used later to prejudice or inhibit the present powers which they enjoy. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Flather: I am grateful for the comments that the noble Lord made about not pressing the amendment. However, I should like to take up one or two of his points. I understand that twinning was always possible in any event under the original legislation and it will continue under this or the original legislation. Twinning is not an issue in this matter. We should not bring it into the discussion because I do not believe that it is affected by the Bill.
With regard to protecting existing powers, the argument about the "without prejudice" clause was made in another place. It was touched on in this House at Second Reading. In another place the Bill's sponsor, Mr. Jim Lester, and the Minister agreed to reconsider the provision carefully before Committee stage in this House if the local authority associations could provide further information about the powers which might be in jeopardy without such a clause. I believe that that is the noble Lord's point.
So far as I am aware, the associations have not been able to come up with any further information. Amendment No. 1 would prevent the Bill from restricting any powers, including those conferred by Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 in England and Wales or Section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 in Scotland. But as I understand it, neither the Audit Commission's lawyers, nor the Government's, nor the Local Government International Board's lawyers have been able to demonstrate that either Section 137 or Section
1288
83 gives the power to provide technical advice or assistance overseas. That is precisely why we are considering the present Bill.
If Sections 137 and 83 cannot be used to provide advice and assistance overseas, what would the noble Lord's amendment achieve? Do we need a "without prejudice" clause in respect of powers which are thought not to exist at all in the first place?
Amendment No. 1 would not only be pointless. It would be improper because it would imply that in fact there is a power to provide advice and assistance overseas when all the evidence is to the contrary. That could only be misleading and cause confusion. This is an unnecessary amendment and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Viscount Goschen: The intention behind Amendment No. 1 is to introduce into the Bill a "without prejudice" clause. The argument for it is that, by providing a specific power to provide overseas technical assistance, the Bill will remove local authorities' existing ability to do that work on the basis of general discretionary powers, such as in Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 and Section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, or other specific powers, such as the power under Section 33 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 for the promotion of economic development.
This has been an area of concern to the local authority associations throughout the passage of the Bill. At Report stage in another place my honourable friend Mr. Squire, the Minister at that time, explained why the Government remained unconvinced of the need for such a clause but agreed to review the case if the local authority associations were to provide further information. In fact the associations failed to come up with any new information on that point, save to point out that a "without prejudice" clause in respect of Section 137 has been conceded by the Government in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill.
It may be helpful to the House, and indeed to the associations, if I set out as clearly as possible how the Government see the position. Section 137 of the 1972 Act permits an authority to incur expenditure which in its opinion is in the interests of and will bring direct benefit to its area (or any part of it) or all or some of its inhabitants. However, the power is limited in the following ways. First, an authority may not rely on the section for a purpose for which it is authorised to incur expenditure by any other power whether that power is conditional or unconditional. Secondly, the direct benefit to its area or part or all or some of its inhabitants must be commensurate with the expenditure incurred under Section 137. We do not see how incurring expenditure in providing advice and assistance to overseas bodies can be of any direct benefit to the inhabitants of the authority's area, let alone benefit commensurate with the amount spent.
Turning to Section 33 of the 1989 Act, that provision gives authorities the power to take such steps as they consider appropriate for promoting the economic development of their area. There are various restrictions on the power contained in the Act and in

1289
regulations made under it. We find it difficult to imagine how the power which permits the authority to take steps to assist in setting up a commercial undertaking in the authority's area and creating opportunities for employment in that area can be said to give an authority power to provide an overseas body with advice and assistance.
Surely the point is that there are serious doubts about the legitimacy of using these existing powers for overseas technical work, especially since Sections 137 and 33 and the equivalent Scottish legislation are all intended to operate specifically to the benefit of the areas or inhabitants or of the authority concerned. Neither the Audit Commission nor our own advisors have been able to find any existing powers for technical assistance. That is why we need the Bill. It is difficult to see the purpose of a "without prejudice" clause in respect of powers when there are substantial grounds for doubt about their existence.
To turn to the "without prejudice" clause in respect of Section 137 in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill, this is a case where the section may be being used to support the provision of certain welfare services to old people in a local authority's area. Such a use is self-evidently for the direct benefit of the inhabitants of the authority's area and naturally Ministers wish to see such services continuing. The "without prejudice" provision is being included because there was a danger that the express power in the Bill for authorities to provide welfare services to their own tenants would prevent the authority providing such services for other elderly people in their area in private sector accommodation.
In the case of the Bill before your Lordships today, the Government remain unconvinced that Sections 137, 83 or 33 can be relied upon legitimately, and therefore enactment of the Bill will alter the position.
Finally, it may be helpful, in view of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for me to make quite clear the Government's view that the powers under which the educational, cultural and sporting links commonly known as "town twinning" are carried out are unaffected by the Bill. The Government's view is that it remains unnecessary and wrong to introduce a "without prejudice" clause in respect of powers not thought to exist. Such a clause would achieve nothing and would reintroduce an element of confusion into an area which the Bill seeks to sort out and clarify once and for all. We are pleased therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, indicated that he does not intend to press the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I appreciate the two responses given by the Minister. It was not my intention to imply that the local authorities assert that there is already a clear power to engage in overseas assistance. There is not. There is a need for clarification. We accept that the Bill seeks to give that clarification.
However, the authorities are concerned that, in so clarifying, the powers which they already have should not be subsumed within the powers provided by the Bill. If we have an addition, rather than a substitution
1290
for or consolidation of, then the associations will be happy. We are concerned that the new power contained in the Bill, which imposes certain ministerial controls, will seek to eclipse the other powers. Indeed, the powers under Section 137, used extensively for a wide range of international activities, seem to disappear.
Others outside the Chamber who are closer to the action and better qualified than I will study what the Minister and the noble Baroness said. I repeat that there is no intention of delaying what is a good Bill and I appreciate the parliamentary reality of doing anything more than expressing reservations, which I do with great good humour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Flather Baroness Flather moved Amendment No. 1A:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall provide local authorities with such guidance about the exercise of their powers under this section as he thinks appropriate.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No.2:
Page 2, line 5, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee, when moving Amendment No. 2 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. Amendment No. 4 substantially meets the concerns raised and flagged which are contained in Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Those concerns are that it appeared to those who are closer to the action that the smaller authorities may be excluded from some of the benefits under the Bill. The amendment was presented to me by the National Association of Local Councils. It is not one of the "big boys" in the local authority organisations nexus; nevertheless, it is deserving of some consideration.
Amendment No. 4 enables the Secretary of State by order made by negative resolution—which we understand will provide scope for interpretation and action—to add any other type of body to the list of bodies which are "local authorities" gaining power under the Bill. Although there is nothing specific about putting in what I want, the amendment gives the opportunity to extend what I will not call a restrictive list, but a list that excludes one or two other bodies. We believe that it is a satisfactory response, given that the desirability of incorporating parishes has been seen by the sponsors as needing to deal more with future eventualities than current practice.
In moving Amendment No. 2, I have spoken also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 and I am sure that there will be no dispute about the outcome.
Baroness Flather: As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, the three amendments are closely connected. I shall be speaking to Amendment No. 4 and do not propose to accept Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. I shall wait till we reach Amendment No. 4 and answer the noble Lord's points at that stage.
Viscount Astor: It might help, as they are grouped together, for my noble friend to speak to Amendment No. 4 at this stage.
Baroness Flather: I apologise for my lack of procedural knowledge. The question of whether parish and community councils should be covered by the Bill was considered briefly in another place, and the Bill's sponsor and the Minister agreed to consider the case before your Lordships' Committee if the local authority associations could provide further information.
I have seen the helpful letter from the secretary of the National Association of Local Councils. In it he mentions overseas visits by NALC staff to advise other bodies and the expertise some parishes have in recreation, including running public halls and community centres. He also points out that some larger parish councils have a few officials, some of whom will have had experience with county and district councils in the past.
While I value the role of parish and community councils in our national life, I do not believe that a sufficiently strong case has been made for the Bill to be extended to cover them. I am not convinced that they have a significant contribution to make in providing advice and assistance overseas.
The work of NALC staff does not require to be covered by the Bill since they are not local authority staff. Parishes have the power to pay for sending their councillors abroad and for receiving distinguished guests from abroad. Realistically, I would expect there to be ample scope for exchange of information during those visits. Therefore I do not agree to the need for Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and ask the noble Lord not to press them.
I recognise that that will come as a disappointment to the noble Lord and to NALC. It will also come as a disappointment to my noble friend Lord Jenkin, who was kind enough to write to me with his views. But let me now offer them some comfort. I do not think that we should close the door entirely on the possibility of adding parish and community councils to the legislation at some future time. We live in a changing and uncertain world. New information could come to light and the circumstances of parish and community councils could change. This Bill is likely to be on the statute book for some time and we cannot predict what changes may occur. We would be foolish, therefore, not to build in some flexibility.
So I propose that we keep the door open by providing the Bill with a power for the Secretary of State to add to the list of the types of authorities covered by the Bill by means of a statutory instrument, as it can be very difficult and take a long time to amend the law by primary legislation. Amendment No. 4, by providing a power to change the Bill by secondary legislation, would make it relatively easy to reassess the situation if changed circumstances warranted it. I commend Amendment No. 4 to the noble Lord and to the Committee.
Viscount Goschen: The purpose of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 is to extend the provisions of the Bill to
1292
allow parish, town or community councils to provide advice and assistance to overseas bodies as respects any matter in which they have skill and experience.
The Bill's sponsors and the Government have been open to argument on this. As has been pointed out before, we have been at pains to take the local authority associations' minds on all aspects of the Bill and to accommodate their wishes if at all possible.
When Department of the Environment officials and my honourable friend the Member for Broxtowe met the associations on a number of occasions before Christmas, the question of including parish, town and community councils was raised by the associations, but not pushed very hard. My honourable friend pointed out to the local government side that parish councils do not employ technical officers. At that time the local government side did not pursue the matter further. On that basis we concluded that it seemed unlikely that parish, town and community councils had much to contribute to the provision of technical assistance abroad.
By Committee stage in another place, however, the associations had apparently become convinced that it was important for the Bill to be extended to cover parish and community councils. As my honourable friend the Minister remarked at the time, it seemed a little odd that the associations should press for parish overseas powers to be extended when they had resisted extension of these powers closer to home. However, it was agreed that if the associations could demonstrate that some parishes, towns and community councils do have the ability to provide technical assistance to overseas bodies, we would consider the matter again.
The Secretary of the National Association of Local Councils has now written to the Department of the Environment setting out the case for extending the Bill to cover parish and community councils. In a very clear and helpful letter he explained, first, that some larger parishes (that is, town councils) do have full time staff with technical expertise; secondly, that their experience lies mainly in the provision of recreation facilities including parish halls and community centres; thirdly, that some town councils have populations comparable to those of many local authorities abroad; fourthly, that there are already often inquiries from overseas about the operation and role of parish councils; and, finally, that if the Bill were amended only those parish councils with a real contribution to make would take advantage of it.
NALC has suggested that fears about inappropriate activity by parishes could be met by including them in the Bill but not in the proposed general authorisation. Parishes would therefore need to seek the specific consent of the Secretary of State. NALC has also suggested that all parish applications should be routed through NALC in order for it to weed out the inappropriate and ensure that only those with a realistic chance of success were put to the Secretary of State.
The Government are grateful to NALC for its helpful and constructive views and have considered the matter carefully. But our view is that there is nothing in its letter which has altered views of the Government's, or the Bill's sponsors, that the scope

1293
for parish and community councils to provide advice and assistance within the terms of the Bill is very limited. Moreover, we do not believe that the Bill would prevent them, or NALC, doing the many useful things they are doing legitimately at the moment. We are, therefore, unable to agree to the noble Lord's amendments.
The purpose of my noble friend's Amendment No. 4 is to provide in the Bill a power for the Secretary of State to add, by means of statutory instrument, to the list of types of local authority covered by the Bill. My noble friend has explained her view, and that of the Bill's sponsor in another place, that while she is not convinced of the case for amending the Bill to cover parish and community councils, she does not wish to shut the door entirely on this proposal.
The Government's view is that there is indeed merit in this cautious and sensible approach. My noble friend's amendment would enable the list of types of local authority covered by the Bill to be added to without recourse to primary legislation. I am sure the Committee will agree that this builds in a useful element of flexibility. The Government agree that it is sensible to keep the door open to argument in this way, and we hope that the Committee will accept my noble friend's Amendment No. 4.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful for the comments of both the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Baroness Flather Baroness Flather moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend subsection (7) or (8) above so as to add any body or description of body to the bodies which are local authorities for the purposes of this section; and any statutory instrument containing an order under this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Local Government (Amendment) Bill
7.57 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I can do no better in introducing the Bill than to refer not to the original Bill of 1966, which is couched in parliamentary language, but to the grant administration guidelines which are issued by the Home Office for the benefit of those wishing to take advantage of the provisions of Section 10 of the Local Government Act 1966. The grant administration guidelines state:
"To achieve a truly multi-racial society all citizens, irrespective of ethnic origin, must be able to participate fully and freely in the life of the nation while retaining their own cultural identity".
1294
Those were admirable statements when they were first made in 1966, and repeated in 1990, and they remain admirable statements today.
Unfortunately, the 1966 Bill was drafted in somewhat different circumstances. It was drafted at a time when the most pressing problems of ethnic minorities in this country were faced by those coming to this country from the new Commonwealth. Therefore, the Bill was drafted in such a way that the grants were given, to quote again from the grant administration guidelines,
"to local authorities who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, have to meet the special needs of a significant number of people of Commonwealth origin".
There can be no doubt that since the legislation was first produced in 1966 there has been a real need for the provisions of Section 11 of the 1966 Act. Taking only the period since 1979 there have been approximately 20,000 people coming to this country who fall within the objectives as I have quoted them of the grant administration guidelines. It is an unfortunate fact that the Act as drafted does not provide for them because they come not only from the new Commonwealth, but from Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Ethiopia, Zaire, Angola, Vietnam, Hong Kong and also from many Latin-American countries.
The provisions of Section 11 are very valuable. They provide that the Home Office will cover 75 per cent, of the staffing costs of projects under this section, while the local authorities will provide the remaining 25 per cent, and also the necessary running costs. The result is that in the past financial year there are about 800 projects in operation and the funding covers the equivalent of approximately 10,000 staff. Eighty-seven per cent, of the projects are in education. They cover provision for teaching English to the speakers of other languages, parental involvement in education, adult basic skills and literacy and numeracy. They provide not only for schools but also for further and higher education. In addition to the work in schools there is provision for projects by social services departments, in economic development and housing. In London and under the London boroughs grant scheme, there is also provision for voluntary projects.
This is not the only provision which is made to encourage the admirable objectives which I have already cited. There is also an ethnic minority grant which is made available through the training and enterprise councils; again, with admirable objectives, but unfortunately in the past year the budget was only £4 million. There are also grants under Section 210 of the Education Reform Act mainly intended for travellers. That again amounts to only £1.7 million in the last financial year.
Noble Lords who took part in the debates on the asylum and immigration control Bills will know that there are ad hoc grants for those coming, for example, from Vietnam and Yugoslavia. When the Asylum Bill was being considered in your Lordships' House, there was considerable debate about the needs of asylum seekers. I remind the House that it became clear at the time that there are approximately 2,500 asylum seekers in London at any one time, which puts

1295
considerable pressure not just on the education services of the London boroughs, but also on the social and housing services.
There is a considerable need for special finance to deal with quite short-term problems: for example, those who come from the former Yugoslavia and who wish to go back there as soon as the killing in their own part of the country ends. There are also those who come from the lands occupied by the Serbs who wish to go back to their country and who have no intention of settling here for any length of time. There are other funds for the purpose, but they are nothing like as extensive as they need to be to meet the problems.
What is the funding of the Section 11 provision? In 1992–93 the grants made amounted to £129 million. Unfortunately, the Government have announced a progressive decline in grants with the intention that they will go down to £110 million in 1994–95 and to £97 million in 1995–96. That equates to an 18 per cent, loss in service in real terms. When the noble Viscount replies I hope that he will be able to give some indication that, with the extension of the powers under Section 11 which are proposed in this Bill, further thought will be given to the future funding of Section 11 grants.
It must be the case that if the eligibility for grants is extended beyond the new Commonwealth to all the other countries which I have quoted, and indeed to any others which may arise in future, the need for those grants is not going to decrease. The decrease in funding which is proposed by the Government will be seen to be particularly inappropriate. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some indication that there is at any rate the possibility that there will be further thought given to this subject.
This is a relatively small Bill, but it is of great importance to those to whom it applies. The work which has taken place for nearly 30 years under Section 11 of the 1966 Act has proved valuable. It is appropriate that it should be updated to meet the needs of the people who are now coming to this country as well as those who were coming here when the legislation was first enacted. It is important that any legislation should not be at the expense of the original recipients of the grants which were made available under the 1966 Act. Therefore it is important that, if the House agrees, as I hope it will, to see this Bill through, the Government will be able to give adequate assurances about funding.
This Bill was introduced in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Neil Gerrard, the Member for Walthamstow, which is the borough which adjoins my own borough of Haringey. He knows from his own borough of Waltham Forest as I know from my own borough of Haringey, how keen are the needs for funding to meet the needs of ethnic minorities in many parts of London and not only for those from the new Commonwealth. He knows as I do that this amending legislation, however short and simple, can meet real needs which were not evident in 1966. I commend this Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
8.8 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too welcome the Bill which is before us this evening. I also welcome the Government's support of the Bill. I would like to associate myself with everything which the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh of Haringey, has said.
I shall not detain your Lordships long in commending the Bill to the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, said, in the course of the passage of the asylum and immigration appeals legislation many of us pointed out that such an extension in the terms of the original Section 11 Bill was necessary to meet the needs which had developed since the 1966 measure had been introduced. I would like to underline the importance of Section 11 over the years in assisting local authorities in helping members of minority communities from different cultures and often with different languages, to adjust themselves to life in this country, for their benefit and also for that of the whole community and of the communities in which they live.
I am confident that this Bill will pass. As the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, indicated, it is extremely unfortunate that it should be introduced at a moment when the funds for Section 11 have been cut to the bone. I support the point which he made that, having extended the scope of Section 11 and the scope of the communities to which it can be granted, it is unfortunate that the cuts should have come at this moment.
I urge the Minister who is to speak later to draw to the attention of his colleagues the need, if one wills the extension of Section 11 to other communities, also to will the means. That involves further finance. I hope that the Minister is listening. It is ironical that at the moment when the Government are rightly supporting a Bill to extend Section 11 and to make its assistance available to communities which have previously been unable to make use of it—that is, to those not born in the new Commonwealth and to the children of those who were born in either the new Commonwealth or some other places—they should be cutting down on the resources available for Section 11.
That having been said, I welcome the Bill, which a more enlightened Administration may be able to finance and to use more constructively in future. I join the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, in congratulating Mr. Gerrard, the Member for Walthamstow, on introducing this important and useful measure.
8.10 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the honourable Member for Walthamstow on his successful endeavours in piloting this Bill through another place and to express appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for bringing this measure before your Lordships. The Government support the Bill.
For some of us 1966 seems rather distant. For some, it is most likely to evoke memories of that summer's day when the pride of England, wearing unfamiliar red shirts, carried off the soccer World Cup. For some of your Lordships it will evoke memories of the 1966 general election—a further

1297
victory for noble Lords opposite. However, for my part, it evokes the memory of O-level exams and the struggle for good grades.
But to return to the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reminded your Lordships, the drafting of Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, the amendment of which is the subject of the Bill now before this House, is firmly embedded in the circumstances of that time. The settlement of people from the new Commonwealth had given rise to some additional financial commitments for some local authorities. The purpose of Section 11, as your Lordships will readily appreciate, was to provide a mechanism to ensure that funding was targeted so as to reach local authorities which needed it.
Circumstances have changed. In more recent years we have opened our doors to receive people from other— often war-torn—areas of the world. The restriction which Section 11 imposed is no longer relevant, reasonable or helpful. Members of other ethnic minorities also need the kind of help which Section 11 funding supports.
Successive Home Secretaries in recent years have made clear their intention to come forward with legislation to extend the scope of Section 11 when there was a suitable opportunity. There are a range of other issues which would need to be addressed in relation to such legislation. In the meantime, by removing the present reference to "the Commonwealth", this Bill would make a change which would be widely welcomed.
In addition, the Bill would remove two other references rooted in the time when Section 11 was drafted. The first is to immigrants. It implies that the financial assistance which Section 11 can offer is available only to help those who are recently arrived. In practice, needs extend further, to people who are actually born here. In removing the reference to substantial numbers of people, the Bill recognises that there will be needs requiring to be addressed even among the very small ethnic minority groups.
The noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Bonham-Carter, asked me about funding. We attach importance to measures to tackle the causes of disadvantage which inhibit members of ethnic minorities from playing a full part in the social and economic life of the country. We also value highly the important contribution made by Section 11 teachers and others in this regard. But the economic situation has made it necessary to take very difficult decisions in order to tighten control of public expenditure. We regret that as a result we cannot afford during the next three years the level of expenditure under Section 11 which had been planned earlier.
I take note of the points on funding made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Obviously, I can give him no assurances, but I shall see that the points that he raised are brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. This is a useful measure. It has won support from all sides in another place and I am sure that your Lordships will support it also.
8.14 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister sought to sugar the pill by kindly saying that he would draw my remarks on funding to the attention of his right honourable friend, and I must be grateful for that. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, rightly said, it is an irony that at the very time when the Government are recognising the needs of a wider spectrum of ethnic minorities, public finance should not be available in this way for that purpose. Nevertheless, the Bill ought to go through. As has been universally recognised, it is a useful measure and I am glad to have the support of the Government and of the Liberal Democrat Benches for it.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Long: 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 8.16 to 8.20 p.m.]

Education Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 94 [Proposals for change of character etc. by governing body]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 57, line 26, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("and, if pupils are proposed to be admitted for nursery education, shall give the prescribed information").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 163. This amendment, together with Amendment No. 164 has been spoken to with Amendment No. 69.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 95 [Proposals for change of character etc. by funding authority]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 58, line 34, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
("and, if pupils are proposed to be admitted for nursery education, shall give the prescribed information").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 164, which has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 69.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 165, 166 and 167 not moved.
Clause 97 [Approval of school premises]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 168, 169 and 170:
Page 59, line 43, leave out from ("school") to end of line 1 on page 60 and insert ("publish proposals under section 94 of this Act, they shall if the funding authority so direct submit to the authority, at such time and in such form and manner as the authority may direct, the particulars mentioned in subsection (1B) below; and particulars so submitted require the approval of the funding authority under this section.
(1A) Where the funding authority publish proposals under section 95 of this Act, they shall if in their opinion the circumstances so require prepare the particulars mentioned in subsection (1B) below; and particulars so prepared require adoption by the funding authority under this section.
(1B) The particulars are-").
Page 60, line 6, leave out from second ("the") to end of line 8 and insert ("funding authority may require or, in the case of proposals published under section 95 of this Act, as may be required").
Page 60, line 9, leave out ("(1) (a)") and insert ("(1B) (a)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move these three amendments together. They were debated with Amendment No. 77. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 98 [Implementation of proposals, etc.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 60, line 23, after ("approved") insert ("or adopted").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 171.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 100 [Proposals for change of character or enlargement approved before school becomes grant-maintained]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 171A:
Page 62, line 21, at end insert:
("( )Subsection (2) above is subject to section 45(1) to (1C) of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 171A.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 171B:
Before Clause 102, insert the following new clause:
("Power for Secretary of State to allow opt-back
—(1) The Secretary of State may before the end of the period specified under subsection (5) (b) below where he considers it to be in the best interests of the pupils concerned, and thereafter in any of the circumstances set out in subsection (2) below, give his consent in writing to the holding of a ballot under this section.
(2) The circumstances referred to in subsection (1) above are that the Secretary of State—

(a) has received a request from the governing body of a grant-maintained school, determined under the procedure specified in subsection (4) (a) below; or

(b) has received a request from not less than twenty per cent, of the number of registered parents of registered pupils at the school, drawn up in accordance with the procedure specified in subsection (4) (b) below; or

(c) considers the holding of such a ballot to be in the best interest of pupils at the school concerned.

(3) The Secretary of State may issue such guidance or criteria as he considers appropriate as to the circumstances in which proposals under this section may be approved.
(4) Where at any time after the period specified under subsection (5) (b) below the governing body of grant-maintained school—

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

(b) receive a written request signed (or otherwise endorsed in such manner as the governing body may require) by a number of registered parents of registered pupils at the school equal to at least twenty per cent. of the number of registered pupils at the school to hold a ballot of parents on the question of whether county or voluntary status be sought for the school; and in this subsection "registered" means
1300
shown in the register kept under section 80 of the Education Act 1944 as that register has effect on the date on which the request is received;

they shall—

(a) secure that the ballot is held in accordance with subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 26 of this Act, as though section 26 applied to a ballot under this section; and

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

(5) Subject to subsection (1) above, subsections (4) and (6) to (12) of this section do not apply if in the case of the school in question—

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

(b) a ballot has been held in accordance with section 26 of this Act within the period often years ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the request is received.

(6) For the purposes of this section a person is eligible to vote in a ballot if he is a registered parent of a registered pupil at the school, where "registered" is as defined in section 27(2) of this Act, as though that section applied to a ballot under this section.
(7) Where in any ballot held in accordance with the requirements of this section (other than one held by virtue of this subsection) the total number of votes cast by persons eligible to vote in less than fifty per cent, of the number of persons eligible to vote, the governing body shall secure that a second ballot is held within the period of fourteen days beginning with the date immediately after that on which the result of the first ballot is determined.
(8) In such a case as is referred to in subsection (7) above—

(a) the result of the first ballot shall be disregarded for the purposes of subsection (9) below; and

(b) subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 26 of this Act shall apply subject to the omission of section 26(3) (a) and to the reading of section 26(4) as if the information there referred to were the information given for the purposes of the first ballot.

(9) Where the result of a ballot held under this section shows a simple majority of votes cast (by persons eligible to vote in the ballot) in favour of seeking county or voluntary status for the school the governing body shall publish proposals to that effect as though they were publishing proposals for grant-maintained status under section 30 of this Act.
(10) Section 31 of this Act shall apply to proposals published under subsection (9) above as though they were proposals for grant-maintained status.
(11) Sections 25 and 29 of this Act shall be deemed to apply to ballots under this section.
(12) The Secretary of State shall make such regulations as he considers appropriate to have effect, where proposals published under this section have been approved in respect of any school, in relation to—

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

(b) the transfer of staff;

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

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

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

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with this amendment—and I am speaking principally to 171B, though many of my arguments apply equally to 226C, which is linked with it—we return to one of the most important issues of the whole Bill, which goes to the heart of the matter of parental choice as well as diversity of schools: the right of parents to ballot out

1301
of grant-maintained status if they wish to do so. It has been an anomaly—a serious omission—since the GM sector was first introduced, that schools could only ever go in one direction. We feel this is unjust and that if parental choice means anything there should be a right, as there is in practically every other sphere of life, to take a different view at a later stage if circumstances change.
I apologise if the wording looks rather forbidding. (I know, for my part, that I tend rather to switch off when I see anything as long and involved as this on the Marshalled List.) But it is not all that difficult. In fact everything from subsection (4) onwards, with a crucial exception in subsection (5) (b), is virtually exactly as debated in Committee. It provides for a mirror image of the opting-out process, with the second governors' resolution added back in (in (4) (a)) to guard against any over-hasty decisions.
The substantial differences from the amendment put forward in Committee are two. No move to opt back in may be made by the school before 10 years have elapsed (that is in (5) (b)): previously it was five years. And the Secretary of State will have a much tighter control of the process (that is in (l)-(3)) than was previously proposed, together with powers to initiate it himself at any time. Both these changes are designed to meet objections that were raised in Committee.
Let me run quickly through the reasons for giving parents this element of choice, obvious as they may seem to those who are wary of putting all their eggs in the GM basket at this early stage.
When a vote is taken to opt out, this involves one generation of parents only. Ten years further on, the local educational scene may be very different. And yet those parents have no way in which to express their views. They are permanently disenfranchised. My Lords, this cannot be right.
Again, as I pointed out in Committee, the matter of the irreversibility of the opting-out process underlay several of our other debates. On questions such as the majority vote in a ballot and the second governors' resolution there were many who felt that the dangers or inequities of the current provisions were made worse by the finality of this one decision. Get this one right, and many other worries would lose their force.
Not least, there is the matter of simple fairness. As things stand, this aspect of the Bill is yet another example of how the playing field is tilted in favour of grant-maintained schools. At so many points, financially, as we have heard earlier, and otherwise, the opting-out choice is made the attractive one. For the choice to be a genuine one, the scales must be even, with no inducements, no coercion and all options open. There is no level playing field where parents can only opt one way.
Because this is an issue of parental choice I shall say nothing at all about the merits or otherwise of GM schools. What I think, or what the noble Baroness the Minister thinks of them, is simply irrelevant. The point is that some parents and governors, some time, in a mixed economy of schools, are going to want to rejoin their local educational community, whether
1302
county or voluntary or special. Parental choice, my Lords, if you are serious about it, is surely indivisible. You cannot just give it for the things you like and withhold it wherever someone might disagree with you. And yet, without this amendment, that is the position we shall be faced with. And it should not be so.
I listened with the greatest interest and care to the arguments advanced against the amendment in Committee. I was heartened by the acceptance of the principle of what we were trying to do by a number of speakers from the Government Benches. The chief argument of substance revolved round the fear of long-term instability if a school were able to reverse its earlier decision to opt out. This is an understandable worry, though I did feel that at times it was exaggerated a little and showed a lack of trust in the good sense of parents and governors of grant-maintained schools who were not likely to provoke disruption without very good cause. Furthermore the Secretary of State was always there as a long-stop.
But in recognition of this concern, and in particular, of the widely expressed feeling that five years after opting out was too short a time-span, we have not only extended this to 10, but have greatly enhanced the role of the Secretary of State in subsections (1) and (2) so that if he believes for example that it is too unsettling for a school to consider a change even after 15 years, the governors may not even hold a ballot. I do believe that this should dispose of the principal objection to what we were trying to achieve.
The noble Baroness the Minister, as she has done before, brought in the subject of motives. I do not believe that the "Look who's talking" kind of argument gets us anywhere, and I do not propose to spend time on it. The only other point of significance that was raised was the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who is not in her place, and one or two others to the effect that, yes, this is a good idea on paper, but in the "real world" of wicked LEAs it cannot be allowed.
That there are unacceptable practices in some LEAs is I think beyond dispute, and I have listened to the noble Baroness's examples with no pleasure at all. But to advance this as a reason for denying all parents everywhere a democratic choice is surely not far short of arrogance. It is saying to parents "We know best what is good for your local school, and so we won't allow any of you a choice". Have the noble Baroness and others who took this line really thought through what they were saying? If so, I wonder how they could ever imagine that those parents and governors who had been subject to intimidation would be the ones to initiate a return to the offending LEA. But of course all this is doubly unrealistic since after 10 years local people and attitudes will have changed, and I think we can be fairly confident that in a new climate and under new legislation misinformation and coercion from either side will have been most properly stamped on. Indeed if there is any moral pressure it will probably now work against those who are seeking to opt back

1303
and change the status quo. However that may be, nothing can justify the blank refusal of a ballot in subsequent years.
This is an amendment to meet a long-range situation and to insert a very necessary plug in a gap in the range of options open to parents and governors. I believe it is widely accepted in principle, and we have made significant changes since last time to accommodate the more serious concerns of those who foresaw difficulties in practice. I commend it to the House and I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am glad to support the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, in his amendment. I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 226C. The reasons why I am glad to support the amendment can be summed up in its purpose. I underline what the noble Earl has just said. The clause would allow the Secretary of State, in specific circumstances, to permit a ballot on the question of whether a grant-maintained school could seek county or voluntary status. Such circumstances —this should be stressed—would be when the Secretary of State had received a request agreed by two meetings of the governing body for such a ballot; a request signed by 20 per cent, of the registered parents of pupils at the school for such a ballot; or when the Secretary of State considered the holding of such a ballot to be in the best interests of the pupils at the school. Such a ballot would not normally take place within 10 years of the school opting out, as has been said, and then only with the express approval of the Secretary of State. We must underline the point that it is with the express approval of the Secretary of State only.
Amendment No. 157BB proposed in Committee by the noble Earl would have allowed a school to opt back to county or voluntary status within five years of becoming grant maintained. As the noble Earl pointed out, a number of your Lordships expressed sympathy with the principle of fairness that the amendment sought to address—namely, if parents of the future, as well as parents of today, are to have meaningful choice so long as there are parallel systems in the state sector, the road between them cannot be a one-way street—but at the same time expressed concerns that the system would be open to abuse. I hope that, as the noble Earl argued, the amendment addresses those concerns effectively, incorporating, as it does, democratic roles for parents and governing bodies in deciding whether they wish their school to opt back, while requiring the Secretary of State's permission for such a ballot to be held.
The noble Earl referred to remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who I see is still not in her place, and I am sorry about that. She was very fulsome. I almost believed that she was coming on board. I do not recall her ever before being more positive towards ideas from the Cross-Benches or this side of the House on the Bill. What she said, and I hope the noble Earl will forgive me for quoting her, was:
"I am deeply impressed by the plausibility both of the amendments and those who have spoken to them. Indeed, in
1304
an ideal world I should be delighted to support them in principle and in practice".—[Official Report, 27/4/93; col. 171.]
The noble Baroness then went on to indulge—I wish that she were here—in what I believe has become a bit of a neurosis. Her concerns, as I understood them, were that the passing of the amendment would have led to instability and intimidation. Surely the noble Baroness, and no one else in the House, could believe that the Secretary of State would permit a ballot if he felt such were the consequences. That is the strength of what we are putting forward, because it covers that point. Therefore the anxieties expressed by others who were generally in favour of the proposition have been met, and I am sure we can all now unite behind the amendment.
In Committee, a number of noble Lords also questioned whether the ability to opt back would lead to instability. It is to be hoped that by requiring that, except in exceptional circumstances and then with the permission of the Secretary of State, no school may opt back within 10 years of opting out, their fears will be eased. Ten years seems to me to be a long enough time for schools not to opt out experimentally, a danger interestingly suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, during our discussion on the point, and yet at the same time 10 years is not the eternity which the Bill otherwise currently proposes. Indeed I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said in Committee:
"A period of 10 or 15 years might be a much more feasible proposition".—[Official Report, 27/4/93; col. 182.]
Again, I am sorry that the noble Lord is not here, because I would have hoped that he would feel that the amendment in its present form meets that anxiety and would enable him to support the amendment.
On Amendment No. 226C, all I would say is that we obviously do not need to go over all the arguments again for improving parental choice by allowing grant-maintained schools to opt back into LEA maintenance. Those arguments are self-evident. They have never been intellectually or morally refuted during long debates on the point. If there is choice, there should be choice for parents for all time if there really is a commitment to a parallel system. This is the question. Is there a commitment? If there is a commitment to a parallel system, then of course that right to change should exist.
The amendment looks at the particular case of grant-maintained special schools. Special schools are inherently more complex organisations than LEA-maintained schools, given the needs of the pupils and the very different admission arrangements. It allows a grant-maintained special school to consider whether grant-maintained status is appropriate after it has had some experience of the grant-maintained system. The amendment makes it possible for a grant-maintained school to opt back to the LEA.
In speaking to the amendment and warmly recommending it, I must say that I should be sorry if we have drifted into a situation in which parents of children with special needs became regarded as disenfranchised, second-class parents unable to enjoy all the rights which exist for the parents of children in other schools. As we are so firmly committed to action

1305
on the general front, it is logical that we pursue this point in the context of grant-maintained special schools.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to approve of and support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and tabled at an earlier stage in the proceedings. I am sorry that I was unable to be present then but I am delighted to be here for this debate.
I have always heard that this House is distinguished for its ability to set aside strictly partisan considerations and to consider matters in a reasonable and rational way. The amendment is one which will, above all, appeal to people who come to it with an open and rational mind. As the noble Earl said, it is an attempt to try to leave open the final decision about the shape of our education system in the light of experience.
As the Bill passes through the two Houses of Parliament none of us can possibly know what its long-term impact will be. The noble Earl's amendment addresses itself to that issue. It leaves it open to parents, in the light of what happens, to take the decisions that should be made for the welfare of their children.
I commend the amendment to your Lordships on four grounds, and I shall do so briefly. The first is that the amendment is framed in an extraordinarily moderate and reasonable way. In every possible way it attempts to meet the objections raised by noble Lords in an earlier debate. It meets every possible demand for safeguards. It does so more extensively than the present Bill, as changed and amended by the Government in another place. For example, the noble Earl's amendment deals first with the issue of having not one resolution but two on the part of the governing body in seeking a fresh ballot. I understand that now we have only one resolution on the face of the Bill as proposed by the Government. So there are two resolutions and not one.
The noble Earl's amendment lays down a minimum and a maximum period during which the ballot shall be held. It therefore meets the objection made in many quarters that under the terms of the Bill a ballot could be held during the school holidays. By the very nature of things that must be highly objectionable. The amendment tries to meet that difficulty by giving due notice of when the ballot will be held. Thirdly, the amendment keeps closely to the Government's wording with regard to the 20 per cent. of registered children whose parents may call for a ballot on the issue which the noble Earl has in mind; in other words, of opting back into the local education authority structure.
The second ground on which I commend the noble Earl's amendment is that we know, because the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, reminded us earlier today, that one of the purposes of the Bill is to create "a useful diversity of the system". I repeat those words, "a useful diversity of the system". The amendment becomes operational only after 10 years. That means that after 10 years we shall know whether parents have decided by their own ballots that they wish to
1306
maintain an option for a local authority school. Ten years will be long enough for them to determine whether they want to retain that degree of diversity or whether they want to replace the LEA system with one of universal grant-maintained schools.
One of the crucial aspects of the amendment is that it will operate only in a situation in which parents have in large numbers decided that the LEA system shall continue in parallel with the grant-maintained system. In that situation it would be unacceptable to refuse to allow those parents to choose from among those diversified systems and in effect to be compelled to keep to only one regardless of their own choices in the matter. Generations change and people's views change. It may well be that experience will tell parents that they want to do something different from that which they might do next year or the year after.
I urge your Lordships to think closely about the fact that education more than any other area of government concern is one in which the lead times are long. As with a tree it takes a long period, a generation, to know the value of an educational system. I know well that I may have been regarded as a controversial Secretary of State, as my successors have been so regarded. However, the point I am trying to make is much wider than that. It is the point that we in this country have fundamentally changed our education system every few years so that we have never allowed it to grow to see the fruits of those changes. We are about to do so again if we do not pass the amendment.
The amendment enables parents in the light of experience to judge what kind of school they want their son or daughter to attend. The light of experience is one of the richest means of enabling us to make the right choices for the next generation. Let us suppose—and I accept that it may be hard for noble Lords on the Government Front Bench to accept this—that the Bill has none of the good effects which Ministers claim for it. Let us suppose that it does not work very well. If noble Lords on the Government Benches doubt that I must point out that in only four years a substantial part of the 1988 Act is being changed by this Bill; specifically all the clauses which deal with the grant-maintained sector. That hardly suggests that we have access to such wisdom that we can decide in advance that nothing shall be changed. The noble Earl's amendment seeks to make such change possible within the constitutional structures of a democracy.
My final thought on that second point is that if one does not allow change within a democracy, if a system will not bend but only break, one begins to move that democracy into extra-parliamentary ways of expressing opposition because one allows no parliamentary or democratic ways. That is why the amendment is so significant and important.
The third ground to which I wish to refer is that in the Bill we are passing from a system in which we have laid a great deal of responsibility for the education of our children on those who are elected at local level to county councils and to local education authorities. I believe that a large part of the local authority structure, regardless of party, has done a remarkable and responsible job. I find it strange that in this House

1307
of all places there appears to be so little faith in elected local people. I thought that here I should find faith in their wisdom, experience and local knowledge.
We might be wrong in taking responsibilities and powers away from such people, and in future parents may want to return to the local education authority structure. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, made a special point about that in respect of Amendment No. 226C relating to special schools. While I do not wish to trespass on later debates, it is clear in respect of special education that the services provided by local authorities have been necessary, need further to be developed and are unlikely to be adequately replaced by a set of fragmented schools with no overall systematic approach to the problems of the special needs of children in this category.
Finally, there is a new factor which has not been raised so far in the debates on this amendment. I have looked at earlier debates and have regarded carefully the powerful argument made in those debates. It is a rather unexpected argument. It is that this country, uniquely among all the member states of the EC, is firmly moving in the direction of centralising its powers whereas every other country in the EC is moving towards decentralisation. That is reflected not only in the subsidiarity clauses of the Maastricht Bill but also in the setting up by the EC of the council of the regions.
I suggest to noble Lords that the council of the regions is likely to become one of the institutions through which a great deal of assistance and funding passes in future years. That could change the whole attitude towards what is happening in this Bill, which I believe to be profoundly outdated in many ways.
I return to the amendment itself. It leaves open the possibility that we may—and I quote the words of one of Britain's great political leaders—have been mistaken. I beg noble Lords to consider very carefully before they vote against the noble Earl's amendment and close the door to the possibility that we may be mistaken. For if we are mistaken, the cost of trying to change that mistake subsequently with no provision made for democratic change could be an extremely high price to pay.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, when she was Secretary of State for Education and legislating to force grant-aided schools either to go to the private sector, whether or not they could afford it, or to force them into local government control, did she allow them the choice of returning to being grant-aided schools? Did she allow them to remain as grant-aided schools? I do not remember how the situation was.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, refers to a Bill put forward by my then colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Prentice, which wound up direct grant schools. As a result of that legislation, direct grant schools were given a choice between whether to become independent or to become part of the maintained system.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, were they allowed to stay as they were or to change their minds afterwards?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I did not bring forward the legislation to which the noble Baroness refers. However, with regard to that legislation, it offered the schools a choice between independent status and being part of the maintained system. They could not stay exactly as they were. However, at present no choice of any kind is offered to parents and the noble Earl's amendment seeks to rectify that.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as I understand it, the important thing is parental choice. We are talking about a span of 10 years. That means that except for the few parents who have a disproportionately large number of children—and they are becoming fewer and fewer—the parents with whom we are concerned will be completely different from those who voted to go grant-maintained. Why is it that parental choice is limited to one group of parents and then it stops? A parent is a parent. If a parent has a right to choose in 1993, why should a parent not have a right to choose in 2003, if parental choice is so important?
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I find it extremely interesting that throughout a large part of the debate there was present only one Conservative Back-Bencher. I see that there are now present five noble Lords opposite which has increased the attendance of noble Lords opposite by 500 per cent. I wonder why that is so. Perhaps some noble Lords are having a good dinner although it is now 8.50 and they have had plenty of time to do that.
More seriously, this must be one of the most important debates during our considerations on Report. We are talking about an absolutely fundamental matter. The noble Baroness knows that we pressed this matter in Committee. It was mentioned also on Second Reading. I should have hoped that there would be more contributions from noble Lords opposite.
Perhaps I may repeat what my noble friends and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, have said. I shall not repeat the quotations from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. It seems to me that the amendment has taken care of their objections. Although they are not present, perhaps I may say that the two noble Peers do not normally support this side of the House but I do not grumble about that because I seldom support the Government side. That is the way things are in this House.
The noble Baroness may remember that the previous amendment provided for a period of five years. I said that I would see nothing wrong in a time of seven years or nine years because I subscribed to the point made by the Minister that in running schools, you cannot have the turmoil—if that is the right word—which is brought about by frequent changes. That would happen in this case. That is why I believe that noble Lords who support the amendment have it right. I believe that 10 years is absolutely right.

1309
The sheer logic of the amendment cannot be denied. If you deny that choice, then the difficulties arise which have already been mentioned by noble Lords this evening and I shall not repeat them.
I repeat for the sake of emphasis what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said and it has been said many times before. I fail to see why the Government believe that because one set of parents are able to make such a fundamental choice, other parents will not have that choice. That seems to me to be fundamental to this issue. I hope that there will be some change of mind in that regard.
Most of the points have been made. I recall that in Committee the Minister said that no period was satisfactory. Even if somebody had said, "Let us make it 20 years or even 50 years, no length of time would meet the case which the Government are putting forward". With great respect, I submit that that is a silly and illogical argument. I believe that the House is entitled to a full and logical reply to the objections which have been made again this evening.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should be more impressed—and I have said this before—with this touching outbreak of democracy and the desire that the wishes of parents should be honoured if noble Lords opposite would honour the wishes of parents who want schools to become grant-maintained in the first place. Hypocrisy is rampant in the Chamber on the part of those noble Lords who support the amendment. If you believe in democracy you would allow free choice for parents to decide whether to enter the grant-maintained sector. That would at least be on all fours with the facility to opt back into the LEA-maintained sector.
Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, spoke about decentralisation and said how good that was. That is what the Bill is all about. It is about devolving power to parents and governors at school level—that unit of operation which makes most sense to local people so that they can make their own decisions.
I must say in support of my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour—and I am sorry to say this because I have so much respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—that it does not square with those parents who the noble Baroness said had a choice between state and private education. What a choice that was. It was no choice for parents who could not afford private education. This Bill gives a choice of state-funded education either through local autonomy at a very local level or local autonomy under the umbrella of a local education authority. Parents are not asked to put their hands in their pockets in order to exercise a choice in those matters. That was no choice for parents in the case of those grammar schools which either went to the wall or became independent schools. Therefore, that point does not impress me.
To enable me to respond properly to the debate I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, to clarify a matter. The first part of the clause states:
1310
"The Secretary of State may, before the end of the period specified in subsection (5) (b)."
Subsection (5) (b) concerns the 10-year period, but Clause 1 states that it is before the end of that period, so long as it is consistent with subsection (2). That subsection sets out the three reasons why a ballot could be triggered under the 10-year period. It can be done by a request through the Secretary of State, by a request from a governing body of a grant-maintained school that is determined under the procedures specified in subsection (4) (a), or by 20 per cent. of parents petitioning; or the Secretary of State may decide that it is in the interests of the pupils concerned. Will the noble Earl clarify what can happen within the 10-year period?
9 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Certainly, my Lords. I am glad that this point has arisen. I did not deal fully with it in a presentation which did not cross all the "t"s and dot all the "i"s. I mentioned that the Secretary of State was able to initiate things himself. What he can do under those first two lines, which the noble Baroness quoted, is off his own bat. If he feels that a ballot should be held inside the 10-year period—in other words, say, after eight years—he can go to the governing body and say, "I think you ought to do this". So he has the initiative in which he can do that. It does not have to come from them; it can come from him if he sees circumstances which he thinks demand it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should like to press the noble Earl yet further. The clause states that before the end of the period and subject to subsection (2), he may give his consent in writing to the holding of a ballot under the section. The three circumstances referred to are a request from the governing body to the Secretary of State, 20 per cent. of the parents petitioning the Secretary of State, or a ballot being held in the interests of the pupils concerned. In other words the Secretary of State can make a determination himself.
I accept that if a ballot has been held in the previous 12 months that situation does not apply. However, if there is a vote to go grant maintained where 70 or 80 per cent. of the people vote in favour and 20 or 30 per cent. vote against, is the noble Earl saying that as long as a ballot has not been held within the previous 12 months, the 20 or 30 per cent. who lost the ballot may petition the Secretary of State to initiate another ballot inside 10 years?
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am not sure if I totally follow that point. I thought at first the noble Baroness was asking whether, when he initiates it himself before the end of the 10 years, the Secretary of State needed to go through all of those things into (a), (b) and (c). I think that the wording says "no" to that. The difficulty may be the words "and thereafter", although I was advised that that was the correct wording. If one reads it as an "or", it is separated out slightly better and I think it has the same effect. So if he does it off his own bat to begin with, my

1311
understanding is that it does not go through to (a), (b) and (c). Was that the point that the noble Baroness was making?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the House is very patient. The noble Earl is not making himself very clear but, given that it is his amendment, I hope that he will make it clear before the end of the debate.
Can the noble Earl tell the House what he means by the words:
"The Secretary of State may before the end of the period specified under subsection (5) (b) below where he considers it to be in the best interests of the pupils concerned, and thereafter"—
It is "and thereafter", not "or thereafter"—
"in any of the circumstances set out in subsection (2) below, give his consent in writing to the holding of a ballot under this section".
Can the noble Lord tell me what the words mean?
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I shall have to go back to what I said before. The problem is in "and thereafter". There are two distinct things here. One is the circumstance which ends at "pupils concerned" and the next circumstance is if it is thereafter. In other words, if it is after the 10 years in that later period, then it brings in subsection (2) (a), (b) and (c). This, I understood, was correct drafting. If the noble Baroness thinks it is not, then we have a difference of view, and if that were really a sticking point, then of course I would look at it again. It may be that "or" in other circumstances would be a better way of putting it, but that is certainly what it was intended to do. I hope that that makes it clear.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I understand that this is a very important amendment, but it is also Report stage and getting up and down in such a manner is surely not in order.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords but this is a very unclear amendment. I do not know, even from the noble Earl's explanations, what can happen before the end of the period. It is not clear, but I will press on and respond to the amendment.
I was told by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, that the amendment does not address the long term. I hold contrary views. If there is a reference to activity that can take place before the end of the period, then I am at a loss to know what activity can take place before the end of the period.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, referred to Back Benchers. I happen to have done some arithmetic at the time that he made the comment. We outnumbered the numbers of his own Back Benchers by 100 per cent. at that time. It is always depressing that so few noble Lords sit through important debates such as the schools debate, but it is a feature of the House and it is a feature of all Benches. It is not a feature of this Bench specifically. There were more people sitting around and most of the people in the House at that moment were Front Benchers; and all Front Benchers are represented in the debate.
As I am sure noble Lords will recall, we discussed the issue of such a provision in relation to mainstream schools at considerable length during the Committee stage of the Bill. It appears to me that there are two
1312
main differences between this amendment and the similar amendment which we debated at length in Committee, and which noble Lords voted decisively against. First, there is the change in the time period specified in subsection (5) (b) of the amendment which is 10 years instead of five. There is confusion that surrounds what can happen before the period described in subsection (5) (b). In summing up perhaps the noble Earl will try again to convince the House as to what he means by that.
As I stated in the earlier debate, the Government have always made clear their policy on grant-maintained status. I do not wish to retread old ground but it is worth restating that position. We believe that there should be the opportunity at each school for parents to seek GM status, and that there is great value in self-governing status for state schools. Noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment do not believe in that principle and do not believe in that form of democracy. Therefore, I repeat that I find the degree of hypocrisy in the amendment almost staggering.
Parents know, when balloting, that they are being allowed to choose the appropriate form of control for that particular school. We make no secret of the fact that they are voting for that form of self government. They also know in advance that the decision will stand and that subsequent generations will not be able to change it. We agree that that means parents must consider the issue carefully and ensure that the time is right for a school to seek grant-maintained status. But that is properly a decision for them and one which we are quite convinced they are capable of making.
We have heard many arguments both today and during the previous debate suggesting that a five or 10-year provision would provide suitable stability within the education system. I have said before, and I repeat: I do not agree. Any system that provides for schools to oscillate between two different situations will inevitably lead to disruption. Indeed, my own children spanned a 10-year period in their secondary schooling. I would have considered it very disruptive to have had different forms of government, both to-ing and fro-ing; that is, flip-flopping in and out of the sector. What we have provided for is a system whereby parents can choose that their school remain with the local education authority or become grant-maintained. That provides for greater stability.
We want to see schools plan for a stable future in the grant-maintained sector. As I understand the amendment, what would be the reality of empowering the Secretary of State to allow a school to ballot every 10 years, or more frequently, to change to a different form of control?
Once a school had achieved grant-maintained status there could be great pressure from those opposed to such status—not necessarily those acting in the best interest of the pupils—to campaign for a change of status. That would cause instability; it could undermine the benefits which self-governing status brings and it would distract the governing body from its important function of governing the school to the benefit of pupils.

1313
If only the noble Baroness, and others in the House, could be with me in my office when the staff and governors of schools come in who do not wish to be named through fear of intimidation. They describe the intimidation that takes place when they are seeking grant-maintained status. They say, "We will not put our heads above the parapet any more", because of the hostility that is shown towards them. It really is very depressing. However, it is something that is tossed aside by noble Lords opposite.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, is she aware that there has also been intimidation the other way round? I deeply regret intimidation of any kind. I do not believe that it should take place on either side. However, I have plenty of examples of people who have opposed opting out in particular schools. They are ordinary members of governing bodies, including parents, who have been intimidated by those who wish to pursue opting out. It is the Government's divisive policy that has brought about intimidation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness would do well to give us some of that evidence. We in the department are most interested in such examples. However, I am not sure that it extends, for example, to fire-bombs through letterboxes, damage to cars, physical damage to people, and intimidation by telephone threatening the professional futures of teachers who dare to support opting out. If the noble Baroness has evidence the other way, we would like to hear from her.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for kindly giving way. If what the Minister has told the House actually exists, then that statement is very grave and should be followed up by the authorities with as close attention as they can give to it. Is it not a fact that the greatest reaction to the opt-out is not the intense, almost neurotic, concentration on results, but rather that it is apathy itself. For example, can the Minister give the House the total number of opt-outs that have taken place in the whole of Wales since this great extension of democracy has been available?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that we have given those figures a number of times, but I shall, of course, let the noble Lord have the latest figures. On this side of the House we have always said that opting out is an entirely voluntary procedure. We do not force schools to do it. If they wish to go down the road of balloting, it is of course a secret ballot.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, seems to be finding the debate rather funny. I should point out to him that there is evidence of people filling in voting forms and using Tipp-Ex to take out the "yes" and putting in the "no". Indeed, we have also been told by the Electoral Reform Society that that is the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, is absolutely right. One of our problems is proving such practice. It is, of course, anonymous and always difficult to prove. However, we have heard from some very distressed
1314
staff, governors and parents. If you believe in democracy, then you must believe in it both ways. I have made that clear. Indeed, I have just said so in speaking to the amendment. We have set out a system that allows parents to know well in advance of voting that they vote to move away from local authorities and that there is no route back. But for those who want a route back, it would at least be principled if those noble Lords also believed in democracy the other way round.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness for giving way. I can assure her that I do not find it funny at all. Indeed, I have never been more serious about anything in my life than I am on this particular issue. What I find quite ludicrous are the reasons that the Minister is giving to the House for something that the whole House considers to be a major matter. That is why I mentioned the thin attendance tonight.
Finally, I should like to assist the Minister. She said that she would send the latest figures to my noble friend. However, the figures are these: seven schools have opted out in Wales out of a total of 2,000. If that is an indication of success—and I mean in a sense that has nothing to do with that about which the noble Baroness is talking—my goodness, I hate to think what constitutes failure.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord was probably out of order as he did not speak to seek a point of clarification or to ask a question. If the noble Lord thinks the figure that has been mentioned is so derisory, he should not be so worried about what is happening in the grant-maintained sector. We are not putting pressure on the people of Wales. If they wish to opt out, that is fine. We are not saying that the policy will only be a success if all the schools in Wales opt out. We happen to believe, and have made no secret of it, that the greatest possible autonomy at local school level is preferable. We have made it clear that this is a matter for parental preference. We also make it absolutely clear to parents, when they are voting to move away from local authority control to controlling their own affairs, that that is a decision they make for all time. They make their decision in full knowledge of that.
Once grant-maintained status is achieved, we want school governors to be able to look forward and know that for the foreseeable future the administrative system in which they operate is secure; that they can plot the development of the school over a substantial number of years and they can plan for pupils to progress through the school without disruption. We allow for the terms of office of first or foundation governors to last up to seven years for the very reason that we wish to promote continuity and stability. This amendment undermines that.
There is also the question of the practicality of opting back into LEA control. In the previous debate I spoke of the difficulties that might occur if a grant-maintained school in an LEA which did not maintain any schools wanted to opt back into the

1315
control of that LEA. The new amendment has not addressed this issue. I do not believe that an LEA which had evolved to a point where 100 per cent. of schools in the area were grant-maintained would necessarily welcome a school that wished to be maintained by the authority. Such an LEA would have to recreate machinery to carry out that historical role.
I turn now to the new clause that concerns grant-maintained special schools. The arguments of practicality and of principle apply to these schools as they do to mainstream schools. We have made clear our belief that, with the possible exception of hospital schools, there should be the opportunity for parents to seek self-governing status. The move has not been presented as a two-way ticket for these schools any more than it has ever been for mainstream schools. It is immaterial whether the school is an ordinary or special school in this context. I have outlined a few of the reasons for our continued opposition to the arguments that lie behind these new clauses. I urge your Lordships to reject the amendments.
The Government have demonstrated their commitment to parental choice beyond any doubt. By improving the accountability of our schools, we have given parents direct control over the future of their children's education and, particularly through grant-maintained status, have widened the options available to them. Parental involvement in self-governing schools goes way beyond participation in a ballot. Once schools become grant-maintained, they continue to draw on the active support and commitment of their parents. The arrangements for increased representation of parents on the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools is one obvious example of this. They have a continuing valuable role to play in influencing the identity and direction of the school. This is an issue on which we have to agree to differ. Therefore I ask noble Lords to reject the amendment.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I listened with great care to all of that and I think I have to say that I have seldom heard a weaker series of arguments since I have been in this House. What did they consist of? They consisted, as I suspected they would, largely of motives: words like "hypocrisy", "look who's speaking", as I said before, and reference to what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, may or may not have done 14 years ago. I thought we had finished with that. Indeed, I hoped we had finished with that at Committee stage. That gets us nowhere.
The nub of the argument of the noble Baroness—she used the phrase several times—was "We make no secret of the fact that this is a decision for all time". Well, that is precisely our objection. It is no argument in favour to say that this is how it is. It is because that is how it is that we are objecting to it and want to make it otherwise. So I cannot see that that is a conceivable argument against what we are putting forward. I know they make no secret of it and make it plain it is for all time but that is just what is wrong with it.
The noble Baroness said any such scheme would be disruptive. In a sense, if you can change your mind over anything there is disruption, but it is a normal
1316
principle of life that, if circumstances change, you can change your mind with that. Unless I am quite wrong in this, I believe that it is possible for schools which have changed their character to change their character back. I do not think there is anything which says they cannot do so. If they change their age range at some point in the future, they can change their age range back. Why, then, should they not reverse this decision if circumstances later—as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, eloquently put it—teach them by experience that that is what is needed? That, it therefore seems to me, is no argument whatever.
As to practicality, if an LEA has run down so much that there is almost nothing to opt back into—again I thought we had dealt with this very fully in Committee stage; if we are going to be practical, let us be practical—what body of governors or parents would conceivably want to opt back into an LEA that was not there? Those would not be the circumstances in which it would happen, so practicality falls. There are no good arguments that I can see that are put up against this in any way.
I return, as briefly as I can, to three or four points. Most of them were put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. This helps diversity. It helps learning by experience if things should change after 10 years. It helps with flexibility, which, as she so rightly said, is a necessary feature of democracy lest things should break when matters go wrong 10 years down the track. Most of all—and I come back to this—it helps parental choice. With that, I beg leave to divide the House.
9.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 171B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 86.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Adrian, L.

Molloy, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Monkswell, L.

Attlee, E.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E. [Teller]

Parry, L.

Peston, L.

Blackstone, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brightman, L.

Redesdale, L.

Broadbridge, L.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Bp.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

David, B.

Seear, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Eatwell, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

Warnock, B.

Hamwee, B.

White, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wigoder, L.

Judd, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Longford, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Belstead, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bethell, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Blatch, B.

Boardman, L.

Arran, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Astor, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Auckland, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Barber, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

1317

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Carnock, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Morris, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Mottistone, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Moyne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Munster, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Norrie, L.

Cranborne, V.

Onslow, E.

Cross, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Denham, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dudley, E.

Rees, L.

Elles, B.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Elton, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Ferrers, E.

St. Davids, V.

Flather, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sharples, B.

Goschen, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Stewartby, L.

Henley, L.

Stockton, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Strathclyde, L.

Hives, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E [Teller.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Howe, E.

Teviot, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ullswater, V.

Long, V.

Vivian, L.

Lucas, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Lyell, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Waverley, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.28 p.m.
[Amendment No. 172 not moved.]
Clause 104 [Approval, adoption or rejection of proposals]:
[Amendment No. 173 not moved.]
Clause 106 [Power to transfer functions under preceding provisions of Chapter VIII]:
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. 174:
Page 66, line 25, leave out from first ("section") to end of line 28.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 174, I speak to Amendments Nos. 175 to 177 and Amendment No. 192.
Amendments Nos. 174 to 176, as amendments to Clauses 106 and 109, are purely technical amendments which repair and rationalise provisions for winding up the affairs of grant-maintained schools which are closed. As presently drafted, the Bill enables the Secretary of State to provide by order for the winding up of the governing body of a closed school and the disposal of its property in all circumstances except where the closure proposal has been determined by the funding authority. The amendments to Clauses 106 to 109 fill this unintended gap.
The amendments to Clauses 110 and 129, Amendments Nos. 177 and 192, are minor drafting amendments which do not change the effect of the clauses in any way. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109 [Power to provide by order for winding-up and disposal of property]:
9.30 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 175 and 176:
Page 68, line 17, leave out from ("Where") to ("given") in line 20 and insert:
("( ) proposals for the discontinuance of a grant-maintained school have been approved or adopted under section 104 of this Act, or
( ) the Secretary of State has").
Page 68, line 23, leave out ("he") and insert ("the Secretary of State").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 110 [Winding up]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 69, line 24, at end insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 174. I beg to move
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 112 [Disposal of school property]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 177A:
Page 70, line 44, after ("consideration") insert ("(not exceeding the maximum)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 177B to 177E. Perhaps I may apologise in advance for the fact that I might have to speak at some little length on these amendments. I believe it is important to get one or two points on the record. These amendments must be seen in the context of our general policy towards school property owned by trustees, whether at voluntary aided, special agreement or grant-maintained schools.
When a voluntary aided or special agreement school whose premises are owned by trustees closes, the trustees sell those premises for their full market value. The proceeds of sale are then recycled for educational purposes. In particular, the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church use such proceeds to maintain and develop denominational education. For Church of England schools, disposal proceeds are usually recycled by means of an order made by the Secretary of State under Section 2 of the 1973 Education Act. For Roman Catholic schools, the trust deed itself usually provides for the appropriate use of disposal proceeds, and for other schools recycling is achieved through schemes made by the Charity Commissioners. These well-established arrangements reflect the historic partnership between Church and state in the provision of public education, and we see no justification for changing them.
We cannot justify applying different principles to voluntary aided schools which have become grant-maintained or to other grant-maintained schools whose premises are owned by trustees. These amendments to Clauses 112 and 113 put our intention to apply similar principles beyond doubt.
Clauses 109 and 112 enable the Secretary of State by order to dispose of the property of grant-maintained schools which have closed. Clause 112 already has the effect that, where no order vesting trustees' property in another body has been made, that

1319
property will be retained by the trustees without any payment to the Secretary of State being required. To complement this, Amendments Nos. 177A to 177D provide that, where the Secretary of State vests trustees' property in another body, the order shall require the recipient to pay the trustees the full market value of that property. Money received in this way will then be recycled for educational purposes consistent with the original trust through the well-established mechanisms which exist for redeploying receipts from the disposal of voluntary aided schools. But, as with voluntary aided schools, trustees should not always be able to retain all the disposal proceeds of premises held by them.
Trustees may have acquired premises under Schedule 1 to the 1946 Education Act. This requires LEAs under certain circumstances to convey premises provided by the authority to trustees, and paragraph 8 of that schedule provides a mechanism through which the Secretary of State can direct payments to LEAs should trustees subsequently dispose of those premises. One of the effects of Amendment No. 85, which the House agreed to last Thursday, is to extend the effect of paragraph 8 in Schedule 1 to the 1946 Act to grant-maintained schools whose premises were originally acquired by trustees in this way. These amendments to Clause 112 do not negate the effect of this extension in any way.
I turn to market value. Payments for property under Clause 112 will be based on assessments of market value made by the Secretary of State. Such valuations will of course be matters of considerable importance to those making and receiving such payments. So in case there is any doubt, let me make it quite clear what we mean by "market value".
The expression is not defined on the face of the Bill because we intend it to have its normal and natural meaning. We would interpret this as the best price that a willing seller might expect to raise on the open market, taking account not only of the land's existing use and any planning consent which currently applied to it but also to its development potential for other purposes.
We have also concluded that it would be right to provide a means by which trustees, LEAs or any other body receiving or making payments could appeal against the Secretary of State's valuation of school premises. The Lands Tribunal is the right body to which appeals of this kind could be made, and Amendment No. 177E provides for such appeals. It requires the Secretary of State to specify the maximum consideration payable—which would be his valuation—in the winding up order, and enables those who would make or receive payments based on that valuation to appeal against it to the Lands Tribunal. If the Lands Tribunal determined a different valuation from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State would be required to consider whether the amounts of consideration specified in a winding-up required alteration in the light of the Lands Tribunal determination. In relation to the maximum consideration, a Lands Tribunal valuation would effectively be binding because it would clearly be unreasonable—and therefore unlawful—for the Secretary of State to
1320
conclude that the maximum consideration, to which the tribunal's judgment applied directly, should not be adjusted to match the tribunal's determination.
I turn to Amendment No. 177F. The amendment to Clause 113 is consequential to the principle underlying the amendments to Clause 112. Among other things, Clause 113 enables the Secretary of State to require the promoters of an independent school who receive the premises of a closed grant-maintained school to pay the redundancy costs associated with closure. It also requires such payments to be taken into account in determining the payment which the promoters will be required to make for the premises.
It would be inconsistent with arrangements for voluntary aided schools—and with the amendments proposed to Clause 112—for redundancy costs to be deducted from consideration received by trustees for their property, and this is not our intention. So to make that clear Amendment No. 177F disapplies the provision enabling such deductions to be made from property held by trustees.
Finally, let me say a few words about property and money held on trust by the governing body. These amendments to Clause 112 deal only with property held by trustees other than the governing body. But governing bodies can also act as trustees. Although it is rare for governing bodies to hold land on trust, it is more common for them to act as trustees for money which may, for example, have been raised by parents for a particular purpose related to the school.
There is an argument for dealing with the disposal proceeds of property and any other money held on trust by governing bodies in the same way as that held by other trustees; in other words through charity law. But the position of governing bodies is different from that of other trustees. The governing body has to be wound up after the school closes, but it cannot be wound up until all its responsibilities are discharged or transferred. So before that could happen a new scheme would have to be made and new trustees appointed for any money held on trust by the governing body. That might greatly—and in some cases indefinitely—delay completion of the winding-up process.
I have to say that we are still considering this issue. It may be that I shall have to bring forward further amendments to deal with it at Third Reading. I apologise for such a lengthy introduction to these fairly straightforward amendments. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the amendments, which in large measure meet the concerns that have been expressed by the Churches. In particular, I am grateful for some of the comments of the noble Lord in relation to market value. If I heard him correctly, it was reassuring.
I was also glad to hear that the findings of the Lands Tribunal will be binding on the Secretary of State and that he is prepared to consider the possibility of a further amendment touching matters where the governing body holds money in trust. In all respects I am extremely grateful to the Minister. He moved at incredible speed. I listened as carefully as I

1321
could but I shall need to study those statements. So far as I can tell after careful listening, I have nothing but gratitude to express to him.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I apologise to the House for speaking at what the right reverend Prelate described as "incredible speed". I shall endeavour to move somewhat more slowly in the future. I was not trying to hide anything. I am grateful that the right reverend Prelate is in the main satisfied with the explanation. I hope that he takes the opportunity to read carefully tomorrow what I have said. With the assurance that it might be necessary for me to bring forward further amendments at Third Reading, I hope that the House will be prepared to accept these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 177B to 177E:
Page 70, line 44, at end insert:
("( ) Subsection (3) above does not apply to property held on trust for the purposes of the school otherwise than by the governing body; but where an order under section 109 of this Act vests property so held otherwise than by the governing body in any person the order shall require that person to pay to the trustees the maximum consideration in respect of the property.").
Page 70, line 45, after ("The") insert ("maximum").
Page 70, line 46, leave out ("shall not exceed") and insert ("is").
Page 71, line 7, at end insert:
("(4A) Where such an order requires any person in whom any premises are vested to pay any consideration in respect of the premises, the order shall specify the amount determined by the Secretary of State under subsection (4) (a) above; and any dispute as to that amount may be referred to the Lands Tribunal by—

(a) the person in whom the premises are vested,

(b) the person from whom they are transferred, or

(c) the person to whom the consideration is to be paid, and shall then be determined by the Tribunal.

(4B) Where—

(a) by virtue of subsection (3) above such an order requires any person in whom any premises are vested to pay any consideration in respect of the premises, and

(b) on a reference under subsection (4A) above the Lands Tribunal determine a different amount from that determined by the Secretary of State,

he shall consider whether the amount of the consideration specified in the order requires alteration in the light of the determination of the Tribunal and, if it does, he shall vary the order accordingly.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 113 [Disposal of school property: supplementary]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 177F:
Page 71, line 34, at end insert:
("( ) Subsection (1) above does not apply to any property held on trust for the purposes of the school otherwise than by the governing body.").
On Question amendment agreed to.
Clause 117 [Parent governors]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 178 to 181:
Page 74, line 33, leave out ("not less than three nor more than five").
Page 74, line 34, at end insert:
("( ) The number of parent governors shall not be—

(a) less than three, or

(b) subject to paragraph (a) above, more than the number of schools in the group.").

Page 74, line 37, at end insert ("but, if any of the schools in the group is established in a hospital, the instrument may provide for any of the parent governors to be appointed by the other members of the governing body").
Page 74, line 40, at end insert ("and, to qualify for such appointment, a person must when he is appointed be such a parent or, if that is not reasonably practicable, a parent of one or more children of compulsory school age").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 120 [Core governors]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 182 and 183:
Page 75, line 26, leave out subsections (2) to (6) and insert:
("( ) Schedule [Core governors for groups] to this Act shall have effect.").
Page 76, line 29, leave out subsection (8).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 121 [Power of the Secretary of State to replace core governors]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 184 and 187:
Page 76, line 35, leave out from ("any") to end of line 36 and insert ("externally appointed core governor appointed in respect of a particular school").
Page 77, line 16, after ("governors") insert ("other than externally appointed governors").
Page 77, line 17, leave out from ("vacancies") to end of line 20.
Page 77, line 22, leave out ("section 120(3) of") and insert ("Schedule [Core governors for groups] to").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 122 [Additional governors]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 188:
Page 77, line 33, at end insert:
("( ) Section 120(7) of this Act and Schedule [Core governors for groups] to this Act do not apply to additional core governors.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 125 [School acquiring grant-maintained status as a member of a group, etc.]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 189 to 191:
Page 79, line 23, after ("Act") insert ("Schedule [Core governors for groups] to this Act").
Page 80, line 7, at end insert:
("( ) Regulations may make provision for the governing body of a group to be reconstituted where any change occurs in the membership of the group.").
Page 80, line 16, leave out ("or special schools").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 191A:
After Clause 127, insert the following new clause:
Transfer of premises to trustees
(".—(1) Where grant under section 51(2) of this Act or capital grant is paid to the governing body of a grant-maintained school established in pursuance of proposals published under section 47 of this Act in respect of the provision of a site for the school or of school buildings, a requirement shall be imposed under section 51 or, as the case

1323
may be, Chapter VI for the purpose of securing that the site or buildings in question are held on trust by trustees of the school.
(2) Where buildings are to be provided for any grant-maintained school which are to—

(a) form part of the school premises, and

(b) be constructed partly on land held by the governing body and partly on land held on trust for the purposes of the school by persons other than the governing body,

the governing body shall transfer to those persons the land held by the governing body on which the buildings are to he constructed; and section 66(7) (b) of this Act does not apply to a transfer required by this subsection.
(3) In this section "site" does not include playing fields.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 191A I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 191C and I92A to 192E. I can deal with them briefly.
This group of amendments has four main purposes: first, to secure trustees' property interests in new grant-maintained schools established by promoters; secondly, to secure trustees' interests where grant-maintained schools change site; thirdly, to avoid the division of ownership of new buildings between trustees and governing bodies; and finally, to secure the Exchequer interest in disposal proceeds from premises acquired by governing bodies directly from the funding authority without payment of capital grant.
They are fair and necessary provisions and I commend them to the House. However, if the House would prefer me to deal with them at greater length, I am prepared to do so. I beg to move.
The Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, once again I thank the Minister for these amendments, which are helpful to us and meet some of the anxieties we have expressed. Perhaps I may raise one query which troubles me in relation to Amendment No. 192B.
Where the funding agency transfers a new site direct to the trustees, I do not see a problem. However, if the funding agency were to transfer the site to the governing body and the governing body then transferred it on to the trustees, we may be in difficulty because that may catch us—to use a colloquialism—in connection with the 15 per cent. contribution and the Government's recoupment proposals. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that that can be considered when I meet him tomorrow in relation to Clause 260 and to discuss my anxieties in regard to Amendment No. 111. Provided we can continue to discuss that related aspect, I am content to leave the matter there.
Lord Judd: My Lords, far be it for me to waste the time of the House, but it would be helpful for the Minister to go into a little more detail, as he generously offered to do. I should like to raise a number of points.
First, in framing the amendments, were the Government able to form any judgment in regard to the frequency with which grant-maintained schools will find part of their property held by the governing body in part by trustees? It will be interesting to know the scope of that issue.
1324
Secondly, though I was reassured by the equanimity of the right reverend Prelate, I wish to probe a little whether pressure from the Churches ensured that all such property would be transferred to Church interests so that the Church could reclaim its investment should the school close. Finally, in these days when we are watching the pennies and pounds look after themselves, will stamp duty have to be paid on transfers from the governing body to the trustees?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not know the answer to the noble Lord's last question. Inspiration may come to me before I conclude, but if it does not I shall write to him in due course as to whether or not stamp duty is payable.
I note the anxieties raised by the right reverend Prelate. They are matters which he can raise at his meeting tomorrow with my noble friend when he discusses Clause 260 and Amendment No. 111. I shall certainly pass on those anxieties.
Thirdly, on the question of divided ownership which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, we believe that it is intrinsically undesirable because it can complicate disposal if a school were to close and also prevent trustees from spending money to improve the building in any way because they cannot spend money on premises that they do not own. If this situation were to arise—I cannot speculate on how often it might or might not arise—at a voluntary aided or special agreement school the LEA would be required to convey its portion of land on which the building stands. Amendment No. 191A will ensure that. In the grant-maintained sector, where a building was to be constructed partly on land owned by trustees and partly on land held by the governing body, the governing body will convey its portion of the land on which the building was to stand to the trustees. The trustees would not be required to pay for this additional land but, should they subsequently dispose of it, it is right to provide a mechanism equivalent to that which exists for voluntary aided and special agreement schools through which the Secretary of State can direct the trustees to pay some or all of the disposal proceeds to the relevant LEA. Amendment No. 192A provides for that.
Not all the land acquired by trustees in these circumstances would be former LEA land. Some would have been provided through capital grant or directly by the funding authority. So it is also right to enable the Secretary of State to provide for some or all of the proceeds of such land to be paid to him or the funding authority if trustees subsequently dispose of it. That is the purpose of subsection (2) of the new clause proposed by Amendment No. 192B. Again I have to say that I cannot speculate on how often, as the noble Lord pressed me, such occasions might arise, nor, as inspiration has not reached me, can I yet answer the noble Lord's question about stamp duty. But I can give the noble Lord an assurance that I shall write to him on that matter. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, wants to ask me something before I sit down.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he say whether any other

1325
costs are involved with the transfer to trustees? My noble friend has mentioned stamp duty. I understand that the noble Lord kindly said that he will write to my noble friend about it. These are legal matters and I would not pretend to know too much about them. But is any other cost involved on either side when this is carried out?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord quite rightly said that these are legal matters and he implied that neither he nor I properly understands legal matters. I have forgotten most of the law that I ever did know. Again, I am speaking off the cuff, but other legal costs might be involved. I would prefer to write to the noble Lord, just as I promised to write to his noble friend Lord Judd, on this matter if there are legal costs or whatever relating to any transfer of property. If I give the assurance that I shall write to the noble Lord on that, I hope that he will allow me to move the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 191B:
After Clause 127, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to Consult
—(1) Before publishing proposals under sections 46, 95 or 103 of this Act (and without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (4) of each of those sections) in relation to a school or schools in any area each funding authority shall consult with and have regard to the views of the bodies described in subsection (2) below.
(2) Those bodies are—

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

(b) the governing bodies of other schools in the area which may be affected by the proposals;

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

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

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

(3) Any reference in this Act to a Diocesan Board of Education shall be interpreted as a reference to the Diocesan Board of Education constituted under the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 for the diocese concerned.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, this amendment relates to consultation by the funding agency before it publishes proposals to establish changes of character or to discontinue a grant-maintained school. I moved a similar amendment at the Committee stage. The Minister accepted it in principle, promising a government amendment on Report. The Minister has corresponded with me about this since but as no government amendment has been tabled I thought it wise to put down my own
1326
amendment to make sure that the matter is not overlooked and to give the Minister an opportunity to tell us where his negotiations have got to.
The issue is quite straightforward. When the funding agency is formulating proposals about a school, it needs to consult not only that particular school but other bodies which will be affected by the knock-on effect on other schools in the locality, in particular other bodies responsible for their own strategic planning. It is of course on the face of the Bill who can object to proposals once they are published. But it is just as important to have on the face of the Bill who will be consulted before the proposals are actually formulated. In my view that is even more important because once proposals have been published they seem to take on a life of their own and they become much more difficult to amend or stop. So the earliest possible consultation is crucial.
I understand that the Government do not like my proposal that the funding agency should consult the diocesan authorities, whether Anglican or Roman Catholic; and if that consultation is not to be on the face of the Bill, I hope at least that it will be included in guidance. That will be particularly important if education committees are to disappear, because where there are such committees and the Churches are represented on them, then we have an automatic opportunity for being in at the earliest possible place where proposals are being formulated. If education committees are to disappear we lose that opportunity, and therefore consultation at this early stage becomes all the more important.
I recognise that my amendment in its present form is probably not satisfactory. It is not here in the expectation that the Government will accept it as it stands, but it is important that this matter should be properly dealt with. I am anxious to know that the Minister will be able to bring something before us at Third Reading if he is not content to accept my amendment as it stands. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, perhaps I may from these Benches warmly support the right reverend Prelate in what he has put forward. I believe that we would be 200 per cent. behind his intention here. In encouraging the Minister to bring forward some convincing arrangement, perhaps I may underline that what is as important as the principle of consultation is the effectiveness of it. The effectiveness of consultation means time for proper consultation.
Sometimes people who are rather better endowed in terms of administrative resources, staff and so on, do not always realise the pressure of very hard work on small staffs in diocesan offices around the country. From that standpoint the more that any arrangements can be firm about the proper time span for the process, the better.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I also believe that this amendment is very necessary because when a funding authority has presented its proposals they tend to become a fait accompli and people will riot find it easy to depart from them. Therefore I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will regard this matter as something which should be dealt with.

1327
As regards the form in which the amendment is proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, I have only one point which I have already mentioned to him. In subsection (2) (b) there needs to he a more precise indication of the "other schools" referred to. It states,
"the governing bodies of other schools in the area which may be affected by the proposals".
If possible that phrase should be defined. To those with a better knowledge of the matter than I, it may be perfectly clear and obvious. In that case perhaps no further indication is necessary. But in the present case it looks as though some clearer indication is desirable.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by accepting the general statement put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, as regards consultation. He is quite right to stress that it is always important to allow sufficient time for consultation, particularly with small non-governmental bodies which do not necessarily have available to them such resources as are available to Government and other similar organisations.
The right reverend Prelate is also right to press us on this matter. As he well knows, officials in the department have been in constant discussion with his officials and will continue to be until these matters can be finally resolved. We have no difficulty in agreeing with the general substance of this amendment. It is plainly right that a funding agency, before publishing a proposal that directly affects a Church grant-maintained school, should consult the relevant bodies, by which I mean not only the governing body of the school affected but also the supporting Church education authorities. That is the Diocesan Board of Education in the case of a Church of England school and a Roman Catholic diocesan bishop in the case of a Roman Catholic school. I believe that there is nothing between the views of the right reverend Prelate and the Government on that matter.
I ought to say that we take slight issue—I stress that it is a slight issue—with the right reverend Prelate on two matters in the precise terms of his amendments. First, we are not persuaded that it is necessary to list the local education authority. As the proposed amendment itself points out, in each of these clauses there is a general requirement on the funding authority to consult such persons as appear to it to be appropriate. It would be extraordinary if that did not include the relevant education authority.
Secondly, and more importantly—and this picks up the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton—I am not happy with the reference to schools "which may be affected". If a Church school is to be affected by the proposal, the relevant bodies need to be consulted. But to extend the duty to consult explicitly to include any school that might be affected could result in the funding authority having to consult almost every school in at least part of the LEA, if not the whole of the LEA. We believe that that is too wide-ranging and I prefer to leave it to the judgment of the funding authority to determine which are the relevant schools to be consulted. I have no reason to believe that the funding authority will be other than generous in that determination, and if it were not, I
1328
have no doubt that a school would quickly complain first to the funding authority itself and, if it did not receive satisfaction, then to the Secretary of State.
As I have said, with the exception of those two points there is nothing of substance between the views of the right reverend Prelate and the Government. It is simply a question of finding the best way of expressing the matter on the face of the Bill. Certainly, with an eye to the shadow of the Parliamentary Counsel looming over me and doing so with economy of drafting, with the assurance that consultation will continue and with the firm expectation of agreed wording before we get to Third Reading, I ask at this moment that the right reverend Prelate should withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Indeed, I am ready to withdraw the amendment. If I heard him correctly, he said that he did not think that it would be necessary in the Government amendment to lay down that the funding agency would consult with the relevant local education authority. I understood from the letter that I received from the Minister that that was precisely what they were proposing to do. However, I do not wish to detain the House at the moment but merely to put that matter on the record. In the light of the undertaking that the Minister has given, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 128 [Disposal of premises on transfer of school to new site]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 191C:
Page 81, line 27, at end insert:
("(3) Where trustees of a grant-maintained school are required to pay any sum to the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above in a case where any interest in the new site is or is to be held by the governing body, then—

(a) if the interest or, as the case may be, all the interests held by any persons for the purposes of the school in the previous site were freehold interests held by the trustees, the governing body shall transfer their interest in the new site to the trustees, and

(b) if in any other case the trustees held any interest in the previous site, the governing body shall if directed to do so by the Secretary of State transfer to the trustees their interest in the whole of the new site or such part of it as may be specified in the direction.

(4) Where trustees of a grant-maintained school are required to pay any sum to the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above in a case in which they may also be required to pay any sum to a local education authority under paragraph 8 of the First Schedule to the Education Act 1946 in respect of the disposal of the same premises, that paragraph shall have effect as if—

(a) in relation to that disposal, the reference to the purchase money paid in respect of the acquisition of the premises were a reference to so much of the amount of that purchase money as remains after deducting the amount of the payment under subsection (1) above, and

(b) any premises transferred to the trustees in pursuance of subsection (3) above were premises conveyed by the authority as mentioned in that paragraph.

(5) In subsection (3) (a) above "site" does not include playing fields.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 191C was debated with Amendment No. 191A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 129 [Disposal of premises transferred under section 36]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 192:
Page 81, line 33, leave out ("from") and insert ("with").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was debated with Amendment No. 174. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 192A and 192B:
After Clause 129. insert the following new clause:
Disposal of pretnises held by trustees
(".—(1) This section applies where any premises—

(a) transferred to the governing body of a grant-maintained school under section 36(1) (a) of this Act, or

(b) acquired by such a governing body wholly or partly with the proceeds of the disposal of any premises so transferred or of any premises so acquired,

have been transferred by them to be held on trust by the trustees of the school.
(2) If at any time the trustees dispose of the premises the Secretary of State may require them to pay to such local authority as he may specify the whole or any part of the proceeds of the disposal.").
After Clause 129, insert the following new clause:
Disposal of premises provided, etc. by the funding authority
(".—(1) Where the governing body of a grant-maintained school apply to the Secretary of State for his consent to the disposal of—

(a) any premises provided by the funding authority, or

(b) any premises acquired wholly or partly with the proceeds of the disposal of any premises so provided or of any premises so acquired,

the Secretary of State may require the governing body when the premises are disposed of to pay to him or to the funding authority the whole or any part of the proceeds of disposal.
(2) Where—

(a) any premises falling within subsection (1) (a) or (b) above are transferred by the governing body to be held on trust by the trustees of the school, or

(b) any premises in respect of which capital grant was paid are transferred by the governing body (otherwise than in pursuance of a requirement imposed in accordance with section [Transfer of premises to trustees] of this Act or in pursuance of section 128(3) of this Act) to be held on trust by the trustees of the school,

then, if at any time the trustees dispose of the premises, the Secretary of State may require them to pay to him or to the funding authority the whole or any part of the proceeds of the disposal.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments were debated with Amendment No. 191A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 130 [Interpretation of sections 128 and 129]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 192C to 192E:
Page 82, line 15, leave out ("section 128") and insert ("sections [Transfer of premises to trustees] to [Disposal of premises provided, etc. by the funding authority]").
Page 82, line 15, after ("person") insert ("(other than the governing body)").
Page 82, line 17, leave out ("and 129") and insert ("to [Disposal premises provided, etc. by the funding authority]").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, again these amendments were debated with Amendment No. 191A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 131 [Variation of trust deeds etc. by order]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 83, line 8, after ("school") insert ("or a transfer of the school to a new site").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which is needed as a consequence of the new provisions in the Bill governing the transfer of grant-maintained schools to new sites which we discussed in Committee on 27th April.
Clause 131 enables the Secretary of State, after consultation with the governing body and the trustees of a grant-maintained school, to make such modification of any trust deed or other instrument relating to the school which appear to him to be needed as a result of the implementation of certain statutory proposals affecting the school.
Amendment No. 193 extends the Secretary of State's power to enable him to make such modifications as a consequence of the implementation of the proposals to transfer the school to a new site. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 83, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State may by order make such modifications of any trust deed or other instrument relating to an independent school where proposals have been approved for the establishment of a grant-maintained school in its place as, after consultation with the promoters and the trustees (if any), appear to him to be requisite—

(a) in consequence of the approval of the proposals, or

(b) for removing any inconsistency between the provisions of that trust deed or other instrument and any provisions included or proposed to be included in any instrument or articles of government made for the grant-maintained school under Chapter V which it appears to him to be expedient to remove in the interests of the school.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 136 [Changes in religious education and worship]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 195, 195A and 196:
Page 86, line 45, leave out ("or adopted").
Page 87, line 5, leave out ("and (4)") and insert ("to (5)").
Page 87, line 12, leave out ("or adopted").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments have already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 144 [Minimum number for admission]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 91, line 20, leave out from ("disregarded") to end of line 23.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10 p.m.
Clause 146 [Alteration of minimum number by funding authority]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 91, line 36, leave out ("(a) or (b)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment, whose sole purpose is to ensure consistency in the way in which references are made in the Bill under Clause 10(1) to orders made either under paragraph (a) or (b) of that provision. The amendment has no effect of substance and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 199:
After Clause 146, insert the following new clause:
("Efficiency Studies
The Secretary of State shall make regulations for the purpose of securing that, in respect of every grant-maintained school,—

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

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

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment and propose to deal with it very briefly. The object is to secure that an efficiency study, a value-for-money study, is carried out in respect of every grant-maintained school every five years, unless the Secretary of State determines otherwise. As your Lordships may know, there are two statutory bodies which have the power to carry out such studies. One is the National Audit Office, established by the National Audit Act of 1983. This body is empowered to carry out:
"examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness",
with which certain concerns, including the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools, have,
"used their resources in discharging their functions".
The other body is the Audit Commission, established by the Local Government Finance Act 1982. Under the Education Reform Act 1988, it is empowered:
"to promote or undertake studies designed to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the management or operations of (inter alia) a governing body of a grant-maintained school".
Your Lordships will have noticed that the terms of reference of the two bodies are slightly different, but nobody suggested, when a somewhat similar amendment was debated at Committee stage, that there was any fundamental difference in function between the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission. There is, however, this distinction: the Audit Commission promotes or undertakes studies of a grant-maintained school "on request". And the request has to come from the governing body of the school.
At the Committee stage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, introduced an amendment to make it obligatory for the Audit Commission to carry out value-for-money studies in respect of grant-maintained schools. The Government objected to this amendment because it would mean, they considered, that there would or might be two value-for-money studies in respect of the same school: one by the National Audit Office and the other by the Audit Commission—in other words, "double banking".
I accept that would be an oppressive result but, as the Bill now stands, there is no statutory obligation whatever on anyone to initiate value-for-money studies, efficiency studies, in respect of a grant-maintained school. It is merely something which can take place.
The first object of my amendment is to provide that such a study shall be carried out every five years, or whatever other period the Secretary of State may consider appropriate. My second objective is to make certain that there is no "double banking" and that an efficiency study should not be carried out by both bodies. That risk is avoided under the terms of my amendment. There will be complete flexibility. The Secretary of State may increase or reduce the period of five years as he thinks fit, either generally or in relation to a particular school. The scheme is wholly flexible and the Secretary of State is in total command.
If I may refer very briefly to Amendment No. 199 to show your Lordships how it fits together, there are alternatives (a) and (b): (a) relates to the National Audit Office and (b) to the Audit Commission. The amendment provides that:
(". The Secretary of State shall make regulations for the purpose of securing that, in respect of every grant-maintained school,—
(a) an examination under section 6(1) of the National Audit Act 1983 is carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General once in every five years or such other period as the Secretary of State shall from time to time prescribe, either generally or for any particular grant-maintained school, unless"—
Here is the alternative:
"(b) a study by the Audit Commission has during that period been carried out at the request of the Funding Agency for Schools, or the Schools Funding Council for Wales or the governing body of the School, pursuant to section 220 of the Education Reform Act 1988.")".
I mentioned in respect of a previous amendment that I placed before your Lordships that there is a great deal of money involved: currently £279 million and prospectively £1.5 billion. With so much money at stake, the question before the House is whether your Lordships take the view that, against that background, efficiency studies/value for money studies should be required by statute to take place periodically under appropriate regulations introduced by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for any length of time at this late hour, especially as I had a clear indication from my noble friend earlier that she was for once disposed to smile upon a proposal with which I had been associated. I can hardly find the language with which to describe my gratification which is, at least, tinged with surprise.

1333
On that note I had better cease, and say to my noble friend that I am grateful, but that I hope, even if she goes so far as to express the opinion that an amendment drafted by—if I may so describe him—my noble and learned friend could possibly be flawed in any way, and so could be capable of improvement, that the improvement she intends will in no way seriously alter the purport or content of the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot resist. I did say earlier that I am agreeable in principle to the amendment. I give the House an assurance that I will put on the face of the Bill a commitment and clear requirement that an examination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness at grant-maintained schools should be held on a regular basis. I have also in the margins of the meetings said to my noble friend that I am more than prepared to allow my noble friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the leaders of the parties opposite, to see the wording of any amendment which comes from counsel between now and Third Reading. In that case, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, in those circumstances I express my gratitude to the Minister. I am delighted to ask your Lordships for leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 199ZA not moved.]
Clause 148 [Provision of information by governing body]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 199A:
Page 93, line 7, at end insert:
("( ) in relation to the planning of special educational provision as provided in Section 153 or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is part of a large group and I had better read out the numbers rather slowly. With Amendment No. 199A are grouped Amendments Nos. 206, 206A, 207, 207A, 207B, 207C, 212, 212B, 212C and 213A. My name is at the head of the list of those who have tabled Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 so I shall speak to those first.
The aim of the group of amendments is to ensure, as we thought was the intention, that LEAs are the planning authority and have the responsibility for making the arrangements for special educational provision in their areas. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 is to ensure that provision for all pupils with special educational needs in the area of the LEA is both co-ordinated and coherent, taking into account the opportunities for financial planning and economy of scale.
Adding "plan and" to the LEAs' obligation to review the amendment entails that the requirement of government Circular No. 791 is sustained. That circular requires LEAs to submit to the Secretary of State their plans for meeting the requirements of the whole range of pupils with special educational needs in their areas. The amendment extends that requirement to an ongoing duty to plan.
By omitting "by them" the amendment intends that the requirements of Circular No. 791 and the requirement of the Education Act 1981 that LEAs have a duty to review the arrangements made by them for special educational provision are sustained with respect to all pupils with special educational needs—that means the 20 per cent. and not just the 2 per cent. who may have statements—wherever they are being educated.
The Warnock Report pointed out that pupils' special educational needs occurred in a continuum of degree from the most severe to those which pupils experienced in ordinary schools. The report therefore held that provision was needed to match that continuum. As it stands, the Bill requires the LEA to review only provision made for pupils with statements, thus breaking the responsibility for the continuum of special educational needs.
I turn to the need for planning. At present responsibility for ensuring a co-ordinated and coherent range of provision for pupils with special educational needs rests with the LEA for children within its area. The plan for that provision is drawn up in accordance with Circular No. 791. It covers provision in special schools and units, support services and provision in ordinary schools funded through the LMS formula. The aim in all cases is to plan a spectrum of provision to meet the pupils' needs and so to achieve optimal economy of scale.
In arguing against the amendment on LEA planning put forward in Committee the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, replied that under the Bill schools are obliged to provide information to the LEA if they plan a change in their character. Schools have to publish their policy for meeting pupils' special educational needs, and their adherence to the policies will be inspected by the teams allocated to them by Ofsted. LEAs and the funding authority of the schools have the right to obtain information from each other. We welcome those requirements but point out that they do not ensure that a plan is achieved which is both co-ordinated and coherent and takes into account the opportunities for financial planning and economy of scale.
Those are the very criteria used by the Minister in arguing against the amendment to extend grant-maintained status to hospital schools. She stated:
"I hope … that the reform of the provision of education otherwise … will serve to secure better co-ordination and more coherent provision for these [sick] children".
Those were the words which she used again today in responding to Amendment No. 162 tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington. The Minister continued:
"the kind of regime which the noble Lord has in mind would reduce the amounts available to authorities for the provision of education otherwise and significantly lessen their scope to do so in cost-effective ways which took account of opportunities for financial planning and economy of scale". —[Official Report, 29/4/93; col. 582.]
Although the Minister made those points with respect to a parallel form of provision, it is significant that she enunciated the very points which also argue the need for achieving a plan for special needs provision for all

1335
pupils within an LEA area. Without such a plan, the LEA is left to cobble together provision against the interstices of a collection of individual school policies.
Action to remedy inadequacies may need to await the outcome of appeals and critical inspection reports. Instances of possible inadequacies could include: schools changing their character in slight and cumulative ways which gradually erode their support for pupils with special education needs; financial constraints on schools, forcing them to return to using LEA support services but finding that they have been reduced to levels which preclude the capacity to respond; and grant-maintained schools withdrawing outreach support before alternative provision is available.
Therefore, it is absolutely vital that Clause 153 is amended. The removal of the words "by them" will emphasise the LEA's reviewing role for all education in the LEA area. That does not mean that LEAs will automatically have control over that provision but they will automatically have a whole and comprehensive overview. Even at this stage, I contend that the amendment is essential.
It may be convenient if I speak now to Amendment No. 212B which also stands in my name. That is an amendment to Clause 156. The amendment states:
"The local education authority shall ensure the availability of goods and services to assist governing bodies in their duties under section 155(1) (a)".
Its purpose is to require LEAs to ensure the availability for schools of support services for children with special educational needs. Pressure on LEAs to increase the percentage of their budget that is delegated to schools currently means either that LEAs are delegating money for support services to schools and making service level agreements with the schools which wish to buy back into the services or they are striving to continue to fund such services from a centrally held budget.
There is pressure on schools which have to buy services to look for cheaper alternatives. We are aware of some schools which have inappropriately used unqualified adult help at times to mind children with special educational needs instead of buying in more expensive specialist help and advice. Equally, where funding is retained centrally, pressure on that portion of the budget means that services are already being cut in a number of LEAs with more LEAs pointing to reductions which will come about shortly as pressure to delegate increases. In either situation, financial constraints mean that currently there are real anxieties that over the next six months or year, LEA support services will be dramatically reduced.
A telephone survey of 18 LEAs conducted recently by the Disability Resource Scheme indicated that now is a critical time for support services with their future very much in the balance. The underlying concern is that when a school decides to seek help and advice for a child with a particular difficulty which it recognises falls outside the expertise available within the school, then the much reduced LEA service may well not be able to supply that expertise.
It is possible that other providers who have set up services in the area cannot provide the expertise or may be able to do so initially but, as circumstances
1336
change, then withdraw such a service. Either way, it is entirely possible that schools will end up with no expertise on which to draw.
The Special Educational Consortium argues that the funding arrangements should permit LEAs to retain central funding of such services without any pressure to delegate. In addition, there needs to be a duty on an LEA to ensure that support services are available in every area of special educational need, if necessary, by providing the service itself.
The Minister replied to a similar amendment in Committee. It was apparent from her response that the Government understood the intention of the earlier amendment as being to discourage the growth of alternative suppliers or special needs support services. But that was not the intention. The consortium accepts that there should be a variety of providers of support services. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that should other providers not come forward, or should they fail, then the LEA will be under a duty to provide a service for any type of special educational need.
The consortium believes that by re-wording and recycling the amendment, the interpretation put upon it at Committee stage is ruled out and the intention of the amendment as set out above will be met. I beg to move.
10. 15 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment and to others in this large group. I agree strongly with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady David, has put forward in favour of the amendments. I shall not weary the House by going over the arguments again.
Amendment No. 212 falls under the general heading of aiming to ensure that the local authority is the planning agency in the provision for children with special educational needs, and that so far as possible it meets the needs of children who fall under its responsibility.
Clause 155, to which Amendment No. 212 relates, refers to all pupils in a school of whatever kind, whether a local authority school or a grant-maintained school, who have been ascertained as having special educational needs, whether or not statements have been issued by the local education authority. The clause requires that governing bodies of schools use their best endeavours to secure special educational provision for all such pupils. I emphasise that very obvious point because there is a danger that we will fall into the trap of thinking about children for whom statements have been issued when we are talking about children with special educational needs. However, Clause 155 undoubtedly refers to all pupils, whether or not they have statements. It is essential that we should at this stage of the Bill ensure as far as possible that those children who have been ascertained as having special needs but who do not have statements are not neglected.
Amendment No. 212 seeks to ensure that pupils with special needs, that is, the majority who do not have statements, continue to have provision made for them, or, after the review, are deemed no longer to

1337
need any special provision. At the moment schools may change or withdraw provision which was originally provided and which will in future have to be specified in their required statement of policy. They may withdraw or change this provision without any consultation and without informing the parents of the children concerned that that is to be done. The independent panel for special educational advice has dealt with several instances of that having been done, especially in Hampshire and Oxfordshire where the local authority has passed on to the individual school part of the cost of the teaching or non-teaching provision for children with statements. For example, a school in Romsey in Hampshire is passing on to the individual school the first hour and a half of special provision that is mentioned in the statement. Because the schools have a budget that they put aside for special educational needs, they are bound to withdraw provision from children without statements in order to make the provision that is specified for those children who have statements.
In those cases, parents have not been informed that that has been happening. Indeed, in the Oxfordshire case, it was the parents of a boy with a statement who raised the matter with the local education authority, believing—correctly—that their son was taking away from resources that had been promised to other children who did not have statements. As the school named in a statement must accept the child whose statement it is and must make the provision demanded therein, it is manifest that there is, necessarily, a temptation in such cases to cut down on the provision made for those children with special needs who do not have statements. That temptation exists equally in any school which manages its own budget, whether it is an LEA or a grant-maintained school.
1338
There is no doubt that the large number of children with special needs who do not have statements, and ought not to have them, are seriously at risk. Their parents, unlike the parents of children with statements, have no possibility of redress and, at present, no right even to information with regard to the withdrawal of or change in the provision that is made.
I believe that there is here, in the present Bill, one more instance of general feebleness of the commitment to that enormously important and numerous group of children. We are awaiting the publication of the code of practice to learn exactly how such children are to be identified and assessed and what sort of provision they are to expect. But it seems to me that even when the code of practice is brought in, such children will remain extremely vulnerable and their parents will be left with very limited rights to information or consultation.
Earlier today I was in the luscious buildings of the Department for Education. I saw a poster which read, "If you don't know she's slipping, how can you help her to stay up?" On the admirable principle of knowing what is happening to your child, I shall move the amendment. Its purpose is to afford those extremely vulnerable children a modest degree of statutory protection.
Before I conclude, I should like to say a few words about Amendment No. 213A. I had hoped that it would be grouped with Amendments Nos. 219F and 219H. I believe that the point of Amendment No. 213A is covered by Amendment No. 219F which the Minister is to introduce later. In her summing up, I should be most grateful if she could tell me whether Amendment No. 213A is in fact covered by Amendment No. 219F. However, I do not wish to say any more about the amendment at present.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, my name appears, along with many others, in the group of amendments. We are basically dealing with a variety of problems throughout what is a rather long and complicated grouping. Many of the amendments relate to overall planning. The Government have conceded on many occasions that there has to be a degree of overall planning throughout the local education authority, for the simple reason that, as one is dealing with special educational needs, one is covering an incredibly wide variety of subjects. The amendments primarily seek to help ensure the correct allocation of resources across the board.
To emphasise the latter, I should point out that there is no way in which any one special group, or indeed group of schools, can even start to deal properly with all the types of possible disability or problem which are being caused in this respect. I am talking about every kind of problem, both emotional and physical and a combination of the two. There is a strong correlation between behavioural problems of dyslexics and their not feeling part of a group. There are dozens of different forms of dyslexia. I understand dyslexia reasonably well and I consider that to say someone is dyslexic is like saying someone has bad eyesight. An individual teacher will often not be able to deal with the many different forms of a particular disability.
I hope the Minister will be able to give me some further guidance as regards the overall planning for the wide range of problems and disabilities we are discussing. Amendment No. 206A concerns the problematic area of what constitutes effective integration of children with special educational needs into schools which are not special schools. This amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). Does the Minister believe that the wording of the amendment is sufficiently strong to ensure that children with special educational needs will have the opportunity for integration without necessarily forcing such children to integrate if they are not ready for it for whatever reason? As I have said before, we are dealing with a range of problems and disabilities. Will the Government once again explain their thinking on this matter?
I wish to re-emphasise some of the points that were made so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, on Amendment No. 212. As regards this matter, the Government are effectively being beaten with a club that they created to deal with another problem. In creating the statementing system they have set up something which could potentially suck up all the funding available for children with special educational needs at all levels. New problems are always being identified in this area and new developments and new types of treatment and teaching are continually emerging. Unless some ring-fencing is established for the 18 per cent. of pupils who have been referred to, they will always be the poor relations. I feel that in dealing with one problem in this area, the Government have probably created another for themselves. I would be the last person to
1340
criticise the Government for supporting statements but we must support the 18 per cent. of pupils that have been referred to.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I wish to speak to several of the amendments in this large group. I hope the Minister is not too confused by our dancing about between amendments. However, that is the penalty one pays with such a large group of amendments. I shall attempt to deal with the amendments one by one. I turn first to Amendment No. 206A, which states:
"Page 95, line 44, leave out from ("keep") to end of line 45 and insert ("plan and review—

(a) the arrangements made for special educational provision, and

(b) without prejudice to the duties towards individual children set out in section 154, the arrangements for securing that the special educational needs of children arc met wherever possible in schools which are not special schools.")".

I am very glad to be able to speak on this issue of special needs because since I joined the House I have been tremendously impressed by the very sincere commitment which exists in different parts of the House to ensuring that a very important part of our population in the United Kingdom is properly considered in the midst of our deliberations. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to those who monitor, watch and support this cause so diligently.
In speaking to Amendment No. 206A I want to make the point that the value of integrated education to children and their families, not merely to children with special needs but also to those without, must never be underestimated since segregation breeds fear and intolerance of disability.
The HMI/Audit Commission study of provision for pupils with special educational needs, Getting in on the Act, shows that many more parents wanted a transfer of their children from a special school to an ordinary school than the reverse. That is a matter we should all take seriously. I can think of nothing which is less acceptable than the concept of a child with special needs who wishes and whose parents wish it to be included in an ordinary school but who is debarred.
The Audit Commission points out that there is a financial disincentive to LEAs to transfer children from special schools to ordinary schools because the LEA has to continue to fund the empty special school place. For the same reason, there is little impetus within special schools to encourage the integration of children into the mainstream, because any reduction in pupil numbers may reduce the school's viability. On the other hand, the commission found that over half the head teachers of ordinary schools interviewed complained that their schools' managed budgets were inadequate to provide for pupils with special needs.
Nonetheless, the HMI/Audit Commission report found that:
"the quality of the learning experience for pupils with special needs is virtually the same in both special and ordinary schools, when it might be expected that the presumed higher level of expertise in special schools would lead to a better quality of learning experience for the pupils".
It also found, contrary to popular belief, that:
"On average it is not more expensive to educate a child with learning difficulties in an ordinary school with support rather than in a special school for pupils with learning difficulties"

1341
It was only more expensive to educate pupils with severe handicaps if they were spread across a number of schools instead of having particular schools target a particular disability. If the latter approach is adopted initial pump-priming investment is needed for physical adaptations.
The rationalisation of school places is key to developing integrated education. It would be amazing if we ignored that principle. The Government have endorsed the principle that children should be integrated where possible, but in many cases that will be financially viable only when special school places are reduced. The duty to integrate individual children must be translated into a duty to plan for an increase in integrated places. That will not just happen on a haphazard basis. We have to plan for it if we want it to happen. Switching resources and expertise from special to mainstream education is essential. I commend Amendment No. 206A to the House.
I turn now to Amendment No. 207B. I hope that the House will bear with me if I spell out the terms of the amendment because they are very important and speak for themselves. The amendment provides for a new clause after Clause 153, headed:
"Strategic plan by local education authority".
It reads:
"(1) A local education authority shall submit to the Secretary of State for approval a strategic plan for the purposes of section 153 above and of the progressive development of educational provision including special needs within their areas".
That relates to the point that I have just made.
"(2) A local education authority, and the governing body of any school with duties under this Part, including a grant-maintained school, shall implement the terms of any plan approved by the Secretary of State under this section and shall bring forward as appropriate relevant proposals for this purpose.
(3) A strategic plan compiled under this section shall have effect for such period of not less than four years as the Secretary of State shall specify.
(4) The Secretary of State may approve any plan submitted to him under this section with such modifications as he considers appropriate having regard to the interests of pupils.
(5) Any proposals contained in any plan submitted under this section shall have regard to the need to promote the interests of children with special educational needs".
That again underlines the point I made in the context of the other amendment.
"(6) A plan compiled under this section shall contain proposals on the following matters—

(a) the broad direction and development of nursery, primary and secondary education respectively within the authority concerned, having regard to the requirements of section 154 below;

(b) the number and size of mixed and single sex schools in the authority concerned;

(c) the number and size of comprehensive or, as the case may be, selective schools in the area, taking account of the requirements of section 154 below;

(d) the number of places available in all maintained and grant-maintained schools, and City Technology Colleges, together with targets for numbers of entry from their catchment areas;

(e) the range of goods and services to be provided by the authority under sections 156 and (where applicable) 271 below; and

(f) any other matter which the authority may consider appropriate or the Secretary of State may specify.

1342
(7) Any local education authority shall consult any neighbouring local education authority, and such representatives of parents, headteachers, teaching and non-teaching staff and other community organisations as appear to it to be concerned before submitting any plan under this section".
I believe, although I say it myself—I hope that it does not sound unduly arrogant—that it is virtually a self-explanatory amendment. However, perhaps I may say a few words around it.
The points that we seek to make on the amendment are relevant to the basic worries on this side of the House about the fundamental shortcomings of the Bill in its dangerous over-centralisation and its total failure to recognise the indispensability of a real partnership between local communities as reflected in their LEAs and the centre and its arrogant and foolish assumption that the centre knows best.
The amendment requires LEAs to produce a strategic plan for their special educational provision and for the progressive development of educational provision generally. If the aim of the governance of education is to meet the educational needs of the whole community while using resources efficiently, planning is indispensable. The body best suited to carry out such a planning task is in our view—we have repeatedly emphasised it—the local education authority, which is rooted in the local democratic process and which has front-line knowledge of the realities of the structure of the local community and its needs as well as of the interplay of services and activities which help to make that community.
It is only through planning to meet the needs of the whole community that the educational needs of all children can be addressed. That is particularly the case with special educational needs. Those needs have long been underestimated and never fully met. The amendment requires the local education authority to draw up a strategic plan of its arrangements to meet special educational provision. As special educational provision is integral to the whole of the education provision of an area, the amendment also calls on the LEA to plan for the progressive development of all educational provision within its area.
The strategic plan must be approved by the Secretary of State and cover a period of not less than four years. The Secretary of State can lengthen that period. The Secretary of State can modify any plan put to him so long as he considers such modifications to be appropriate to the interests of pupils.
As we put the provision forward, the plan must also contain proposals about the broad development and future direction of nursery, primary and secondary education having regard to the need to secure the education of children with special educational needs in ordinary schools. That is the point that we have been dealing within the previous amendment. The plan must take account of the number, size and mix of single-sex schools within the authority and whether or not they select pupils. The plan, we suggest, must also take account of the places available, not only in LEA-maintained schools but also in grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges. A central part of the plan must be the specification of the services that the LEA will supply to all schools in the area, particularly for pupils with special educational needs.

1343
Other matters may be included in the plan that are agreed by the authority or specified by the Secretary of State. The LEA must consult neighbouring education authorities and parents and, as I have spelt out in the wording of the amendment, also head teachers, teaching and non-teaching staff and other community organisations.
The amendment requires the LEA and every governing body included in the plan, including grant-maintained school governing bodies, to bring forward proposals to implement the plan approved by the Secretary of State, so that it emphasises the importance of comprehensive community participation. There should by no doubt about the intention of the amendment that where the LEA has planned for the progressive development of the educational provision within its area and those plans have been agreed through consultation with the local community and locally democratically elected representatives on the council of the LEA and by the Secretary of State, then all relevant educational bodies will be under a duty to implement those plans in the lifetime of the strategic plan.
The hope is that through coherent planning, the progressive development of educational institutions can be resumed following the harmful ideologically-based market experiments which this Government have indulged in over recent years. This amendment is intended to improve the opportunities of parents to send their children to a wide range of schools. It recognises that that will be possible only if there is an agreed framework. We have argued, in putting it forward, that without such a plan a confusing and damaging jungle of possibilities will confront parents at the educational expense of their children. The more sophisticated parents will inevitably be at an advantage in finding their way through that jungle. Equal opportunity would therefore again be the victim.
Perhaps I may now move to Amendment No. 207C which, again, is drafted in a form which is self-explanatory:
"Planning of nursery provision for pupils with special educational needs":

—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 167 below, a local education authority shall plan and keep under review, and secure the provision of, nursery education in respect of any child to whom subsection (2) below applies.

(2) A child to whom this section applies is a child who is aged not less than three nor more than rive years and who has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for him.

(3) The Secretary of State shall within three years of the dale of Royal Assent to this Act review and publish his conclusions on the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of provision under this section (including its impact on the education of pupils with special educational needs in schools which are not special schools) and the desirability or otherwise of the extension of the duty referred to in subsection (1) above to include the planning and review of, and the securing of the provision of, nursery education in respect of all pupils aged not less than three nor more than live years whose parents wish it.").

The purpose of this amendment is to require LEAs to plan nursery provision for pupils with special needs.
1344
It requires LEAs to plan and secure the provision of nursery education for all children from the age of three who have special educational needs.
In the debate on nursery education in Committee on 20th April, several noble Lords expressed their concern about the costs of providing nursery education for all, but wanted a priority to be given to nursery education for children with special needs and disadvantaged children.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, wanted nursery education for disadvantaged children, such as children who are abused and neglected at home from birth and do not have any hope by the time they are five. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, talked of targeting nursery provision. This amendment makes the case for nursery education for children with special educational needs. The practical problems of introducing this provision should not be underestimated because of the problems for an LEA in determining which children have special educational needs at the age of three when they have not attended school. Therefore, subsection (3) of the amendment provides that the Secretary of State, within three years of Royal Assent, should consider the desirability or otherwise of extending the duty of providing nursery education for children with special educational needs to all children.
I believe that it has become increasingly clear each time that we have returned to the subject of nursery education in this House that there is a growing conviction on all sides of the House that this is one of the soundest possible provisions that could be made. It is one of the best economic investments that could be made in our whole education system. We have not heard one single logical and convincing argument to the contrary.
Therefore, we believe that at least by starting in the ways that we have suggested we should be taking practical measures towards what other countries, including the United States, increasingly see as an indispensable part of their total education system. It is for those reasons that I am very glad to speak to these amendments.
Baroness Darcy (De Knayth): My Lords, I should like briefly but warmly to support these amendments concerning planning. I have added my name to Amendment No. 206A tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which has already been spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Judd. Perhaps I may just signal that this amendment is one of triplets. It goes with Amendments Nos. 250A and 279A. They do not appear on the grouping, so I just flag that these amendments are triplets.
Planning, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, is crucial to successful integration. In Committee (at col. 514 in Hansard) I gave Hounslow as an example of good practice. Just before Christmas I met the pupils at two mainstream schools who had come from the neighbouring special school which had been closed down. The pupils had come in by degrees and not all at once. Several of them were very severely disabled without speech, but all said, or typed out, how much they had benefited from the move and how much more demanding was the education. It also makes it very

1345
much easier to get on in the harsh, competitive adult world if a pupil with special needs has grown up with a model of the ordinary child. The latter also gains an insight and understanding from contact with fellow pupils with special needs.
I therefore warmly support all the amendments on planning. I should particularly like to support Amendment No. 212 tabled by my noble friend Lady Warnock, which would ensure that the needs of those children with special needs but without statements are being met and not forgotten. My noble friend has shown very well how vulnerable that group is.
Lord Renton: My Lords, some noble Lords may understand that, as a past president of MENCAP and having lived with this subject for many years, I am naturally interested and concerned by this group of amendments which cover not only a mass of detail but fairly wide ground.
I should like to say that the Government have taken a tremendous amount of trouble already in attempting, so far as concerns the mentally handicapped, to get right this part of the Bill. I welcome what has been done and the further amendments which my noble friend has tabled. I acknowledge that the mentally handicapped are only one group of people who have special educational needs. But they are perhaps the largest and, in a way, the most difficult group of all.
Perhaps I may speak generally and first of all say, with deep respect, that I found it very difficult indeed to follow the introductory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady David. But, as I understand the matter as she presented it and as others have mentioned, including the noble Lord, Lord Judd, great importance is attached to Amendment No. 206A. That amendment intends to make a fundamental change in Clause 153 which, as it stands at the moment, the Government have, I believe, got right. The clause states:
"A local education authority shall keep under review the arrangements made by them for special educational provision".
The clause rebuts the argument that there has been over-centralisation towards the Secretary of State on the matter of special educational needs. It speaks for itself and shows that what has been alleged is not so.
If we look at Amendment No. 206, we find that instead of having that general obligation placed on a local education authority, it has to move towards integration, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, claimed it should do.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it was the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg your pardon. I apologise. I meant the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would feel it a compliment if I confused either one with the other.
In regard to the mentally handicapped, integration should not be the aim. I have a severely handicapped daughter now in her thirties, but I have kept in touch with this subject for years. In fact, I have taken part.
1346
either in another place or here, in the debates on every Act of Parliament dealing with the mentally handicapped since the Mental Health Act 1959 in which I had to represent the Home Office attitude as Under-Secretary of State. I am therefore familiar with the subject and can tell your Lordships from experience that integration of the mentally handicapped is a counter-productive exercise. It makes those who are mentally handicapped, but who may have some reduced mental capacity for learning, feel out on a limb when they are put into ordinary schools. Also, one must acknowledge that in classes where both are to be found, it may cause those who are not mentally handicapped to be held back a little because of the concentration on those who are.
I must therefore oppose the amendment in principle. I am opposed to the amendment of Clause 153.1 believe also that the Government have got right Clause 154. They are right to mention the wishes of the parents, as is done in subsection (1) of Clause 154. It would certainly be wrong in those cases to ignore the wishes of parents, and I speak as a parent.
We could easily turn discussion on this group of amendments into an all-night sitting if we had the mind to do so. Therefore I do not burden your Lordships with the details of all the other amendments grouped with Amendment No. 199A, including expensive new clauses proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I believe that it is more important that we have the broad obligations rightly stated, as I believe the Government have done, than to overlay them with a mass of detail. The more detail we introduce by way of modifying and defining the general obligation, the more scope there is for making an administrative and executive mistake. It is far better to state the principle, the aim and the intention of Parliament than that we should aim at the kind of mass of detail that underlies these various amendments.
I do not know what my noble friend Lady Blatch will say. I have not discussed this group of amendments with her. But I hope that she will be very careful indeed before she departs from the well expressed general terms of the Bill.
11 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord before he sits down. The noble Lord made a complaint—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe that I am right in saying that the noble Baroness can ask for a point of clarification or ask a question. But she may not speak twice.
Baroness David: My Lords, I wish to clarify a point. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that he could not quite follow what I had said. I should like to make this quite clear. The amendment I first spoke to was to Clause 153, which is a two-line clause. It states:
"A local education authority shall keep under review the arrangements made by them for special educational provision".
My amendment would make it read:
"A local education authority shall plan and keep under review the arrangements made … for special educational provision".

1347
That means that it would plan and have the overall view over all the provision that was made not only by its own schools but by grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges. It would have an overall view. I hope that that has clarified the matter.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the noble Baroness, who was, I presume, given leave to make that point. Paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 206A does not add anything of substance to what is already in the clause.
Baroness David: My Lords, it was Amendment No. 206—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I really do suggest that at this time of night we cannot have an argument between both sides of the Chamber. Another speaker is waiting to speak on the amendment.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak and to do so closely following the noble Lord, Lord Renton, whose contribution on this subject over the years is deeply appreciated. His particular personal knowledge of it is moving for the House. I say that because it is perfectly possible to support, as I do completely, the concept of integration for all the valid reasons that we would share, and it is also possible to point out that there are a great many parents in the country who at this moment are concerned about the provisions that will be an alternative to the schools in which their children are being educated.
We have explored this subject and I shall not deal with it at this time of night. I want to suggest, though, through the House to the noble Lord that there is a specific reason why it is also perfectly possible for me, appreciating the things that he said at the beginning of his remarks, to support the amendments. These amendments deal with a time in British education when so much change is taking place. The very institutions on which we seek to place the authority, and the very people who have held the authority and responsibility until now, are themselves under sentence. In Wales it is a possibility that in two years from now none of the county councils with their local authorities will continue to exist. A separate plan for local government going forward, reaching a point where it could well be implemented within two years, is finalised. We are seeking at this time to make certain that, with all these changes taking place, the good intentions of the Government, prompted by equally good intentions from all sides of the House, are seen through this difficulty and change. It is absolutely essential that we specifically identify those weaknesses.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness as I sit down—because I do not want to presume upon the House at this hour —whether she is satisfied that the statements referred to in the amendment go through quickly enough to be of advantage in the education of children. Does she get, as I get, complaints from parents that the statements arrive after the children have completed their education? Is she aware that
1348
there is a time lag even in good, well-intentioned local authorities in meeting the obligations now placed on them? Is the noble Baroness absolutely certain that we are not doing by accident things which none of us would have the intention to do? I have mentioned that matter several times in the House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be very brief. Clause 153 is about right, but Amendment No. 206 is an important and relevant addition because planning, as has been pointed out, is such an integral part of the discharge of the duties. Therefore, I support Amendment No. 206.
As regards Clause 154, which was spoken to by my noble friend Lord Renton, I do not see it referred to in this grouping of amendments.
Lord Renton: My Lords, but it is referred to in one of them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, maybe it is, but it is not in the grouping. May I be permitted to refer to it when it arrives? I do not want to take time out of the grouping. These amendments, as implementing requirements, by and large have considerable importance and force. But surely they should be incorporated in the code of practice rather than cluttering the statute with a mass of detail.
Amendment No. 119A I support in principle. The general review provisions in Amendment No. 153 are very well drafted, subject to the amendment which has been proposed. But they anticipate Part III and should not be there. They should be in part of a code of practice such as that in Amendment No. 206A—not as it stands, but as to the substance of it. I oppose Amendment No. 207 because it is too restrictive. Amendment No. 207A, as an implementation, could well be in a code of practice. Amendment No. 207B really creates a complex, bureaucratic superimposition on the face of the Bill, but it contains in it, here and there, relevant and important implementing provisions. I ask that objective consideration be given to some of them. A similar situation arises with Amendment No. 207C.
Perhaps it is naive to say so, but I wonder whether these amendments have been grouped because so many of the ideas could be more properly put in a code of practice which as yet we have not seen.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I was very interested indeed in that part of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, dealing with mental handicap. As has been said, he perhaps has more experience, both personal, ministerial and parliamentary, than anybody in either House. I hesitate to say this, but he says that where pupils have a mental handicap it is not possible, with profit, to have them absorbed (I believe that is the appropriate word) in relation to the Education Act 1980. Is he saying that there are some children who are simply not capable of learning because of a mental handicap? I see that he agrees with that. The noble Lord may well be right, but I should have thought that there might be a range of mental handicap in which most of those so handicapped can, with integration, achieve some kind of standard—
Lord Renton: Very rarely.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I did not hear the noble Lord's intervention.
Lord Renton: Very rarely.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Like perhaps other noble Lords, I have been reading a recent publication on special educational needs in the future which, as your Lordships probably know, is published by the National Commission on Education. I think that speaks for itself. One of the points that it makes, in relation to what the noble Lord and I have been saying, is:
"The 1981 Act asserted the right of children and young people with SENs to be educated as far as possible with their peers in ordinary schoools".
Obviously, we were aware of that. It then states that,
"it remains a challenge for all schools to extend their flexibility so as to respond to pupils' learning needs in the future".
Nowhere does the document mention what might be the exception to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, refers. That is one of the reasons why I am on my feet now.
There is a part of the document which relates very much to what was said by my noble friends Lady David and Lord Parry, as well as by myself. It states:
"Progress in education for the next 25 years has to start with a recognition of children and young people as they are. From this a context can be created which meets the full range of pupils' SENs along the lines of the principles originally stated in the Warnock Report. It is clear that effectiveness cannot be achieved without a commitment to providing the necessary means".
That has been said time and time again from these Benches. I understand what the Minister says and that there are priorities even in this field. That has to be recognised and I hope that I am one who recognises it.
The document continues:
"but the examples given show that concern for the eflicient use of resources does not have to be neglected. Perhaps the most significant finding of all is that many of the necessary developments depend on creating a climate which encourages the collaborative sharing of responsibility".
There follows a question:
"Will it be possible to pursue the vision of these developments through the present turbulence in education?"
We on these Benches say that there is too much turbulence in education at the moment. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, really does make us think about what I believe to be one of the most difficult aspects of the issue that we are discussing in speaking to these amendments.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton, but I agree equally with the noble Lord, Lord Dormand. It seems to me that, as my noble friend said, there are certain mental handicaps that cannot be looked after in the community. Equally, however, there are certain mental handicaps that can be looked after in the community, particularly Down's Syndrome cases. Are we not therefore in a little trouble here? What we should be doing is meeting the needs of each individual child. We cannot make an overall decision for all children of one particular type.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, let me say how much I have appreciated this debate, and particularly the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, whom I have heard on previous occasions on this subject and who brings a very great deal of knowledge and feeling to the issues that we have been discussing.
This is a very important group of amendments and it has been pretty fully discussed, but there are one or two things I should like to raise before the noble Baroness responds to the debate. We moved perhaps a little rapidly over Amendment No. 207A, moved in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. It concerns access to schools and the provision that can be made in educational terms for children with disabilities of one kind or another.
I do not want to speak about this at length. Many of your Lordships will have seen the moving story of the young girl, Elizabeth Sheppard, who was unable to be received into Coloma Convent school because of the nature of her disability, although she had outstanding intellectual achievements. The major reason why the school felt that it could not accept this young girl who is suffering from cystic fibrosis was the difficulties in her moving about the school, which would have put additional financial demands on its budget.
That is precisely the kind of issue that we should very much like to hear the noble Baroness talk about. In the United States disability is treated in terms of the legalised right of the individual: that is to say, people can bring cases to court if they feel that adequate access for educational purposes has not been made for a child or student who suffers from a disability. The effect of this legal provision with regard to access has been dramatic in the United States in the past 10 years. Compared with Great Britain, access to schools and colleges in the United States is extremely favourable, even though overall it does not spend a larger proportion of its GNP on education.
The reason appears to be that the right of parents to bring a legal case has made schools go out of their way to provide physical access for children suffering from some form of physical handicap. The result is that one sees in schools all over the place that provision has been made for those who may be unable to walk on their own, who have to use wheelchairs or who would be disadvantaged in other ways without such provision in a normal school within the community.
A number of able boys and girls here are barred from schools which their parents would like to choose for them because of the problems of physical access. Quite honestly, if your Lordships walked around any of your local schools to see how someone in a wheelchair would get around you would understand exactly what I am saying. I hope the noble Baroness will say something about the steps that are being taken to ensure adequate access for children to the schools which their parents want to choose for them.
I turn from that to Amendment No. 207B, which was spoken to in a very full and cohesive way by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and which concerns the

1351
strategic plans to be made by local education authorities for children suffering from special educational needs. I should not say "suffering": "having" is a better way to put it. This amendment imposes on the local education authority the duty to implement any plan that has been approved by the Secretary of State after having been submitted by the local education authority. It is a very comprehensive amendment. It suggests that the local authority should look at the full provision that its schools can make, should consider the ways in which the special educational needs of its children should best be met and should look at the resources of teachers and of equipment and at other ways in which those needs can be implemented. Therefore, it goes far beyond the extremely brief reference in Clause 153 to the provision that should be made to meet the special educational needs of children.
I am worried about the interface between the LEA and the funding authorities when—as I understand it, although the Minister may be able to put me right on this issue—the major responsibility for meeting the special educational needs of children will rest upon the individual grant-maintained school rather than on the funding authority, whereas at present it rests upon the LEA. The significance of that distinction is important, because it is the provision made between a range of schools that most precisely meets the need as defined by, among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, in her distinguished and famous report, which was in many ways a pioneering effort in the whole approach to special educational needs and one from which we all recognise that we have benefited greatly.
In her report, the noble Baroness pointed out something that has been referred to by a number of noble Lords during the debate; namely, that special educational needs constitute a wide spectrum of need; that those needs range from what may be—this was referred to by my noble friend Lord Addington - merely mild dyslexia at one end to serious needs that may flow from a major condition relating to the mental or physical health of a child at the other end of the spectrum. The crucial point is that there has to be, as it were, a tailor-made response to the need of the individual child. As I understand it, that is the whole meaning of the requirement for statementing a child. It is the reason why in her original report the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, proposed the possibility of a named person—something that has never yet been implemented fully—being responsible for the requirements of a child with special educational needs.
One school, however much it tries to do so, cannot meet those needs in that precise way; only a number of schools can do so, so that the authority—the body that has overall responsibility—can meets needs precisely as they develop and are discovered as a child moves through his or her educational experience. That is why I am worried about the problems of the relationship between the LEA and the grant-maintained school, as the responsibilities for children in the area begin to move from one to the other.
I am even more worried—this is where I believe the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd,
1352
is so significant—about what happens when we reach the point, suggested in the Bill, when 75 percent. of all the schools in the local authority area decide to become grant-maintained school, and we then have somehow the sudden falling in of the LEA's responsibility, followed by no clear indication of what happens to the residual 25 per cent. That troubles me enough in relation to children without special educational needs but, in respect of children with special educational needs, it leaves one with the feeling that they are, in a sense, abandoned. A LEA will no longer have a responsibility to meet their needs. Grant-maintained schools will be looking after the 75 per cent. of children whose parents have opted for them, and the other 25 per cent, may well be in those schools which are already least advantaged. There will, in a sense, be no clear responsibility resting upon any body for their future needs.
There is one other thing that troubles me about the issue raised by Amendment No. 207B—the issue of a strategic plan. It is mentioned in the document that has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, called the National Commission on Education from the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. It is a useful short report. It is related directly to strategic plans, and it refers to what happens when the provision is inadequate, which would then presumably be pointed to and identified by the new form of inspectors of Ofsted which results from the changes made in an earlier Act of Parliament.
What bothers me is that the extraordinary expertise that Her Majesty's inspectors were able to bring to bear on the special educational needs of children—an expertise which flowed precisely from the fact that they covered the entire spectrum of educational provision—is no longer available to us. I understand that teams will be brought in to look at special inspection needs. Having been brought together for the purpose, those teams will once again fall apart after the needs of the inspection have been completed.
I speak from experience in saying that it has been precisely the continuing commitment of inspectors to the entire school system during a period of years that has enabled us to identify the weaknesses in the system with regard to children with special educational needs. We have already lost that safeguard. Therefore, it is all the more important that some kind of cohesive approach is made to these particular problems. In that respect I am sorry to see the Minister shaking her head. It is not I who draw attention to that but the report from which I quoted. It comes from a distinguished source of expert knowledge on the subject.
Amendment No. 207C has not been discussed in sufficient detail. It is the single most significant amendment in the group. It refers to the provision of nursery schooling as a requirement made on the local education authority in respect of children with special educational needs. I ask noble Lords to look at Clause 150. The definition of children with special needs refers to children as young as 2 years. The age given to begin to indicate a special educational need is put at the age of 2 or above. However, we know very well that the provision in the Bill does not include children

1353
under compulsory school age, which starts at about 4½ to 4¾. Therefore, children between the ages of 2 and 4½ will not be covered by the provisions and requirements of the Bill.
As was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, in her report, and as subsequent reports have confirmed, the best possible stage at which to catch a child with special educational needs and to take steps to ensure that as far as possible the child's needs are met, in order that later demands may be avoided, is at nursery school. With great respect for the enthusiasm which the Minister brings to pre-school playgroups, they do not have the kind of provision which nursery schools provide for identifying children with special needs.
There are many examples but I shall give only one or two. Children are often first discovered to have a hearing impairment because of their response to the teaching of words at an early stage in nursery schooling. That is long before they reach compulsory school age. Children with a common condition known as "glue ear", which arises through the misuse of antibiotics, can be cured if the condition is picked up early enough. They become incurably deaf if it is not. That depends heavily on identification at an early age.
I am concerned by two debates we have had on the Bill. The first was the debate on the provision of nursery education through the Bill as a whole. We learnt that for reasons of finance and so forth the Government felt it impossible to lay down requirements for the steady development of nursery education; and now, associated with that, the lack of any specific provision, at least for children with special educational needs, in respect of nursery education. I believe that that combination is troubling because it means that we are now looking at a large number of children for whom provision is likely to become not better but worse. I repeat that those are the children who are most at risk at a very early age.
This country has made major steps forward in respect of special education in recognising that such children's needs must be met individually rather than treating them as a block, a generalised group. Indeed, the present Government and their predecessors deserve some considerable credit for the steps which have been made. The country has certainly done a great deal to try to provide better teaching and more qualified teachers for that group of children who range from the 2 per cent. with very severe difficulties to the 20 per cent. affected by some degree of difficulty in their learning. I believe that noble Lords have a deep sympathy for those children.
If the remarks made in the briefing to which I referred are correct, until 1988, with due credit given to governments of both parties over a long period of time before that, there was steady advance in respect of meeting special educational needs. The evidence indicates that, since the passage of the 1988 Act, there has been a deterioration of provision for pupils with special educational needs. Those are not my views but those expressed by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. At this point we should pause and consider very carefully when voting on this group of amendments whether we
1354
have made sufficient provision for children who depend on this Chamber, Members of Parliament and noble Lords concerned with education to protect them and their parents and to assist them. Therefore, I ask noble Lords to consider very carefully this group of amendments before reaching a decision, in particular before reaching a decision which may damage those children and fail to meet their requirements.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I too support this group of amendments. In particular, I support strongly what my noble friend Lord Judd said about Amendment No. 207 which has just been so eloquently reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
I want to speak in particular to Amendment No. 207A standing in my name, which has not yet been spoken to in this group, other than the few words which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has just addressed to it.
The amendment follows on from the Committee stage debate on access orders. It takes into account the comments made at that stage by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The amendment calls for local education authorities to keep under review arrangements to make schools accessible to children with special needs, in particular those with physical disabilities.
The amendment is concerned with the physically handicapped. I should say in passing that, although I very much respect the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in those matters, I do not agree with him entirely in what he said about the mentally handicapped. When considering the integration of those children into ordinary schools, we must take into account not only their needs but also the effect that their integration has on children who are not handicapped. I have spent some time observing the integration of such children in schools in Italy, which has a long record of integration. I have seen extremely moving examples of children who are not handicapped taking great care with children who are; in particular—I follow what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said—children with Down's Syndrome.
At Committee stage the Minister was correct to state:
"LEAs have been under a duty to promote integration of children with special education needs since the 1981 Act became law."
However, in its research for the report Within Reach; access for disabled children to mainstream education, Coopers & Lybrand discovered that no LEA, not just those that were involved in the five case studies, knew the detailed profile of school buildings beyond the original school plans. The Department for Education certainly does not know the profile of school buildings; their age, the number of floors, the kinds of staircases, whether they have lifts and so on. How could they?
The Within Reach report highlighted a lack of precise information about buildings, making it very difficult to compare the extent of existing progress by LEAs towards greater integration, let alone to gauge the cost of progressing further.

1355
The second Coopers & Lybrand report, Within Reach; the school survey, was excellent. It covered 2,500 schools. The survey investigated the proportion of primary and secondary schools that are currently accessible to pupils with physical disabilities, the amount of work that might be needed at other schools to improve access, and it made a first estimate of the likely costs of that work. That research was commissioned by the Spastics Society with the National Union of Teachers and it was designed to assist both the Government and local education authorities in obtaining a clearer picture to help in the implementation of policies for the fuller integration of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools.
The realistic and manageable costs that were established by the Coopers & Lybrand School Survey provide a very helpful starting point for a strategy for making such integration a reality. The most important point is that the research shows a fundamental need for access audits of schools to make educational premises accessible.
I believe that the new amendment will not build "a raft of prescriptive legislation", as was originally feared by the Minister. It requires LEAs to undertake access audits at its schools, which are so essential to fulfil the Government's policy of improving integration.
Requirements for a review of access arrangements should be made explicit under the terms of Clause 153. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that LMSS proposals will mean that
"a substantial amount of relevant information becomes available over the next few months".
Just as the Government conceded that their implicit call for special educational needs research and information under Clause 19 needed to be made explicit with an amendment to the Bill, so a review of access arrangements has to be made explicit under Clause 153.
Access audits paint the local and national picture for a valued assessment to be made on access to schools. A strategic and progressive model for access and integration along the lines recommended by Coopers & Lybrand could easily be adopted. However, under the terms of the amendment that model is not forced upon the local authority or funding authority. The audits do not force the local education authority or the funding authority to spend money on making schools more accessible, nor does the amendment give LEA's powers to assess grant-maintained schools, which is something that the Minister was concerned about. It provides for both the LEA and Government to collate information about the building stock in order to facilitate local and national plans and reviews of educational spending assessments accordingly.
The amendment is phrased on the understanding that the LEA has the main strategic role in planning for special educational needs. Its access audits should then inspire voluntary-aided and grant-maintained schools also to review accessibility to provide a full local and national profile of our school buildings.
1356
I strongly believe that we must move away from the situation where some disabled young people are rejected by schools simply because the governing bodies believe that they cannot cope with the problems that they would face, for example, in transferring between classrooms or moving up and down stairs. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to such a case, which concerned a girl with cystic fibrosis.
There was a recent article in the Daily Telegraph about a child who had a mild form of cerebral palsy and who had attended a mainstream primary school for over six years. Her application to a particular school was supported by her parish priest, her physiotherapist and by her primary school head teacher, who regarded the girl as highly intelligent and, indeed, one of his most able pupils. She was in fact also able to walk unaided in class and around the playground and could even manage some PE activities. Yet, her desperately disappointed parents had to cope with the fact that she was rejected for the voluntary-aided school which she wanted to attend because the governors felt that their buildings were not quite adequate to cater for her needs.
It is important to recognise that making a school more accessible is not simply a matter of building ramps and installing lifts. A review of access arrangements could provide for the very careful siting of provision so that logistical obstructions to curricular integration are minimised and ensure that there are opportunities for individualised programmes as regards the placement of pupils in different classes and groups for different activities.
Both the reports from Cooper & Lybrand to which I referred recommend national government action to promote research and collate information on access to schools. We have called for government guidance and for the resources for LEAs to implement the policies of access audits and integration. I suggest that the new amendment provides the ideal platform for the Government to take action and also provides an impetus for local education authorities to implement those policies. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is an amendment on the Marshalled List tabled in my name— Amendment No. 212C. Its purpose is to allow local education authorities, in prescribed circumstances, to charge county, voluntary or maintained special schools in other LEAs for special needs support services. The clause already enables local authorities to provide special needs support services to governing bodies of county, voluntary, maintained, special or GM schools outside their area, but allows them only to charge GM or GM special schools for such services. I hope that the House will accept the amendment.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 199A, 206, 207, 207B and 213A. The new structure in the Bill for the management of schools, and for the suitable provision of school places, has been properly debated long and hard both in the House and in another place and, indeed, for a very long time during the Report stage. Noble Lords have decided that the Government

1357
should proceed with that structure. It has been an imperative of the Government to ensure that specific and sensible arrangements which are compatible with that overall structure are put in place in an area for the provision of special education. We have therefore been at pains to provide within the Bill a comprehensive and coherent system for special educational needs which will enable those sensible arrangements to be made. I find the debate somewhat depressing. Certain remarks made this evening clearly illustrate to me the fact that some noble Lords have not read the Bill properly.
As regards Amendment No. 213A, I also outlined in Committee the three key points where the arrangements for the provision of special needs services in an area need to be carefully considered between the LEA and individual schools in the GM sector. They are where an LEA-maintained school acquires GM status; where the FAS or a promoter establishes a new GM school; and when an existing GM school wishes to change its character.
Paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 requires a governing body's proposals for GM status to describe the proposed provision for pupils with SEN. I would expect those proposals to include the school's SEN policy and to say how, if at all, the acquisition of grant-maintained status would affect that policy. The legislation requires that the Secretary of State must be satisfied with the arrangements—including those for special educational provision—before approving any proposals. The LEA is a statutory objector to the proposals and may draw to the Secretary of State's attention any difficulty it sees locally with the proposed arrangements for SEN provision. The governors of course always have their duties under Clause 155 towards their pupils with SEN.
At the other points I referred to—the establishment of a new GM school or the change of character to an existing one —the Bill requires, in Clauses 46, 47, 94 and 95, that the FAS, promoters or the governing body consult appropriately and have regard to guidance which the Secretary of State will issue before publishing relevant proposals. I assured the Chamber during the debate in Committee that the guidance from the Secretary of State would specifically state that before those proposals are published the FAS, the promoter or the governing body should consult the LEA over any implications for special educational provision in an area that would flow from the proposals. That consultation process over SEN provision should be a genuine dialogue with the LEA. The explicit aim of the consultation process should be to ensure that, so far as is practicable, the special educational provision which should result from a change of character in the existing school, or the provision to be made in the new school, would contribute to and indeed enhance the range of special educational provision in the area as a whole, taking into account that made in other self-governing schools as well as that made in LEA-maintained schools.
At the same time consultation should seek to ensure the LEA is fully conversant with the aims and objectives of the SEN provision in the self-governing
1358
school so that the LEA can adjust its provision as necessary and offer appropriate support services which it is able to provide under Clause 156. Consultation will enable an LEA to take account of all these developments as, under Clause 153, it reviews the arrangements it makes on behalf of children with special educational needs. Proper and effective consultation must therefore take place between the LEA and the GM sector at crucial points where the provision for SEN in an area may be affected. I hope that that goes some way to reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and that she will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Amendment No. 207B does not argue for the LEA itself to plan all SEN. And I have to say that the intention behind the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, appears to go much wider than protecting the interests of those with special educational needs. I think noble Lords will realise from what I said on the first day of Report that it is not in the Government's view appropriate to suggest in legislation that the planning of education for an area will always rest solely with the LEA, nor therefore to place a statutory duty on the LEA to set out a strategic plan for the area. It is therefore not appropriate to give the LEA the responsibility of preparing a plan for the overall direction of education in its area as proposed by the noble Lord.
These provisions are the most centralising provisions that I have come across. The Government have been criticised constantly for being a centralising government. However, these provisions are highly centralised and of course they have the potential for offering total prescription. The system as I have described it under the Bill should already ensure proper and sensible coverage of SEN provision in an area between the providers, while allowing the GM schools freedom to participate in the planning of that provision. I recognise that some of your Lordships accept that the planning arrangements we have in mind are sensible but are concerned that self-governing schools may not deliver the special educational provision the plans entail. The argument is that if the LEA had an overall planning role it could ensure that provision in the plans is delivered. I cannot accept that argument. All schools will have to draw up plans for and report on their special needs provision. All schools will be subject to four-yearly inspections. All schools will have to have regard to our new code of practice.
The Bill provides for close accountability and regular monitoring, and for children with statements the LEA will have powers to oversee provision in grant-maintained schools. Beyond that I am wholly confident that the self-governing schools will wish to do all in their power to make proper special educational provision for the benefit of pupils in the locality with special needs. The experience of the grant-maintained sector to date bears out my confidence. Therefore, for all of the reasons that I have given, I hope that the amendments will not be supported.
I propose to take the last part of Amendment No. 207C first. We have already had two extensive debates

1359
on amendments which would place a duty upon local authorities to provide nursery education for all three and four year-olds whose parents wish it. Those amendments were not carried. There were two main arguments against them: first, that they would have introduced a standardised provision in place of a healthy diversity; and, secondly, that they carried a large cost since without doubt a great deal of good quality voluntary and private provision, which is well known on the Continent—and we are often criticised for not making comparable provision—would have closed down in consequence. Those arguments will still hold in three years' time. I suggest that no useful purpose would be served by giving the Secretary of State a duty to review that matter.
The first part of the amendment would also remove from local authorities an area in which until now they have had discretion. They would be required to make provision for three and four year-olds with special educational needs only in nursery classes. The essential point is not that the provision that is made for those children should be in nursery classes but that the provision which is made should be appropriate, in a nursery class or another setting where it is possible to provide suitable support.
We must not be over-prescriptive as to how a duty should be fulfilled. There is no justification for ruling out on principle settings such as suitably staffed playgroups, a number of which, with strengthened staffing and appropriate training, cater for children with special educational needs. Often that form of investment may well be the most cost efficient available, especially but not only in some rural areas. I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that playgroups do care for children with special educational needs and do pick up their problems. F know, too, from personal experience, that in the case of children with hearing impairment, co-ordination difficulties, speech impediments and all sorts of difficulties those involved work very closely with social services, local doctors and infant departments of local schools.
The Bill makes similar provision to that in the 1981 Act. LEAs will retain their statutory duties to identify and assess children with special needs from the age of two, and the power to provide for children with recognised disabilities from birth. Special provision for very young children must be flexible in order to meet the demands of the child in a way which also provides support for the family. For example, portage, the early intervention scheme for children under five, under which a weekly home visit is made, also has an important role in co-ordinating the work of local authorities, social services and health authorities in identifying and helping certain children with special needs in the crucial early years.
In Amendment No. 207A the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has raised matters which were addressed in general terms during the Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Henley. I simply remind your Lordships that we have a positive policy on integration. We seek to encourage the integration of
1360
disabled children into mainstream schools wherever possible and when it is appropriate for the child, which is very important.
The Government have, of course, given very generous capital guidelines to authorities in recent years. Therefore, there is scope for LEAs to make progress in improving access for the disabled in schools. Indeed, many are making considerable progress in that respect. It is for local authorities to determine their capital expenditure priorities between services and between schools. Local authorities can top up the borrowing approval implied by the education annual capital guidelines from other sources, which I mentioned earlier today in relation to another amendment. In so far as local authorities are under a general duty to review their special needs provision in any case and should be looking at access for the disabled as part of that duty, and in the light of their responsibilities under Clause 154, I suggest that that amendment is also unnecessary.
Amendment No. 212 addresses the delivery of provision for those children who have special educational needs but do not have a statement—the "Warnock 18 per cent." Your Lordships will recall that we debated this question also at some length in Committee. We are all agreed about the importance of providing appropriate education for those children. The issue here is the practical one of how to ensure that provision.
A school's policy statement on special educational needs will be required to cover a wide range of information, including the school's objectives for pupils with special needs and its recording, monitoring and reviewing procedures for individual children's special needs.
Under the code of practice, with its five-stage model of assessment, schools will be expected during the first three school-based stages to identify any registered pupil who displays a learning difficulty, to assess the cause of his difficulty, to devise a programme of support for the pupil, to monitor the success of that programme, and to revise the provision as necessary in the light of that review. All intervention will be in close consultation with the child's parent and with outside professional assistance as appropriate. That assistance could be in the form of advice from an educational psychologist, medical advice or from a specialist advisory teacher.
The child's progress will be under constant review from his class teacher and will be discussed regularly with his parent. I would expect such reviews to occur far more frequently than once a year.
If the school's action is unable fully to meet the child's individual needs, and it is necessary for him to move to stage 4 when the local education authority will consider the need for a statutory assessment under Clause 160, the authority will expect to receive from the school clear documentary evidence of the child's learning difficulty or disability and of the action taken during the earlier stages of the child's performance.
Those are concrete ways of ensuring that all children with special educational needs receive the

1361
special educational provision appropriate to their learning difficulty and that that provision is revised as their needs change.
The amendment tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, singles out for primary legislation the review of provision. But, as I have indicated, that is just one aspect of a continuum of provision for children with special educational needs. Each child's needs are different and will themselves vary during his school career, according to his progress in the light of the provision he receives. In the case of some children, the provision made will need to be reviewed on a virtually continual basis. In the case of other children, a one-off action may be all that is required to enable them to overcome a temporary difficulty. This variety of circumstances makes the inclusion of such detail in primary legislation not only undesirable but actually unworkable. The code of practice and the requirements of schools' policies on special needs will give the flexibility to enable schools to tailor their intervention to the needs of the individual pupil. I hope therefore that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Turning to Amendment No. 212B, Clause 156 provides for local education authorities to supply goods and services to governing bodies so that, if a pupil has special educational needs, the special educational provision which his learning difficulty calls for can be secured. The amendment seeks to place LEAs under a new duty to ensure the availability of support services. I wholly accept that schools will need access to support services if they are to implement their special needs policies and take action in accordance with the code of practice. In many cases those services will be provided by the LEA. But we do not believe that the LEA should be the monopoly supplier of such services. The imposition of a duty would discourage the growth of alternative suppliers.
The Government cannot support a move which seems intended to stifle the choice available to governing bodies and, since requirements will vary from area to area, it seems unreasonable for the LEA to be protected as the sole supplier. It will be for governors to decide whether to secure SEN support services from their parent LEA or from another source. There should, in other words, be a market in such services, and indeed there is, and LEAs will be empowered to be one provider in that market.
All maintained schools have, or are likely to have in the near future, some funding to purchase SEN support services: LEA maintained schools through LMS; and grant-maintained schools through their annual maintenance grant, or later from the common funding formula when introduced. Governing bodies of county, voluntary and maintained special schools should be able to purchase services, at a price, from the provider of their choice.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that Amendments Nos. 219F and 219G will meet the anxieties embodied in her amendments, Amendments Nos. 213A and 219H which we shall debate later. The government amendments will give LEAs a limited right of access to all grant-maintained
1362
schools and indeed all maintained schools to ensure that provision specified in a statement is being made and will ensure that all maintained schools are involved in the annual review of statements.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, can be assured that the requirements of the Bill will be vested in the relevant local authority. There is no question that there will be a lacuna. There will be opportunity for parents' views and preferences to be given serious consideration by the relevant local authority.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, wondered where all the expertise was going in Ofsted. That is a terribly disparaging reference to Ofsted. It will have the necessary expertise; indeed it is required to have the necessary expertise to do whole-school inspections, including either partial or whole special needs inspections.
In regard to the 75 per cent. trigger point that was referred to, there will be no sudden falling away of the LEA responsibility. The LEA will continue, all the way through the trigger point and beyond, to have responsibilities as laid down in the Bill. But at 75 per cent., the other 25 per cent. of schools continue to be the responsibility of the LEA ad infinitum so long as the LEA has maintained schools in its area. I hope that my amendment will be accepted and that the other amendments in this grouping will be rejected.
Midnight
Baroness David: My Lords, we have certainly had a very long debate on these 11 amendments which have been grouped together. I have counted, and we seem to have had 14 speakers in all, so there has been great interest in them. They have covered quite a wide range of subjects. The general theme has been the overall planning which was necessary. Integration has come in to the argument. There have been worries about the 18 per cent. of children who will not have statements, whether their circumstances will be all right—particularly when 75 per cent. of children are in grant-maintained schools—and what will be provided for them then.
As the Minister said, we have had the arguments and the votes about nursery education for all children aged three and four whose parents wish them to have that education. But now, having lost those, we come to the much more urgent group of those children with special educational needs of three and four years who genuinely benefit. We have had the old arguments again about playgroups and nursery education. My views are entirely with those of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that nursery education supplies something very much more than a playgroup can, good though playgroups may be.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has gone, but I shall still answer him, as I could not answer when he spoke. He supported my Amendment No. 206 on planning. But then he said that my Amendment No. 207, which struck out "by them" from Clause 153, was too restrictive. In fact it did exactly the opposite: it made the LEA have an overall review of all the planning, all the schools in its area, so that it could oversee the whole thing and not just a

1363
certain portion of it. How that could possibly have been covered in a code of practice I do not know. But I hope that the noble Lord will read what I have said.
What has come through in the debate on all the amendments in this long grouping is the overall need for strategic planning. That is, I believe, what we are all fearful of; namely, that when the changes have come about which the Government expect to happen, when more schools go grant-maintained—some may, but I find it very hard to believe that it will happen in all that much of a hurry—some of these children will suffer, particularly those who do not have statements. Will they get the services that they need? Our fear is that they will not. For that reason, I should like to press this amendment and this group.
12.05 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 199A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 61.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Judd, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Lockwood, B.

Barnett, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Parry, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Desai, L

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Eatwell, L.

Rea, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Richard, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

[Teller.]

Russell, E.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Guildford, Bp.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollick, L.

Warnock, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Howell, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Jay of Paddinglon, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Archer of Weslon-super-Mare,

Carnock, L.

L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Arran, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Astor, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Belstead, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Blatch, B.

Colwyn, L.

Boardman, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Cranborne, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Bruntisfield, L.

Denham, L.

Caithness, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

1364

Dudley, E

Northbourne, L.

Elles, B.

Onslow, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elton, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Ferrers, E.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Goschen, V.

St. Davids, V.

Hacking, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hardwicke, E.

Seccombe, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Stewartby, L.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

[Teller.]

Jeffreys, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lucas, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lyell, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
12.12 a.m.
Clause 149 [Interpretation of Part II]
[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 93, line 38, at end insert:
("(5A) The transfer to a reception class of pupils who have been admitted to a school for nursery education shall be treated as admission to the school.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 201 was spoken to earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 151 [Code of Practice]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 95, line 10, after ("revise") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 202 and 203 are paving amendments for Amendment No. 205, which strikes after Clause 152 and proposes a new clause as printed on the Marshalled List.
I bring Amendment No. 202 to your Lordships as a probing amendment on a matter of considerable concern. Your Lordships may recall the tragic case, many years ago, of Maria Colwell, a child of around five years old who was killed as a result of the relevant agencies, who knew that she was at risk, not being aware of each other's suspicions.
I am aware that this is an amendment taking its place in the wake of an earlier amendment, but I hope that your Lordships can contain your satisfaction or despair about the earlier events sufficient to give your attention for a moment to this case.
This group of amendments seeks to deal with the cases of children of a young age who are at risk of what was called "non-accidental injury", which we now call "physical and sexual abuse", and which can and does on occasion lead to their deaths or horrific experiences being undergone by them.
The case of Maria Colwell triggered a series of debates in this House and another place and resulted in the institution of the child protection registers kept by local authorities. Under the law as it exists, any school or other agency being aware that a child is at risk of such an experience is required to notify the keeper—the local authority— of the child protection register.
It happens that the parents of such children are often not very stable and not very closely geared into the mechanics of our society. The parents and the child who is registered on the child protection register of one authority may well move overnight into another authority without informing the first authority of their departure. The intention is that, on moving from one authority to another, the name of the child at risk shall be notified by the authority which it is leaving to the authority to which it is going. If the authority is not aware of the departure or of where the parents have gone that cannot happen.
The Bill provides, among other things, for the transfer of information between schools from which a child goes and to which a child goes. It follows that if a child whose parents have flitted by night, as it were, from one authority to another do not inform it, and the keepers of the child protection register are therefore not aware of that departure, the child will still be protected if there is a note on the child's school record. I have chosen as the vehicle for this probing amendment the curricular record. I do not believe that that is the right document but I strongly believe that there should be a document in the school which records the fact that a child is believed to be at risk of serious injury by its parents or others against whom it has no other defence and that that information should be by law transferred from one school to another when a child moves to that second school. The present drill is that a school that receives such a child writes to the school it has come from and asks for the school record. That will happen whether or not the keepers of the child protection register are aware of the move.
It is because I have corresponded with my noble friend the Minister to discover what is the status of this information when it comes to a move from one school to another that I put down this amendment, so that my noble friend can clarify the situation. If it is not a good situation we shall be able at Third Reading to rectify it. I think that I have spoken long enough, though I am flattered that so many noble Lords on the other side of the House have stayed to hear. Nevertheless, I have spoken long enough, and I therefore beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I fully appreciate the concern of my noble friend Lord Elton to protect children at risk of abuse. We all share that concern. However, these amendments create a provision for the Secretary of State to make additional regulations on matters which in our view are already sufficiently covered by existing legislation and guidance.
We recognise that because of their day-to-day contact with individual children, teachers and other school staff are particularly well placed to observe outward signs of abuse, changes in behaviour or failure to develop. Where they have the slightest suspicion that a child is at risk of abuse, locally established procedures already exist for schools to alert the social services department. It will then be for that department to investigate and decide whether the suspicion is justified and the child should be placed on the child protection register.
1366
Each social services department is required to nominate an experienced senior social worker to be custodian of the child protection register for that area. The custodian should notify the school (including a nursery school) if a pupil's name has been placed on the child protection register, or when a child whose name is on the register starts school. The school must immediately inform the custodian of the register if the child changes school and also tell the receiving school that the child is on the child protection register. At the same time, if the child is moving from one local authority area to another, the custodian of the child protection register should ensure that the child is immediately registered on the receiving authority's child protection register.
These requirements for inter-agency co-operation were set out in guidance entitled Working Together under the Children Act, issued jointly by the Education and Health Departments, the Home Office and the Welsh Office. This guidance was issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. While it does not have the full force of statute, it should be complied with unless local circumstances indicate exceptional reasons which justify a variation. Copies of Working Together under the Children Act were sent to all local education authorities and to all grant-maintained, non-maintained special and independent schools.
I hope that my noble friend will agree that these inter-agency procedures satisfactorily meet the need he has identified. If he has any evidence to suggest that they do not, I should be happy to consider it and to consider with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health whether further action is necessary.
My noble friend has suggested that a pupil's curricular record should include information on teachers' concerns about pupils being at risk of abuse. I do not think that it would be appropriate for a pupil's educational record to be the principal means of recording and passing on information of this kind.
My noble friend is, I know, concerned that if a child is not already on the child protection register but a teacher suspects that the child is at risk, this information could be lost when a child transfers to another school if there is no provision for it to be placed on the child's curricular record. But we need to bear in mind that such a provision could itself be open to abuse if, for example, a teacher's suspicions, though recorded, were unfounded and an innocent parent fell, without his or her knowledge, under immediate suspicion at the new school.
It seems to me that the existing procedures provide better safeguards for both child and parent. If a teacher suspects, however slightly, that a child is at risk, he or she should alert the social services department so that it may carry out any necessary investigations. Simply noting a concern on the child's curricular record does not of itself help that child and could, if the suspicion is misplaced, do positive harm.
There is already provision under the Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order 1987 for information first recorded or given to a health professional to be withheld if giving access

1367
would, in the opinion of the health professional, be likely to cause serious harm to the mental or physical health of the individual. That seems to me to provide appropriate protection.
The code of practice to be issued under Clause 151 will contain practical guidance on the discharge by LEAs and the governing bodies of maintained and self-governing (GM) schools and of grant-maintained special schools of their functions under Part III of the Bill toward children with special educational needs. LEAs, such governing bodies and the new SEN tribunal will be required to have regard to the provisions of the code.
The code will address the whole range of special educational needs, including the possibility that an individual child's emotional and behavioural difficulties may result from abuse or neglect. The code will offer advice to the school and to the local education authority on assessing the child's learning difficulties and on acting to meet the child's needs in conjunction with other authorities as appropriate.
Grant-maintained schools and Sections 27 and 47 of the Children Act 1989 are referred to in an article in an Education study which I can make available to my noble friend, who may find it interesting on this subject.
The department has taken action to bring grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges within the scope of Sections 27 and 47 of the Children Act 1989. These sections require co-operation with local authorities acting on behalf of children in need or investigating child abuse. The department wrote in April to the heads of the schools concerned informing them of the Secretary of State's intention to make an order bringing them within scope of Sections 27 and 47 and inviting any comments on the implications of implementing this measure. The deadline for response was 28th May and no comments have been received. The Secretary of State will shortly make the necessary order. We will send the schools copies of the order and remind them of the guidance in Working Together Under the Act. I know that this has been a subject of concern to my noble friend and to other Members of the House. I can give him an assurance that the procedures that are in place cover most of his concerns.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her explanation. If I have understood her aright, the procedures at present are that if the custodian of the child protection register is aware of a child being thought to be at risk by another agency, it must inform the school at which the child is registered as a pupil. Conversely, if the child is thought by the school to be at risk, the school must inform the custodian of the child protection register. If things then proceed normally and the child moves to another school, the local authority is informed by the school and has the duty of informing the new school of the suspicion registered on the child protection register. If that new school is in a different local authority area, as it now is, or—my noble friend did not mention this and before I sit down perhaps she will put me right on it—if it is subject to an appropriate authority (that is, the Funding Agency for Schools) then it will be the
1368
duty of the custodian of the child protection register to inform that authority which, in turn, will inform the new school. All that is tickety-boo and absolutely fine.
However, what happens if the child leaves the first school and goes to another not in the same local authority area or possibly not anywhere near it? It may be in the Stilly Isles, as happened in a recent unfortunate case, or in Northumbria, the child having started from Buckinghamshire. In that case, a child turns up in the new school— let us hope with the same name— and the school says, "Where do you come from?" Let us hope that the parents are not sufficiently devious and acute to conceal their origins or, indeed, to change their names. The new school is then in a position to write off to the school from which the child came and that school will send back information in the form of a curricular record about the child's performance and capabilities.
However, if I understood what my noble friend wrote to me before the debate, there is no authority from the school to disclose in that document the fact that the child is believed to be at risk, nor is there any requirement for it to do so. Therefore, I assume that it will not. There are arguments in favour of that position. There are those who feel in the light of the recent experiences in the Scottish isles that it would be most unfortunate if the possibly quite groundless suspicions of teachers were to be marked on a child's record with the result that innocent parents arriving in a new authority area would suddenly find themselves marked down as possible baby-bashers. I can see that that would be very unfortunate. I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Young is not here because she would have put that view to your Lordships, so I feel that in her absence I am duty bound to put it to your Lordships myself.
I go back to Maria Colwell, aged five, in her vest and pants at five o'clock in the morning, if I remember correctly, on a cold doorstep, and her subsequent death. That is such a dreadful thing that if a risk has to be taken it is probably better to take it with the parents than with the child. It is a horrible decision to have to take, but we need to think about it. In that case, there might be merit in the information being transmitted from one school to another albeit in a guarded fashion; or it might be possible that, on receiving the message from the school from which the child had gone, the receiving school might be put under a duty to inform the custodian of the child protection register that it had received that request and the address from which it came. Then the machinery to which my noble friend has alluded could be put into operation, confidentiality could be retained and the information could be transmitted through that custodian to the custodian of the new authority, thus protecting the parents' interests at least to the extent that it would not alert the incoming school unless that information was already recorded on the register.
However, even there there is a lacuna because it seems to me from the cases that I have read that there are two sources which commonly give the alert that a child is at risk. One is social workers, and we are not here concerned with them. The other is teachers, and

1369
we are here concerned with them. They know children intimately; they know their behaviour patterns and they see them day after day. They can note the first bruise and see the explanation regarding the second, and then they can see that it is becoming a habit. They are then rightly suspicious and probably somebody will go to the home and eventually, if that pattern continues, there will be a note on the school register. The matter will get to the custodian of the child protection register.
These are complicated procedures. They will not in any case finish up on the face of the Bill; but I am not entirely satisfied that the procedures my noble friend has described to us are in fact sufficiently foolproof for us to let the matter rest there. I am not sure whether my noble friend has the information that will enable her to reply to my earlier question but, if not, I shall content myself until Third Reading. However, I must say that I should like to have your Lordships' leave to take this away, think about my noble friend's reply and possibly correspond with her before Third Reading, because this is the penultimate stage of the last chance to do anything about this matter for some considerable time. I think my noble friend wants me not to have sat down, so I shall now not sit down.
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I understand that my noble friend wants to have some assurance that when a child moves from one part of the country to another the receiving school will have full information about that child, both curricular information and information that the child may be at risk. I understand it to be the case that the school will know of the child at risk, either because they have directly picked up the problem in the first place and informed the custodian of the register, or that a third party has informed the social services directorate, who would then inform the school, so that in one way or another the school would actually know. When a child leaves an area, if the fact is known to the receiving school, certainly the curricular records would go on, but it would be for the school to inform the custodian of the register to inform the receiving custodian and the school that the child had indeed been placed on the at risk register.
It is still possible that one school can telephone another school to say that child X is coming, that the child is at risk and that information will follow; but it is always possible sometimes, sadly, in these sort of cases, where a child simply flits in the night, that the school from which the child has left is not aware of the receiving school, and therefore it is up to the receiving school to contact the school the child has left. Then the process would be triggered again and the school would inform the custodian of the register, who would inform the receiving custodian of the new register and the new school where the child had attended. I think that the system is foolproof, but of course I will continue to look at this between now and Third Reading, and I will of course correspond with my noble friend if he feels that would be helpful.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. It was her latter remark that came closest to addressing my actual concern. I take it that not having sat down, I can now not stand up and complete my remarks. That leaves just the question that when the child arrives at the school unheralded and the school writes off to the alleged school of origin and finds it does not exist or that the pupil was never registered there, something needs to happen then, because these are very real traps for tiny mites who have no other protection. My noble friend, I am sure, will forbear with my persistence between now and Third Reading. I hope that your Lordships will, too. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
(Amendment No. 203 not moved.).
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 95, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) In any proceedings before the Tribunal in which the due discharge of the functions referred to in subsection (2) above is challenged, departure from the provisions of the Code may only be justified if it is established that the result of the actions taken was at least as beneficial as if action had been taken in accordance with the provisions of the code.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is of crucial importance and perhaps it is unfortunate that it has to be debated so late, because the code of practice is the main implementing machinery of the whole of Part III of this Bill, and that code must have sufficient legal efficacy when breaches of the code are before the tribunal so as to make Part III of this Bill work. In the Private Member's Bill there were provisions to make it work but now, the Government having taken over most of the concepts of that Bill, have taken out some of the implementing measures which would have been on the face of the Bill, have put them in a code of practice and have deprived them of the requisite legal efficacy.
The true intention of government as to the status of the code cannot be assumed from looking at Clause 151 as it stands, but it is apparent from the speech of my noble friend the Minister in Committee (cols. 486–487). Taking those intentions of government into account, I have drafted the amendment which in no way conflicts with the intention of government, but renders such intentions plain on the face of the Bill.
The problem is simple to state, and I shall not take long to do so. Clause 151(1) says that the code is for guidance. Clause 151(2) says that the guidance is not mere exhortation, as is so often the case with these codes, as it imposes duties. In Committee we had the element of legal efficacy cast in the form of an onus of justification in the event of departure from or breach of the code. My noble friend said that any departure from the code would require justification before the new special needs tribunal if the matter were the subject of an appeal:
"In justifying their actions, those to whom the code applies will have to show that the alternative action they took produced results which were at least as beneficial as those which would have resulted from their following the code".—[Official Report, 29/4/93; col. 487.]
I have taken that, which is the way that the Government have themselves put it, as a matter which

1371
should be plain on the face of the Bill, because this is an entirely new form of hybrid trigger for a code of practice, and, as I say, the code of practice is the main, and, in effect, the only effective implementing machinery for many aspects of the Bill.
There is no reference to that novel concept of absence of justification giving rise to legal efficacy in the clause as it stands. That must be— I make this point— enshrined in primary legislation. It cannot be introduced when the code is put before Parliament. I have referred to the passage in the speech of my noble friend the Minister.
There was a debate several years ago which I initiated in the House. "Shall have regard to" was one of the five types of code of practice. "Shall have regard to" directed to local authorities in the realm of public administrative law is not appropriate to confer legal efficacy in accordance with the stated intention of government, as recorded at col. 486 of Hansard. Such indeed was the considered opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who so stated on a previous occasion, and is unable to attend today.
The amendment would not of itself impose duties and it would not lay down hard and fast rules. It would constitute an essential evidential component in the machinery of enforcement of the provisions of the code by the new statutory tribunal in the exercise of its appellate functions, according to the stated intentions of government. On that basis the amendment affords a crucial element in the enforcement machinery in implementation of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I acknowledge that there are few Members of your Lordships' House— indeed, there may be none— who have the knowledge and expertise with regard to codes of practice which my noble friend Lord Campbell undoubtedly has. When he claims the support— as he is entitled to do on this occasion— of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, it requires immense courage on the part of another lawyer, such as myself, to venture to disagree with what he has said. But I have that amount of courage left in me— if not much else.
With great respect to my noble friend, I ask him to bear in mind several points and to give emphasis in a different sense to words which he has already used. I feel that I should challenge one expression which he used because it is ambiguous. My noble friend said that the code must have "legal efficacy". If he is suggesting that a code of practice to which people shall only have regard is to have the same force in law as the words of the statute itself, I am sure that on reflection he will not agree with himself because it just is not so. Indeed, the very expression "practical guidance", which we find in subsection (1), indicates something different from what he described as legal efficacy. It was very natural for him to have tried.
In order to justify the wording of his amendment my noble friend referred to an explanation of the effect of the clause given by my noble friend Lady Blatch in Committee. Indeed, he used almost exactly the same words in his amendment. I wonder why what a Minister says in Committee by way of explanation of how a clause will work should in itself mean that his
1372
or her words should necessarily become an amplification of what he or she was attempting to explain.
Especially do I wonder about that when the meaning of the clause as it stands is self-contained. Indeed, it has precedence. On previous occasions the statute has provided that there shall be a code of practice, that it shall be used for guidance and that those concerns "shall have regard to". My noble friend Lord Campbell was good enough to agree that the expression "shall have regard to", which is the operative expression in relation to the clause, has been used on other occasions. There are precedents for it. Therefore, I do not have the difficulty which my noble friend has in allowing the clause to stand as it is. It seems to me to be perfectly clear. I do not think that it is likely to give rise to difficulties in practice.
Of course, everything depends upon the meaning and effect of the expression "have regard to". It was fair, although not in any sense binding in law— if it seemed to be expressed by my noble friend on the Front Bench as being binding in law, I do not believe that she was right to say that— and justifiable for my noble friend Lady Blatch to indicate in Committee that a departure from the code of practice (in other words, a failure to have regard to it) would require justification.
That is not unexpected. Surely there is not much purpose in having a code of practice if people are to be free to disregard it and take a chance on what view a tribunal may take of that disregard. I should have thought that the expression "disregard", which, as my noble friend rightly said has been used on a number of occasions, is all that is required for a code of practice, which does not have the same weight as a statute. Therefore, for those reasons, and with great temerity and deep respect for my noble friend, I find that I am unable to support the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I rise to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, with even more temerity than he did with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. However, I have experience of those words "have regard to" in a code of practice— the homelessness code of guidance for local authorities. My council ignored what was prefaced by those words. The Minister may remember that she corresponded helpfully with me about that matter. She told me that it was not possible to make the council do anything to have regard to those words. I believe that that is conclusive.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, the amendment is in my name also. I believe that the House will be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for persisting in this matter and for producing what I believe to be the minimum necessary for the enforcement of the code.
Most reluctantly, I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I hesitate to do so, having sat with him on a committee on the preparation of legislation. One of the matters with which the noble Lord was concerned, quite rightly, was certainty in the law. In a case like this where there is a code of practice which we all want and which we all want to be obeyed,

1373
it is a matter of necessity that the legislation which introduces the code should say that it shall be enforced and shall be enforced in a particular way. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, sought to make a difference where there is no difference, between his interpretation and that of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Unless there is a provision for enforcement in the primary legislation, there is no doubt that some local authorities will be in dereliction of their duty. The matter would then go to a tribunal which would determine whether or not the alleged dereliction of duty had taken place. If there is no guidance in the original legislation, then the tribunal will not have any yardstick by which to judge whether the local education authority or other authority—for example, a governing body—has been in dereliction of duty. The matter is as simple as that.
The formula that was put before noble Lords by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of All way is correct. It is the minimum form of words to prove that there is a criterion according to which the tribunal can make a decision, and without those words it is not clear whether the tribunal would be able to reach a decision as to whether an education authority had or had not been in dereliction of its duty. It is absolutely clear that the amendment should be agreed to, and I hope that it will be.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to give my wholehearted support to the amendment, which was very clearly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The special status of the code is absolutely crucial. As the noble Lord stated, many amendments have been or may be withdrawn on the understanding that they will be incorporated in the code. They should be included in the Bill if the code is not to be given the necessary force. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the value of the amendment and accept it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Part III of the Bill places a clear statutory duty upon local education authorities to identify among the children for whom they are responsible those who have special educational needs and for whom it is necessary for the authority to determine the special education provision. Once those children have been identified, the authority is required to make and to maintain a statement of their special educational needs. The Bill gives parents substantial new rights to appeal against the decisions that an authority may take concerning their children's special educational needs. It establishes a new independent tribunal to hear parental appeals.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive a statement of the obvious, but I am concerned to set our debate on the code of practice within the context of the real purpose of this part of the Bill—namely, that all children with special educational needs receive the appropriate special educational provision to meet those needs. That is a purpose that is shared by all of us, not least those in whose name the amendment is tabled.
1374
I should like to remind noble Lords that last week saw the anniversary of the Second Reading of the Bill of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway which has proved so valuable in forming the Bill before us now. I have also spoken on many an occasion since the Bill entered this House of the ground-breaking work of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I make no apology for doing so again.
Without the work of my noble friend Lord Campbell, we would not have made as much progress as we have with the Bill. I should like to thank him enormously not only for paving the way with his Bill, withdrawing it generously and taking my assurances on trust, but also for the way in which he has kept a very practical eye on the work and the negotiations with my officials and myself as the Bill has proceeded to this stage.
The amendment concerns the tribunal and in particular the significance of the code of practice for the tribunal's decisions. I remind your Lordships that the role of the tribunal is not primarily to enforce the code of practice. The tribunal must consider whether the decisions which an LEA may take have resulted in a child with special educational needs receiving the appropriate special educational provision to meet those needs. Thus it is the appropriateness of the statement to the child's needs which will be important to the tribunal and which the tribunal must judge.
Of course, the tribunal will be under a statutory duty to have regard to the code when hearing each appeal. However, if it considers that the provision for the child is wholly correct it would be a matter of secondary significance to the tribunal whether the authority determined that provision by following the guidance in the code to the letter. But should the tribunal judge that the provision is insufficient, the authority's observance of the code of practice may well inform that judgment. Nevertheless, it will be for the tribunal to direct the authority to specify the correct provision for the child rather than to enforce the code of practice on the authority.
The issue here is one of means and ends. If I may put it simply, the tribunal will be concerned with the ends, not with the means used to reach those ends, if the ends are satisfactory. Perhaps I may give the House an example. Let us imagine that a parent makes a request to the LEA under paragraph 8 of Schedule 9 to change the school named in his child's statement. Paragraph 8(2) says that the authority shall comply with that request provided that the school put forward by the parent meets certain criteria regarding the suitability of the placement to the child, the efficient education of the children with whom he would be educated and the efficient use of resources. The code of practice may provide for full consultation among the parent, the existing and the proposed schools and the LEA.
If the authority complies with the request without consulting one of the parties named in the code, the parent will have no grounds of appeal to the tribunal. He will be happy with the decision. However, should he consider that he was caused unnecessary upset by the fact that the LEA did not consult as the code of

1375
practice provided, that may be grounds for him to approach the local government ombudsman with a complaint of maladministration.
If the authority refuses to comply with the parent's request that the school named in his child's statement be changed, the parent may appeal to the tribunal against that refusal. The tribunal will then consider the authority's decision and in so doing will have regard to the guidance in the code. The evidence put to the tribunal may show that the authority did not consult the relevant parties. But if it considers that the decision not to comply with the parent's request was the correct one and resulted in the child receiving special educational provision appropriate to his needs, the tribunal will rule in the authority's favour. The LEA's failure to follow the guidance in the code of practice will be immaterial to the tribunal's decision. If, however, the parent appeals against the authority's refusal to comply with his request, and the tribunal considers that the parent's preferred school did meet the criteria under paragraph 8(3) of Schedule 9, the tribunal will rule against the authority, even if the LEA can show that it had consulted with all the relevant parties as the code provides.
The code of practice is a tool. It will be there to assist an authority to reach the correct decision whenever it has a decision to take regarding a child with special educational needs. It will be there to assist the tribunal to decide whether that decision was correct if the parent decides to appeal against the decision.
I am finding it very difficult to continue with my speech. There are about five or six different conversations going on around the Chamber.
As I was about to say, both the authority and the tribunal will be under a statutory duty to have regard to the code, but at the end of the day it will be the appropriateness of the authority's decision to the educational needs of the child concerned which will be decisive, not whether the authority followed the guidance in the code. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for speaking at such length on the issue. However, I know that it is of great interest to him and of vital importance to the whole part of the Bill.
Given the scope of the amendment, I have not addressed the other bodies which will be required to have regard to the code such as the governing bodies of schools; neither have I referred to the other authorities which may be called to consider the appropriateness of decisions which the code might inform and which will also have regard to the code when doing so. I have, however, tried to explain the significance of the code to the local education authority which takes a decision regarding a child's needs, and to the tribunal which may be called by the child's parent to consider whether that decision was correct. I hope that, in the light of my explanation, your Lordships will agree that this amendment is not appropriate and that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, will consider withdrawing it.
Finally, we must accept that the code of practice cannot and will not be all-embracing. It would be impossible for the code to anticipate, and therefore
1376
offer advice on, every possible situation and combination of situations. As your Lordships are aware, there will be a full and thorough consultation exercise later this year on a draft of the code. Thereafter my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will lay the final draft before both Houses of Parliament for approval by the affirmative procedure before it is issued.
The code will therefore be an authoritative document, informed by the views, contributions and experience of the widest range of experts in the field of SEN, from the parents of children with special educational needs, the organisations which promote their interests, the professionals involved in all aspects of meeting their needs, to the Members of this House. The code of practice will be instrumental in achieving our aim; namely, that all children with special educational needs should receive the appropriate special educational provision to meet those needs.
It is not unusual for legislation to provide simply for a duty to have regard to a code or guidance. Section 60(4) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and Section 71(1) of the Housing Act 1985 do precisely that. The general principles of administrative law require public authorities or officers in exercising their functions to direct themselves properly, and to take into account all relevant factors, and not to take into account irrelevant factors. Failure to do so may result in a decision or other act being challenged in proceedings for judicial review, or simply being regarded as legally ineffective.
Guidance available to those involved with the policy and drafting of statutory provisions relating to codes of practice advises that if the provisions of a code are intended to be included among the relevant factors to be taken into account in the exercise of specific functions, this can be achieved by requiring the relevant authorities to have regard to the code. The consequences of failure to do so are governed by general administrative law. Ad hoc statutory provision as to the effect of failure is therefore neither necessary nor desirable.
I hope my noble friend will feel that the provisions in place are fulsome and that the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that he will not press it.
1 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the undeservedly kind words that she said about me, but I am afraid I am wholly unable to withdraw this amendment. There is no object in postponing the matter much further. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, remarked in Committee, the essence of the disagreement between myself and my noble friend the Minister would not appear to have been understood. It was not understood then, it is not understood today and it obviously will not be understood in the future. If it is understood by your Lordships I, in due course, in a moment or two, will take the opinion of the House.
I hope I may deal with some of the matters that have been mentioned. First, one of the functions of the tribunal must be to enforce the code of practice if

1377
departure from it is not justified. That is precisely what my noble friend the Minister said in Committee. Secondly, it is not a question of consultation as my noble friend the Minister said. It is not a matter of an affirmative resolution. That is totally beside the point. This has to be an enforceable code or it is not worth the paper it is written on.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with the points made by my noble friend Lord Renton. He said that what the Minister said about justification was fair comment but not binding in law —whatever that means—and that it was not right for her to have said it. I took a note of what my noble friend said. He also said that in the circumstances this was a matter covered by precedent. There is no precedent for this type of hybrid code of practice clause where there is exhortation and guidance in one part and a clear duty in another. To suggest that there is a precedent for such a totally novel type of trigger clause for the code of practice is wholly misconceived. I shall take the opinion of the House.
1.6 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 204) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 42.

Division No. 6

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B,

Archer or Sandwell, L.

Judd, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

[Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carter, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Parry, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Desai, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Eatwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Richard, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E.

Grey, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Guildford, Bp.

Seear B.

Hamwee, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

[Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollick, L.

Warnock, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Howell, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Caithness, E.

Arran, E.

Carnock, L.

Astor, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Belstead, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Blatch, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Clark of Kempslon, L

1378

Craigmyle, L.

Lyell, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cumberlege, B.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Northbourne, L.

Dudley, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

Goschen, V.

[Teller.]

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hesketh, L.[Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Wakeham, L.

Long, V.

[Lord Privy Seal.]

Lucas, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 152 [Making and approval of code]:
1.14 a.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 204A:
Page 95, line 27, leave out from ("and") to ("shall") in line 40 and insert ("shall consider any representations made by them.
( ) If he determines to proceed with the draft (either in its original form or with such modifications as he thinks fit) he shall lay it before both Houses of Parliament.
( ) If the draft is approved by resolution of each House, the Secretary of State").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that during the Committee stage I gave an undertaking to bring back an amendment to Clause 152 to ensure that the code of practice would be subject to the affirmative procedure when it was first issued and subsequently when it was revised. I gave the undertaking in the light of the views of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
My Lords, I have found it very difficult. This is the second time that I have had to battle against about 20 conversations going on on the opposite Benches.
I gave that undertaking in the light of the views of the Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated authority, and also the strength of feeling expressed by noble Lords at Committee stage. The amendment before your Lordships tabled in my name has been prepared to meet this end, and I commend it to the House.
1.15 a.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, noble Lords will remember that this amendment springs from a recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers of which I have the good fortune to be a member. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, drew attention to the importance of the way in which this code is to be treated.
The Government have given more than the committee requested. The request of the committee was that the code should be put through the affirmative procedure on the first occasion when it was introduced, and that alterations to it might be as already in the Bill. The background to this is that in the third of its questions to the department after it received the original departmental report, the committee asked:
"Can you explain why the Code of Practice to be issued under Clauses 149 and 150"—

1379
as they then were—
"is to be subject to negative rather than affirmative procedure?".
As we hope that this decision is to be a precedent of other decisions, and as we hope that the behaviour of the department will be a guide for future departmental decisions, it is worth noting that the department's reply was, first of all, to say that under the provisions in the Bill as it was then drafted the Secretary of State must prepare a draft of the code, including guidance; and that he then had a duty to consult about the code before laying a copy of the draft before Parliament. It considered that the reference to the requisite consultation procedure,
"before a draft of the code is laid before Parliament and the subject-matter of the code which is not"—
I emphasise—
"controversial in party political terms; and also because the negative procedure is more usual for codes of practice of the kind",
would suffice. Clearly it does not, and it is worth having that on the record.
The second part of the question was:
"Which procedure is more unusual for Codes of this kind?".
The department said that the most recent example it was aware of was:
"the code of practice for the promotion of equality of opportunity to be maintained, under section 7 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 … by the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland".
Then rather oddly it said:
"A similar negative procedure is applicable in respect of a draft of that code laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly",
which has been defunct for some time. The committee went on to give examples of a fiery kind dealing with picketing, the closed shop and strike ballots as being appropriate for the affirmative procedure.
I ask those who follow these proceedings and who will pay attention to further reports of the committee— I refer not to Members of this House but to members of the department—to direct their attention to those arguments and the conclusion of them that they may then be guided into having an appropriate form of procedure in the first instance.
In conclusion, I am most grateful to my noble friend for responding with this alacrity to a request of the committee.
[Amendment No. 205 not moved.]
Clause 153 [Review of arrangements]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 95, line 44, after ("shall") insert ("plan and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 206, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 207. The amendments are consequential on Amendment No. 199A, which was won.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the light of the earlier decision, I shall not resist these amendments.
[Amendment No. 206A not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 95, line 45, leave out ("by them").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as I said, this amendment is consequential on my earlier amendment, Amendment No. 199A. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall not resist this amendment.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No.207A:
Page 95, line 45. at end insert ("and the arrangements made for school premises to be made accessible to children requiring special educational provision within the area of the local education authority.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the light of the early decision, I shall not resist this amendment.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 207B:
After Clause 153, insert the following new clause:
("Strategic plan by local education authority
—(1) A local education authority shall submit to the Secretary of State for approval a strategic plan for the purposes of section 153 above and of the progressive development of educational provision including special needs within their areas.
(2) A local education authority, and the governing body of any school with duties under this Part, including a grant-maintained school, shall implement the terms of any plan approved by the Secretary of State under this section and shall bring forward as appropriate relevant proposals for this purpose.
(3) A strategic plan compiled under this section shall have effect for such period of not less than four years as the Secretary of State shall specify.
(4) The Secretary of State may approve any plan submitted to him under this section with such modifications as he considers appropriate having regard to the interests of pupils.
(5) Any proposals contained in any plan submitted under this section shall have regard to the need to promote the interests of children with special educational needs.
(6) A plan compiled under this section shall contain proposals on the following matters—

(a) the broad direction and development of nursery, primary and secondary education respectively within the authority concerned, having regard to the requirements of section 154 below;

(b) the number and size of mixed and single sex schools in the authority concerned;

(c) the number and size of comprehensive or. as the case may be, selective schools in the area, taking account of the requirements of section 154 below;

(d) the number of places available in all maintained and grant-maintained schools, and City Technology Colleges, together with targets for numbers of entry from their catchment areas;

(e) the range of goods and services to be provided by the authority under sections 156 and (where applicable) 271 below; and

(f) any other matter which the authority may consider appropriate or the Secretary of State may specify.

(7) Any local education authority shall consult any neighbouring local education authority, and such representatives of parents, headteachers, teaching and non-teaching staff and other community organisations as appear to it to be concerned before submitting any plan under this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been debated in connection with another amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the light of the earlier decision, I shall not resist this amendment.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 207C:
After Clause 153. insert the following new clause:
("Planning of nursery provision for pupils with special needs
—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 167 below, a local education authority shall plan and keep under review, and secure the provision of. nursery education in respect of any child to whom subsection (2) below applies.
(2) A child to whom this section applies is a child who is aged not less than three nor more than five years and who has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for him.
(3) The Secretary of State shall within three years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act review and publish his conclusions on the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of provision under this section (including its impact on the education of pupils with special educational needs in schools which are not special schools) and the desirability or otherwise of the extension of the duty referred to in subsection (1) above to include the planning and review of, and the securing of the provision of, nursery education in respect of all pupils aged not less than three nor more than five years whose parents wish it.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, similarly this amendment has been debated in connection with another amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the light of the earlier decision, I shall not resist this amendment.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 207D:
After Clause 153. insert the following new clause:
("Power of the Secretary of State to require information—amendment
—(1) The arrangements referred to in section 153 above shall include arrangements for the assessment and reporting to parents of educational achievements while at school of pupils with special educational needs.
(2) Section 16 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 (Power of the Secretary of State to require information) is amended as follows.
(3) For subsection (1) there is substituted—
"(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring the proprietor of each independent school and the governing body of every school other than a special school maintained by a local education authority, which is—

(a) maintained by a local education authority; or

(b) a grant-maintained school or grant-maintained special school

to provide such information about the school as may be prescribed'".
(4) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(3A) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, any comparative information as to the performance of any grant-maintained special school or other school to which subsection (1) above applies shall include information about the background and educational abilities of pupils on entry to the school and the educational achievements of those pupils while at the school (including in each case the results of examinations, tests or other assessments).
(3B) The Secretary of State shall make regulations prescribing the matters to be taken into account in the background of pupils, which shall include socio-economic factors, ethnic origin and gender".
(5) In subsection (4) at the beginning there is substituted "Subject to subsection (3A) above".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is virtually the same as Amendment No. 232, which was
1382
grouped with Amendment No. 12 on Thursday last. It differs only in requiring special schools to devise reporting arrangements to parents for their pupils' progress. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am slightly surprised that when the noble Lord, Lord Judd, moved this amendment he said that it was similar to an amendment that he moved last Thursday and required so little explanation. He has possibly treated the House in a somewhat cavalier manner in not explaining in some detail what his amendment is about. Perhaps it would help if I responded at possibly some length to details of the amendment. From the interest in the House and the number of noble Lords present in the Chamber, it seems that the amendment itself warrants a great deal of interest.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would put quite unnecessary fetters on the Secretary of State's discretion to publish the information about schools which he considers appropriate. Sadly, I have not been able to listen to the arguments that the noble Lord should have put forward in explaining to the House why he felt a desire to see LEA maintained schools excluded from the regulations concerning schools' comparative tables. I cannot even say that I appreciate what the noble Lord's views are. I am not sure that I know what the noble Lord's views are. I know only that he has moved the amendment. But I have to say that I am unable to accept his simple and brief moving of the amendment and I am unable to accept what he said in support of it; namely, that it was similar to the amendment that he moved last Thursday.
I simply cannot see the logic in the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that any grant-maintained special schools should be included in publication—and under the new clause of the noble Lord (that is, the new clause sought in Amendment No. 207D) non-maintained special schools would also be included—while LEA maintained special schools alone should not.
Like my noble friend Lady Blatch, I should appreciate the House listening to me. It would make life somewhat easier. Again, if there are so many noble Lords who wish to listen to this amendment being debated, it would help if the House would give me a reasonable degree of attention.
As I was saying, I cannot see the logic in the noble Lord's proposal that any grant-maintained special schools should be included in publication—and under the noble Lord's new clause non-maintained special schools would also be included —while LEA maintained special schools should not. If the arguments are that it is not fair that special schools should be included alongside other schools, it is surely illogical to exclude one type of special school only.
We are quite opposed to the exclusion of special schools from performance information. Some pupils at such schools are academically very able, and the achievements of all pupils at such schools should be recognised. And it is important to include special schools in the tables and in local average figures for another reason: if we did not do so, authorities which pursue a more extensive policy of integration of their

1383
special needs pupils into mainstream schools might find their overall figures looking less good than those of authorities where most such pupils are educated in special schools within or outside the authority.
We have consulted all the main organisations representing special needs groups, both last year and this, about our proposals for the tables, and none has argued that special schools should be excluded. Further, I should like to add that during the passage of the schools Bill there was no attempt in either House to amend the Bill so as to exclude special schools from the tables, and there was general agreement that the parents of pupils with special educational needs had as much right to information to inform their choices as the parents of other pupils.
I appreciate that in the case particularly of schools for children with severe learning difficulties, there may be little positive information to include in the tables. But special schools are clearly identified as such and parents too can appreciate their special position. We are proposing certain improvements on last year's tables which will ensure that it is made clear when, for example, pupils are not entered for examinations. We are also planning that the results of special schools should not be amalgamated with those of other schools, as last year, but set out in a separate alphabetical list which will make it even clearer to parents which schools are special schools.
Turning to the more general issue of the type of information which should be included in published comparative tables, I should make clear to the House—and to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who moved the amendment with such precision—that the Secretary of State is entitled under the schools Act 1992 to publish whatever information about schools he considers likely,
"to assist parents in choosing schools for their children; increase public awareness of the quality of the education provided by those schools, and of the educational standards achieved… or assist in assessing the degree of efficiency with which the financial resources of those schools are managed".
Those objectives are very wide and would certainly allow the inclusion of such information as the noble Lord is proposing, if that were thought necessary and appropriate. Again, we consulted in February on our proposals for the tables to be published in 1993, and will shortly be notifying schools of the arrangements to be put in place. Our proposals were that the background information on each school would, as last year, include the gender—I will come back to that word which the noble Lord included, no doubt for his own reasons of political correctness—of its intake, the number of its pupils with statements of special educational needs and whether it has special classes for such pupils.
Taking the noble Lord's suggestions for additional information in turn, he proposes, first, that we should include information about pupils' educational achievement on entry to the school and while at the school. I assume his purpose—and I can only assume because the noble Lord moved his amendment with such brevity that he denied the House the opportunity of hearing why he believed in the amendment—is to
1384
enable some kind of calculation of "value added" by the school in terms of its pupils' end of key stage results.
This Government are certainly committed to ensuring the development of methods which will enable the measurement of pupils' development at different ages and stages, and the schools Act 1992 would allow such calculations to be included in the published tables. But we are some way off achieving that. It will be some time before the option exists of calculating reliable measures of the extent to which schools have enhanced pupils' attainments over time, based on the results of the national curriculum assessment arrangements which will not be fully in place until 1997. It is also possible that the review of the national curriculum and the assessment currently being undertaken will lead to changes in this schedule. If I may, I shall pause for a glass of water, but, again, I would appreciate a little silence from noble Lords opposite, if they are listening. If they are not, so be it.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, finds this very amusing but these are serious amendments to be debating at this hour of night and I think that they ought to be taken seriously. Perhaps noble Lords will take them seriously in due course.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I thought that we were having an example of his wit. I was merely joining in.
1.30 a.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord knows perfectly well that I have no wit; and I certainly have no wit at this Dispatch Box. The more wit we have from the noble Lord the more he can brighten up our otherwise drab proceedings at this hour of night or this hour in the morning and the more happy we will be. I think that what the noble Lord would really like me to do is to get on to the question of the 16 to 18 front, which is what I am about to do. The noble Lord again finds this amusing. I had better take him through this fairly carefully and slowly so that he can understand the point as well as he ought to be able to and make the appropriate decision in due course.
On the 16 to 18 front, we are similarly looking for robust and workable measures of value added, covering the difference between performance at GCSE and A-level, and between GCSE or other attainments and advanced vocational qualifications. Such measures are not available yet. We cannot, as this amendment would imply, hold up publication of other information which is of value to parents and the wider community now until we have adequate value added measures. Equally—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, accepts this—we should not try to get by with measures which would be either inadequate or unable to command the necessary widespread acceptance.
The noble Lord's suggestion—again, I presume, an implied suggestion, as the noble Lord, with his wonderful brevity, did not explain the amendment in quite the detail that the House would have liked—that the achievements of pupils on entry to the school

1385
should he used also causes some difficulty. It would mean a large number of new assessment arrangements for four and five year-olds. Moreover, since pupils transfer from school to school at different ages, the amendment would in effect mean that every pupil entering any school at any age would have to be assessed. That, I suggest, would be unworkable. Again, I think that the noble Lord would accept that. When he responds to my speech he may care to address some of these points, in particular the specific point about the workability of his amendment.
The amendment suggests an inevitable and simple correlation between social background and likely achievement. We have always resisted the inclusion of information about such factors as being liable to mislead and result in unreasonably low expectations of whole groups of pupils. But, then again, I dare say that that is not something that would be of any concern to the noble Lord. He might wish to address that point.
The noble Lord proposes that the published information should somehow include an indication of the ethnic origin of pupils. Leaving aside the race relations minefield into which any such step would undoubtedly lead, I wonder just what kind of information he has in mind and how he would propose to obtain it. Presumably his objective would be to indicate the problems of schools with a large number of pupils for whom English is a second language. Ethnic origin is not a proxy for language skills, however, so its inclusion in the tables could be of no relevance.
As I said earlier, the noble Lord also proposes that the published information should take account of what he refers to as gender. I think that what he meant was sex but, again, I shall leave the matter there. I think that the noble Lord has probably now taken the point.
At the simplest level, to spread results to show the achievements of boys and girls separately would lead to an enormous increase in the amount of information shown in the tables and make them quite inaccessible to the parents and others for whom they are intended. At the extreme, it would enable factors to be built into calculations which would even up the performance of boys and girls. As in the case of calculations which purport to take account of socio-economic variants, this would be misleading and could lead to an unjustifiably low expectation of one group or another.
I hope with that brief explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for replying with his usual good humour and patience. I am sorry that there was a certain atmosphere of celebration on this side of the House which at times was difficult to penetrate.
Perhaps I may make a couple of points in responding. I certainly agree with the noble Lord that it is important to consider his point seriously. This amendment required the LEA, while reviewing the arrangements that it made for special education provision, to include the issue of the arrangement for the assessment and reporting to parents of the
1386
educational achievements of pupils with special educational needs. The LEA and the public at large must surely have some knowledge of the educational achievements of pupils with special educational needs. I would have thought that that commended itself very clearly to the Government in view of everything else which they are doing.
Therefore, in order to assist the LEA with its arrangements in Clause 153, we suggest that the Secretary of State should publish not only the raw data as he did for the GCSE results in 1992, but he must also publish background information which takes into account the educational abilities of pupils on entry to the school and also the background of pupils, including socio-economic factors, ethnicity and gender.
The intention is that a proper value-added system is introduced into assessing the work of schools. The Government have only gone half way to that objective in their proposals on the future publication of examination results and have given no detail of their thinking so far other than to restrict value-added information to prior achievement using the national curriculum assessment arrangements.
The Secretary of State and his fellow Ministers have shown a reluctance to embrace wholeheartedly value-added methods of assessing schools. This amendment required them to do so. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said. This amendment raises very big policy issues. I believe that we shall be pursuing them vigorously at other times and therefore, because we shall be doing so, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 154 [Qualified duty to secure education of children with special educational needs in ordinary schools]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 96, line 5, leave out from ("school") to end of line 6.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also be speaking to Amendment No. 209. Under the Education Act 1981, LEAs must take account of parents' views on the question of integration hut, at the end of the day, LEAs make their decision on a school for a child on the basis of the child's best interests, not the parents' preference.
Clause 154 of the Bill would seem to change this. The barrister, John Friel, and the solicitor, Peter Liell, both acknowledged experts on education law, have expressed the view that Clause 154 of the Bill, as currently worded, would give parents an absolute right to veto the placement of their child in an ordinary school. Ministers have said that this is not the Government's intention and the Department for Education has said that their legal adviser disagrees with Friel and Lien's interpretation.
Traditionally, department advice on education law carries an explicit warning, along the lines of:
"The guidance in this circular does not constitute an authoritative legal interpretation of any of the provisions of the law … that is exclusively a matter for the courts".
But, in this instance, the department would seem to have lost its traditional circumspection. Its officials say there is no risk of Clause 154 being challenged in

1387
the courts; no risk of parents being given a veto. Yet the fact that there is disagreement between legal experts on the meaning of Clause 154 is evidence in itself of an ambiguity in the wording of the Bill; evidence that there is a risk.
Further, as the Government must be aware, the courts have in the past frequently agreed with Mr. Friel when he has challenged the department's interpretation of education law. There is no basis for the department's +confidence in this matter.
The mystery now is why the Government should want to risk the courts giving their new law a meaning which they say they do not intend or wish it to have. The solution is provided in this amendment, which would reinstate the 1981 Education Act formulation, giving LEAs a duty in law to take account of parents' views, but not necessarily to be bound by them when considering what kind of placement is in a child's best interests.
It is commendable that the Government should seek to emphasise to LEAs that, in making their decisions, they should give serious consideration to the parents' preference for school. Indeed, thanks to the Government, LEAs will be under a legal obligation to meet the parents' preference, provided that the childrens' needs also can be met. It should surely be sufficient for this to be spelled out for LEAs in the code of practice.
At the meeting with officials from the DFE on Thursday 27th May, an assurance was given that it was not the Government's intention to give parents a veto over their child's integration. There was a suggestion that the code of practice could make reference to the need to give due weight to parental opinion on the issue of integration, rather than that influencing the wording of Clause 154, and Brian Norbury said that he would look at that possibility and write to IPSEA on the question. However, as of now, the legislation still embodies a risk which we believe to be unnecessary and dangerous.
It is absolutely ridiculous to leave this ambiguity in the Bill. There is a difference among lawyers about the meaning, and it seems to me that to put legislation on the statute book when there is a clear difference of opinion is really stupid. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like most warmly to support the amendment which has been so clearly and compellingly moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David. It is very important that the Government make it absolutely clear that it is not their intention that parents should have an absolute right of veto over their child's integration. The new form of wording has caused a great deal of concern—I could say "alarm"—among individual families and organisations. I very much hope that the Minister might agree to the wording of the amendment or to come back with similar wording of her own.
Obviously, it will be for the noble Baroness, Lady David, to decide what to do, but I hope at the very least that the Minister will first make a clear and emphatic statement that, Clause 154 notwithstanding, a parent's wish for a special school cannot override an LEA's judgment that integration is in a child's best interests when that appears to it to be the case.
1388
Secondly, I hope that there will be a commitment to include specific reference to that in the code of practice.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, my name is down to this amendment which has been very well explained by the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and I support it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, having listened to what has been said so far, I am afraid that it appears that these two amendments take us in the wrong direction. By that, I mean that the duty to secure education of children with special education needs in an ordinary school appears to be less qualified and indeed somewhat strengthened by these amendments, whereas your Lordships will not be surprised to hear, in view of Amendment No. 211 which is in my name and which is to follow, that I believe that that duty should be weakened, at least for mentally handicapped children.
The Bill as drafted at least allows parents of special educational needs children to take a stand and insist that their child is educated in a special school, provided that the conditions in subsection (2) are met. These amendments would appear to remove that ability to take a stand, and would leave the parents exposed to only having their views considered in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 9.
It may be just a question of drafting, and I may not even be entirely right about that, but the amendments do not seem to make it absolutely clear that the whole of paragraph (8) of Schedule 9 would be available to parents with its right of parental appeal to the tribunal when they do not believe that the school chosen by the local authority is suitable for their children. The amendments merely say that account has to be taken of the views of the parents in accordance with Schedule 9. Even if I am wrong about that and the appeal procedure to the tribunal is included in these amendments, I fear they weaken the parents' position in Clause 154, and therefore I cannot support them.
1.45 a.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, removes an absolute right, but the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has said that he feels that right to be a very good safeguard. I feel that here we are touching on a raw nerve, so I would ask the Minister to explain why, if this type of amendment was not originally sought to be in the Bill, it was removed: it was a mistake. Hopefully she could try to allay some of the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and many others like him, because unless we can establish a more even approach to this we shall continue to bump into the problem of people actually being frightened of having themselves pushed over and their children possibly being pushed into positions that they are worried about. We have the eternal problem of trying to find out exactly where the parents' rights lie in their attempts to voice their opinion on their child's interests.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate over the issue of integration and the parent's rights over special school placements. From our debate it is clear that some of your Lordships are desperately fearful that parents have a veto in Clause 154 over an integrated placement for their child; others of your Lordships, however, are most anxious that we should make clear in the Bill that there should be such a veto where parents want it.
I believe that the Bill has struck the right balance. The important factors are that there should always be scope for parents to make clear their views on the child's placement —be it a special or ordinary school—but the LEA must make the final decision against the clear and sensible duties on the face of the Bill and in regulations, and having regard to the practical guidance in the code of practice. The LEA's decisions will be subject to scrutiny by the tribunal against the background of similar guidance and criteria.
Noble Lords have argued that Clause 154, as worded, effectively gives parents a power of veto over a mainstream placement for their child. I have argued—and continue to argue—that this is not so and is not our intention. The legal opinions on this matter that have been prayed in aid have confined themselves largely to comparing the 1981 Act wording with the wording in this clause. They do not consider Clause 154 in relation to the Bill's provisions as a whole—in particular to the new duty on LEAs in Schedule 9 to comply with a parent's preference. We made a detailed analysis in writing of those opinions. I have not seen any further response from the lawyers concerned that contradicts our analysis.
The amendments before us revert to the wording in the 1981 Act. That wording was changed in the Bill so as to avoid a conflict of duties on LEAs. On the one hand, they must comply with the parent's preference under Schedule 9; on the other, they have a duty to integrate a child after having taken account of the parent's views under Clause 154. Should a parent express a preference for a maintained special school, the conflicting duties on the LEA are that it must both comply with that preference and also educate that child in an ordinary school, having taken account of the parent's wishes.
Under Clause 154 and Schedule 9, if a parent expresses a preference for a maintained special school or makes representations in favour of an independent or a non-maintained special school placement, the duty in Clause 154 does not apply as that duty is not compatible with the parent's wishes. It is certainly not the Government's intention that the parent should have a veto on a mainstream school placement, and the clause as drafted does not give such a veto.
Let me restate what happens if a parent expresses a preference for a maintained special school or makes representations for a special school outside the maintained sector. The LEA does not have the duty under Clause 154 to integrate the child. It has the duty to comply with the parental preference, subject to three important conditions: one of which is that the parent's choice of school, in this case a special school, is suitable to the child's age, ability or aptitude or to his special educational needs. If special school
1390
education is not so suited, the LEA shall not name that school in the statement. The parents therefore do not have the right of veto over a mainstream placement where a special school placement is unsuitable. I hope the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am mystified because the Minister seems to agree with what we want to do and yet will not accept that the wording of the clause is ambiguous. At this of night I shall not divide the House, but I feel disinclined to leave the Bill as it is. So I should like to read carefully what the Minister has said, take further legal advice and then decide whether to come back again on Third Reading. At the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 209 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 96, line 13, at end insert:
("( ) In exercising their duty under subsection (2) (c) any person shall have regard to any benefits which may result for other persons at a school which is not a special school from changes to be made at the school.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that in considering the efficient use of resources account is taken of the benefits to other users of school premises arising from changes made for an individual child. I spoke to this amendment in Committee (Hansard. col. 515). I did not move the amendment because it was in a large group. In his reply the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said:
"The Government consider that a good proportion of schools should be accessible to such pupils".—[0fficia Report, 29/4/93; col. 529.]
That is, those with disabilities. I did not feel that he had addressed my point. Many parents are told that the placement of their child in a mainstream school is not compatible with the efficient use of resources. Frequently, efficient use of resources means that the cost of making a school accessible to a child is balanced against that child only.
The Special Education Consortium is asking for a definition of "efficient use of resources" that would take account of others who would benefit from any adaptation of the building: future or existing pupils, teachers, governors, parents, visitors, all of whom are important when schools are used increasingly for events outside school hours.
I agree that it is important that resources are used efficiently, but consideration of a large number of cases individually does not make for the efficient use of resources. LEAs should therefore be encouraged to take a wider view and consider the benefits to others of any building adaptions or any other form of re-organisation which may be needed. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. If the Minister can tell me that advice along those lines will be included in the code of practice or in guidance, I shall be content and will withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it can be a delicate balance, as this debate has shown, to give more weight to parents' views and to increase integration, but I think that the Bill, as I said before, strikes that

1391
balance. A similar amendment was tabled by the noble Baroness in Committee, and my noble friend Lord Henley gave a full reply on that occasion.
I wish only to add one further point to the remarks made by my noble friend in Committee. The amendment would require authorities to consider benefits of every conceivable change to mainstream schools which could facilitate the integration of a particular child. That is a wide-ranging and somewhat impractical requirement to put in primary legislation. It would also extend the requirement on LEAs to consider such changes in grant-maintained and independent schools where the authority has no managerial responsibilty.
Perhaps I may assure the noble Baroness that I appreciate her concerns on this matter. I share her desire to see an increase in the sensible and practical integration of disabled children into mainstream schools, and welcome the progress that is being made in that respect. But I hope, for the reasons which I have given today and which were given in Committee, that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment further.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am not much more encouraged by it than I was by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in Committee, and the Minister will not be surprised by that. She said that the amendment would mean that one would have to consider the benefits of every conceivable change each time. I ask whether a broader view could not be taken of the wider benefits when some adaptation is done. Will the Minister consider whether she could include something about this in guidance?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, whenever I am asked to think about things between stages of a Bill, I will do so. It is still difficult to know how one defines what are the changes in a mainstream school that would create a benefit. They can he minute or great. I can give the promise that I will think about the matter between now and Third Reading.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I can talk to her about the matter because I believe that we can get a little further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 211:
Page 96, line 13, at end insert:
("( ) Unless the consent of the parents has been obtained, subsection (1) above shall not apply to any child recorded under the Mental Health Acts.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to excuse mentally-handicapped children from the presumption in favour of educating them in a school for normal children, which is to be found in Clause 154. I made the case fairly fully in Committee (cols. 516 to 519) and especially in view of the lateness of the hour I am sure that your Lordships will prefer that I do not do so again.
As noble Lords may have mentioned earlier, special education needs cover a broad church of children. I said in Committee that I was privileged to spend some two years in fairly close contact with the special education needs movement. I am absolutely convinced of its belief that at some stage most children should be regarded as special education needs children.
Be that as it may, special education needs certainly cover children who for one reason or another are going through a bad patch, children who may have a leg in plaster for a couple of weeks and are therefore not able to get up and down stairs, dyslexic children, children with physical handicaps of varying severity, children with varying degrees of emotional disturbance or illness and, finally, children with a mental handicap.
Your Lordships may remember that in Committee I expressed doubts about the wisdom of our present presumption in favour of educating children with more severe physical and other handicaps in a normal school. My amendment does not reflect those doubts because I have little personal experience of such areas. The amendment applies only to mentally-handicapped children of whom I do have personal experience as the father of a 12 year-old Down's syndrome child. Nor does my amendment seek to direct mentally-handicapped children to special schools, which I am sure would often be kinder and perhaps sometimes more helpful to other children. My amendment seeks merely to remove the qualified duty to send them to ordinary schools.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Henley said that he was advised that my amendment was unnecessary because the Bill already stated what I wanted. I believe that he then wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who was good enough to support me in my amendment, and for that I am extremely grateful. My noble friend Lord Henley confirmed his view.
I am afraid that I must take issue with my noble friend. To say that a mentally-handicapped child must go to a normal school unless his parents fight against it is not the same as saying that the child shall not go to a normal school or, indeed, to a special school unless his parents agree. The amendment may appear to be picking at a nuance but having been through the process myself I can assure your Lordships that it would be an important aid to parents such as myself who know that their mentally-handicapped children would be happier and better educated if they were sent to school among their own kind.
I believe that the time has come to differentiate between one kind of special educational need and another, and we might start with some of the least fortunate. I beg to move.
2 a.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in his Amendment No. 211. Young children can be very cruel to any one of their number who seems to them odd or unusual. I wish to speak to Amendment No. 216A, which relates to denominational provision in the case of a child with special educational needs. It can be extremely important. Often it is important for such a child to be

1393
in a situation which is familiar. Since the Government accept the general principle that wherever possible school provision should be in accordance with the parents' wishes, I hope that they will not have too much difficulty in accepting this amendment or one like it.
I now move to Amendment No. 220. I must spend a little time on this. I cannot accept responsibility for the lateness of the hour and I think that this is an important issue. The amendment is concerned to ensure as far as possible that the excellent voluntary and independent special needs' schools, which have for so many years given love, care and special education to children with various kinds of special educational needs, should continue to be able to do so and should not be squeezed out of the market by the provisions of this legislation.
I want to make it clear that we do not ask for special privileges for such schools. We merely want a level playing field so that those schools—and I believe that it is most of them—which offer a first-class service for the children they serve at a competitive and reasonable cost should be able to continue to do so.
The problem is that under Clause 161 local authorities may make a statement of the special educational needs in respect of any child, having taken account of the representations made by the parents. Clauses 162 and 162 provide for parents to be able to appeal to a tribunal. Schedule 9 provides details about procedures under Clause 161. It provides in paragraph 2 for parents to receive a copy of the draft statement before it is finally made and paragraph 3 gives parents the right to:
"express a preference as to the maintained, grant-maintained or grant-maintained special school at which he wishes education to be provided for his child".
I emphasise that there is a preference in that respect. That schedule goes on to state that the local authority shall specify the school for which the parents have expressed a preference unless the school is unsuitable or the education of other children would be adversely affected. Your Lordships should note that that mandatory preference—the "put option" as it were—by the parents is possibly in respect of only a maintained or grant-maintained special school. Of course, the parent can still express a preference as regards his request for a non-maintained school but the LEA is under no obligation to accede to that request, whereas if he asks for the child to attend a maintained school he is certain to have that request granted.
I ask your Lordships to put yourselves in the position of a parent who urgently wishes to ensure that his or her child has denominational support in the special school which he is to attend or does not wish his child to be drafted into a mainstream school. Under those circumstances, what would you do? You would opt for the maintained school because you would know that you would be certain to get what you were asking for. The LEA would be obliged to grant your request whereas in the case of the non-maintained school it might not do so. That puts an enormously unfair competitive disadvantage in the way of a non-maintained school providing for special
1394
needs. Many of those schools are centres of excellence and are among the best in the world. That is unjust and I should have thought that it is not in line with government policy.
The Royal London Society for the Blind and the National Association for the Education, Training and Support of Blind and Partially Sighted People, in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who apologises for not being in his place this evening, stated:
"The omission of the words 'non-maintained school' from Schedule 9, paragraph 3(1) of the Bill will have a very serious long-term detrimental effect on the future of such schools".
I have not moved the amendment as an amendment to Schedule 9 because I know that the noble Baroness is concerned that to simply insert the words "and non-maintained schools" into paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 9 would tip the playing field in favour of such schools because non-maintained schools do not have to take a pupil who is statemented to them whereas maintained schools do. I do not believe that to be a compelling argument because I am sure that any non-maintained school which is worth its salt would always be delighted to take any special needs pupil if he or she could be fitted in. However, out of respect for the noble Baroness's anxieties on that issue, I have attempted to draft an amendment which would be as fair as possible to all schools which make provision for special educational needs and ensure that special needs children receive the best possible help and that the taxpayer receives the best possible value for money.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne in regard to Amendment No. 220. If there is a good school in the vicinity run by the local authority which the parents can accept, it would be wise for the child to attend that school. However, there may be special difficulties, outstanding difficulties which are not dealt with locally, and many parents may know of a school which is independent or non-maintained that they wish their children to attend.
It is difficult to discuss the amendment because there is a case currently before the High Court. A parent is going to court because the local authority has not allowed her child to go to an independent school.
A child does much better if it is allowed to go to the school of its parents' choice because then there is no conflict within the home. I support the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, a question in connection with something that worried me at Committee stage. Having read the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, at col. 528 of Hansard, I am still uncertain of the position.
The noble Lord's reply mentioned children with mental illness. Do the Mental Health Acts cover children with a mental handicap? I thought that it might be my ignorance but, thanks to my noble friend Lord Rix, I spoke this afternoon to a very experienced senior official at Mencap who thought that the Mental Health Act covered someone with a mental handicap only if he was a danger. The amendment refers to a child who is recorded under the Mental Health Act.

1395
That experienced officer could not help me as to that meaning. If the child were sectioned, he would be in a hospital, not a school. Can the noble Lord help me as to how the wording of the amendment covers the group of children about whom he is so deeply concerned?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked me a question that I do not think I can answer satisfactorily. The wording of the amendment was given to me to reflect the kind of child that I know about, which is the mentally handicapped child. The spirit of my amendment, which is that the parent of a mentally handicapped child should not be coerced towards any particular kind of school, should apply also to mentally ill children. I should like it to apply to children with other severe kinds of handicap.
The amendment, as drafted, applies purely to mentally handicapped children, although I would be happy to see it extended to mentally ill children, if the noble Baroness's interpretation of the law is correct.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I understood that the Mental Health Act would not cover the children that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, wishes it to cover.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in that case, I am indebted to the Public Bill Office for drafting the amendment in the wrong way. I hope that the meaning is clear and that we may resolve the matter at the next stage, if not now.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the group of amendments concerns special needs and the problem of integration, which is a matter that has not been resolved. I agree that for those people who would benefit from it, integration for most or all of their educational career would be desirable. But that would depend upon the type of disability and other matters. It is something that should be encouraged. There will always be exceptions for whatever reason. Amendment No.220 begins to confront the problem head-on. There is no right answer.
I hope that the debate will produce the Government's view as to the right balance. A number of amendments contain very good points. We will be chasing the points around until we arrive at a position which allows enough flexibility to take into account the differing points of view and the different problems that are faced by various children. If noble Lords decide that there is a correct answer, there will always he a problem because, whenever a rule is made, there will be an exception. Can the Minister tell us what she feels the balance to be at the moment, or can she give an indication of when she could give a more definitive answer? I feel that it is a problem which is only just starting to occur. Indeed, we could probably continue ad infinitum unless we try to establish a bench-mark position.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I should like to express my support for the caveats that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has included in Amendment No. 220. I believe that we should be careful about extending to parents of children with special educational needs an
1396
absolute right to choose whatever school that they want for their child. After all, it is a right which we would not dream of extending to any other parent; indeed, we covered that point extensively in debate on the Bill.
To choose an independent school may incur substantial additional fees. There are the additional costs of inspection by the local authority involved. Moreover, there is certainly concern on the part of local authorities that many parents are vulnerable to salesmanship by some independent special schools, which may persuade them of their benefits, when that is not actually so if one looks at the matter from an independent point of view. The way in which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, drafted his proposed new clause covers my worry perfectly.
2.15 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there are amendments in the group tabled in my name. I refer to Amendments Nos. 218A, 218B, 219A, 219B and 219C. I promised to look again at the possibility of extending the parent's right to express a preference to include schools outside the maintained sector and to return to the issue on Report. My right honourable friend and I have given very careful consideration as to how best to ensure that schools continue to play their full part in providing for pupils with special educational needs.
We have concluded that we should not extend the right to express a preference to include schools outside the maintained sector. Our purpose is to give parents of pupils with statements the same rights as other parents have under the 1980 Act. Local authorities have a duty to comply with parental preference, subject to certain reasonable conditions. Maintained schools must then admit the child. Maintained schools are also subject to the planning regimes of the LEA or the funding agency. We have no intention of tampering with the autonomy of schools outside the maintained sector by making them subject to such controls. Similarly, we do not think it right that such schools should be subject to direction by local education authorities as to the pupils they should admit.
There is a difference in the Bill between preference for maintained schools and representations for non-maintained and independent schools because the schools themselves are different. Much has been made of the idea of creating a level playing field. But we could not impose a level playing field without imposing restrictions on autonomous schools, many of which we know they would not want.
However, the amendments I have tabled should ensure that parents have every opportunity to make informed decisions about their child's school placement, including the possibility of a placement in an independent or non-maintained school. They would require the LEA to give to parents a written notice with the draft statement that would explain such matters and give such information as the Secretary of State may prescribe. We intend that the regulations would require local authorities to explain to parents in straightforward terms their rights to

1397
make representations in favour of an independent or non-maintained special school, to give parents information about any such suitable schools for their child, and to arrange meetings with parents if they wish to discuss the choice of school. For our part, we shall ensure that the Department of Education keeps local authorities fully informed about the range of approved independent and non-maintained special schools, including details of the fees they charge and the specialisms for which they cater.
In addition to those regulations, as I said earlier, we shall be addressing the issue of the school placement in the code of practice. The code will guide LEAs in making placements outside the maintained sector and will complement the regulations. My noble friend's amendment is, I believe, therefore unnecessary as the tribunal must also have regard to that code when making its judgment. We shall of course be consulting fully on the regulations and on the code of practice in the autumn.
With the amendments I have tabled, the Bill strikes the right balance between the thrust towards sensible and appropriate integration and the rights of parents over choosing a special education for their child within and outside the maintained sector. I therefore ask your Lordships to accept the amendments tabled in my name.
Amendment No. 211 highlights the point I made earlier about the divergence of opinion amongst your Lordships over the issue of integration and giving due weight to parental wishes where those wishes are for a special school placement. I maintain that the Bill strikes the right balance. The amendments before us give me a further opportunity to show how the Bill will work for parents who believe that an integrated placement is not suitable for their child.
My noble friend Lord Pearson is rightly concerned that the duty to integrate should not be applied unsuitably to children who have serious mental health problems. Noble Lords will recall that we debated a similar amendment during Committee stage, when my noble friend was supported by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lady Cox. As was said on that occasion, I believe that this amendment is unnecessary. Let me repeat why I believe this to be the case.
The Government are committed to the principle that a pupil with identified special educational needs should be integrated in mainstream provision only when it is right for the child. We are concerned that, when deciding between a mainstream or special school placement, parents should be able to take the initiative. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that Clause 154, as presently drafted, provides for the wishes of the parents to be taken fully into account. The clause clearly states that a child should not be educated in an ordinary school unless certain prescribed conditions are met. It also relieves LEAs of their qualified duty to integrate when to do so would be incompatible with the wishes of the child's parents.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that parents will have the right to state a preference for a school, with which the authority must comply, subject to
1398
certain conditions being met. The authority would decline to educate a child in a special school only if it could show that such education would be inappropriate. The parent then has the right of appeal to the tribunal against the school named in the statement. Thus the final decision rests with the authority, or with the tribunal, should the parent challenge the authority's decision. The Bill will not give parents any kind of veto—neither on a mainstream placement nor on a special school placement—but will ensure that parents' rights are clearly stated and their interests protected.
In Clause 154 the parent has the primacy in terms of making that choice. I hope I can assure my noble friend Lord Pearson that the legislation as drafted meets his concerns and I hope he will not press the amendment.
Amendment No. 216A stands in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. The Bill is not explicit about denominational considerations. It is quite possible, however, that denominational concerns might inform the wishes of the parent of a child with a statement when expressing a preference for the particular mainstream maintained school he wishes his child to attend, or in making representations in favour of a denominational or non-maintained special school or independent school over an LEA-maintained special school. In both cases it is of course entirely proper that denominational considerations should play a part in the parent's choice.
When deciding the appropriate school placement for the child, the LEA will be under a duty to consider such representations as the parent has chosen to make. Furthermore the code of practice will stress to LEAs the importance of meeting the parent's wishes in this respect wherever possible and appropriate and the contribution this would undoubtedly make to the success of the placement.
That said, I remind noble Lords that the authority's prime concern when deciding which school to name in a child's statement must be to meet its statutory duty to place a child in a school which is suitable for the child's age, ability or attitude or to his special educational needs and where his attendance will be compatible with the efficient education of his peers and the efficient use of resources. Thus, where a parent has expressed a preference or made representations as appropriate for a denominational school, the LEA will have to consider if that school meets these criteria. If it does, it would be unreasonable for the authority not to comply with the parent's wishes. The parent would be able to appeal to the tribunal against the authority's decision and the tribunal's ruling would be binding on the LEA. However, if the authority placed the child in a denominational school and the placement did not meet the criteria, the authority would be in breach of a statutory duty.
We are sympathetic to the anxieties of all noble Lords. That is why we shall ensure that the code of practice will guide LEAs to meet a parent's denominational preference whenever that is possible and appropriate. However, though denominational considerations are important and will have to be taken

1399
into account, they cannot be overriding. At the end of the day the authority must ensure that the placement is suitable for the child's age, ability or aptitude or for his special educational needs and that his attendance will he compatible with the efficient education of his peers and the efficient use of resources.
Turning to Amendment No. 220, there has been eloquent support for my noble friend Lord Northbourne concerning the position of independent schools catering for pupils with special educational needs and non-maintained special schools where parents prefer that option. I, too, add my appreciation to the fine work that is done in such schools, often most cost effectively, and of the contribution they make to the education of children with special needs. I have already explained the measures which the Government propose to take to ensure that non-maintained special schools and independent schools play their full part in providing for pupils' special educational needs and contribute to the choice and diversity of special education available to parents. I hope that your Lordships will not accept that amendment.
I should like to refer to the point which was the subject of an exchange between the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and my noble friend Lord Pearson. I understand that there is no reference to persons being recorded in legislation under the Mental Health Acts pertaining to England and Wales. The amendment is therefore technically meaningless. My noble friend Lord Pearson, together with my noble friends Lady Cox and Lord Renton, tabled a similar amendment at Committee stage. It became clear from that debate that my noble friend's intention in moving the amendment was to prevent the parent of a severely mentally disabled child from feeling under pressure to agree to the child being integrated into mainstream education. Therefore, irrespective of whether there is a register of such children, I believe that it is important that children with mental handicaps are appropriately placed.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend, especially for her recent explanation. I am afraid that it may be that I shall have to look again at the wording of the amendment and bring it back at Third Reading. Of course, I would not think of dividing your Lordships' House at this late hour, especially as a number of noble Lords who had intended to speak in favour of the amendment this evening are no longer present, given the lateness of the hour and other commitments.
I simply leave your Lordships with the thought that the qualified duty to secure the education of a child with mental handicap in an ordinary school is wrong and should be removed from the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 155 [Duties of governing body etc. in relation to pupils with special educational needs]:
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 96, line 24, after ("him") insert:
("( ) secure that, where a registered pupil with special educational needs is not the subject of a Statement of Special
1400
Educational Needs maintained by an Education Authority, there shall be a review of the provision made for the child within the period of twelve months beginning with the making of the provision, or as the case may be, with the previous review,").
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the light of the earlier decision, I shall not resist the amendment.
[Amendment No. 212A not moved.]
Clause 156 [Provision of goods and services in connection with special educational needs]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 212B:
Page 97, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) The local education authority shall ensure the availability of goods and services to assist governing bodies in their duties under section 155(1) (a) of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment was included in the earlier grouping. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the light of the earlier decision I shall not resist the amendment.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 212C:
Page 97, line 20, after ("schools") insert ("or to the governing bodies of county, voluntary or maintained special schools in any other area").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 199 and I ask the House to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Clause 158 [Provision outside England and Wales for certain children]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 98, line 4, leave out from ("is") to second ("any") and insert ("without prejudice to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 213, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 214, 217, 234, 286C and 297A. They are technical amendments. Amendment No. 213 aims to make the language of Clause 158(4) consistent with the language of other clauses and subsections of the Bill, such as Clause 156(3) whose purpose is to explain the powers contained therein without prejudice to other powers of a local education authority.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 214 and 217 is similar: to make the language of Clause 160(5), which brings Schedule 8 into effect, and Clause 161(7), which brings Schedule 9 into effect, consistent with the language of other clauses and subsections of the Bill which bring schedules into effect.
Amendment No. 234 will clarify that where a school attendance order is in force in respect of a child with a statement of special educational needs, and the name of the school specified in the statement is changed, the local education authority must amend the school attendance order also, so that it specifies the same school as that now named in the statement.
The last two amendments in my noble friend's name, Amendment No. 286C to Schedule 18, and Amendment No. 297A to Schedule 20, refer to amendments to and repeals of existing legislation. Unless noble Lords prefer any further explanation, I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No. 213A:
After Clause 158, insert the following new clause:
("Relationship of local education authority and grantmaintained special school
—(1) The funding authority shall consult any local education authority which has in the previous three years named in a statement a school which is or has become a grant-maintained special school.
(2) A grant-maintained special school shall assist the authority in any inspection and review carried out under section (Duty to direct governing bode to make special educational provision) below.
(3) The funding authority and governing body of a grant-maintained special school shall consult any local education authority to which subsection (1) above applies on the range and type of provision at the school and of any proposals for a change of character.").
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the light of the earlier decision on Amendment No. 1 19A I shall not resist the amendment.
Clause 160 [Assessment of educational needs]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 99, line 16, to leave out from ("Act") to end of line 17 and insert ("(which makes provision in relation to the making of assessments under this section) shall have effect.").
Baroness Faithful Baroness Faithful had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 214A:
After Clause 160, insert the following new clause:
("Co-operation between authorities on special needs
—(1) When assessing a child's special educational needs consideration shall be given to the cause of those needs which may be due to adverse social conditions, disruptive family circumstances and/or mental and emotional disturbances; and such circumstances as may result in non-school attendance, truancy, and disruptive behaviour.
(2) Where it appears to a local education authority that any authority mentioned in subsection (4) below could by taking any specified action, help in the exercise of any of their functions under this part, they may request the help of that other authority specifying the action in question.
(3) An authority whose help is so requested shall comply with the request if it is compatible with their own statutory or other duties and obligations and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their functions.
(4) The authority to whom subsection (2) applies shall be determined by the Secretary of State and shall include:

(a) any local education authority;

(b) any local authority to include Social Services;

(c) any health authority or National Health Service Trust.

(5) In such cases the Local Education Authority jointly with Social Services shall consider whether residential care and education is appropriate to the needs of the child and shall consider the use of residential schools run by voluntary organizations, charities or on a private basis.
(6) The cost of such residential schools to meet social needs shall he met jointly by the Education and Social Services Department.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have sat here for the whole of today's Sitting. I have four important amendments to move: Amendments Nos. 214A, 218,
1402
230 and 231. They are contentious. I propose to speak on them for a very long time and therefore will not do so tonight.
[Amendment No. 214A not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 215:
Before Schedule 8, insert the following new schedule:
("CORE GOVERNORS FOR GROUPS
Introductory
1. The provision made for core governors in the instrument of government for the governing body of a group must be in accordance with this Schedule.
Kinds of core governor
2.—(1) Core governors may be either—

(a) appointed by the governing body, or

(b) externally appointed.

(2) Externally appointed core governors may be either—

(a) appointed in respect of a particular school in the group, being a school—

(i) which was a voluntary school immediately before it became grant-maintained, or

(ii) which was established in pursuance of proposals published under section 47 of this Act, or

(b) where the group consists only of such schools, appointed in respect of the group otherwise than by the governing body.

(3) A person appointed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) (a) above must be appointed—

(a) by the persons named in the instrument of government for the group as being entitled to appoint externally appointed core governors in respect of the school, or

(b) in the case of a school which was a voluntary school immediately before it became grant-maintained, by the persons who were then named in the school's instrument of government as being entitled to appoint foundation governors (within the meaning of the Education Act 1944) to the existing governing body.

(4) A person appointed as mentioned in subparagraph (2) (a) above must be appointed—

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

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

(5) Core governors, other than externally appointed core governors appointed in respect of particular schools in the group, must be appointed from among persons who appear to the person making the appointment to be committed to the good government and continuing viability of all the schools in the group.
(6) A person who is a member of the teaching or other staff at any of the schools in the group is disqualified from holding office as a core governor, other than an externally appointed core governor.
Groups consisting only of former voluntary schools or section 47 schools
3. —(1) This paragraph applies in the case of such a group as is mentioned in paragraph 2(2) (b) above.
(2) The minimum number of externally appointed core governors (referred to in this paragraph as "MN") is one greater than the number of governors other than externally appointed core governors.
(3) Any head teacher of a school in the group who has chosen not to be a governor shall be counted as one for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above.
(4) In respect of each school in the group there must be the same number of externally appointed core governors.
(5) The total number of externally appointed core governors in respect of schools in the group must not be less than the highest number, not exceeding MN, that is consistent with sub-paragraph (4) above.
Other groups
4.—(1) This paragraph applies in the case of a group other than such a group as is mentioned in paragraph 2(2) (b) above.
(2) If any school in the group falls within paragraph 2(2) (a) above, one externally appointed governor must be appointed in respect of that school.
(3) The appropriate number of the core governors must (on the date or dates on which they respectively take office) be parents of registered pupils at schools in the group, and the appropriate number of the core governors must (on the date or dates on which they respectively take office) be members of the local community; but one person may satisfy both requirements.
(4) In sub-paragraph (3) above "the appropriate number" means not less than two or, if all but one of the schools in the group fall within paragraph 2(2) (a) above, at least one.
(5) In appointing core governors, the governing body must secure that those governors include persons appearing to the governing body to be members of the local business community (and such persons may also satisfy one or both of the requirements of sub-paragraph (3) above).
(6) The number of core governors must be such number, not being

(a) less than five, or

(b) subject to paragraph (a) above, more than the number of schools in the group,

as will secure that they and the parent governors outnumber the other governors.
(7) Any head teacher of a school in the group who has chosen not to be a governor shall be counted as one for the purposes of sub-paragraph (6) above.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, at the end of the previous discussion on Thursday last, the noble Baroness gave me an assurance in relation to paragraph 2(3). Since then there have been further communications between officials of the Church of England Board of Education and the department. I had expected the Minister, when moving the amendment, to indicate that a further amendment to sub-paragraph (3) will be required. I shall be grateful for that assurance.
Lord Henley: My Lords, without my noble friend's presence, I am not sure that I can give that assurance to the right reverend Prelate. I take on board what the right reverend Prelate has said. If it is necessary to bring forward a further amendment at Third Reading, obviously by speaking now I retain the right so to do. However, I shall have to take advice from those who advise me. I shall pass on the comments of the right reverend Prelate to my noble friend Lady Blatch.
2.30 a.m.
Schedule 8 [Making of assessments under section 160]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 216:
Page 200. line 23, at end insert:
1404
("( ) The advice to be sought under paragraph 2(2) above shall record the views of those providing it on whether the child can be educated in a school which is not a special school.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be as brief as possible, but if I do not make sense it is because I have been over-lavish with the red pencil. If I do not get the answer that I hope for from the Minister, I shall come back and be more lengthy at another time.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that as part of the assessment of every child with special educational needs the LEA will ascertain whether the conditions permitting integration can be fulfilled. Under the new wording of Clause 154 it looks as if the LEA has discretion not to investigate the possibility of integration for a child with special educational needs. This means, first, that parents would be forming their views and expressing their wishes on integration without the benefit of professional opinion; secondly, that the LEA's view on the child's placement would also be uninformed by professional opinion; and thirdly, that the tribunal itself would be uninformed because the professional reports would not contain the integration element.
Following a very helpful meeting with officials of the Department for Education, I hope that the Minister, if he cannot agree to this amendment, will be able to make a clear and emphatic statement that, Clause 154 notwithstanding, a parent's wish for a special school cannot override an LEA's duty to obtain professional advice on the question of a child's integration as part of its duty under Schedule 8, and that he will undertake to include specific reference to that in the code of practice. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment. It seems that we are talking here about common sense and further information. Surely, an amendment like this will be of benefit to anyone involved in the decision-making process.
Baroness David: My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment, and I wish to express my support for it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, a categorical assurance that she certainly made sense, and I do not think that she was over-lavish with the red pencil. At least it was not the red bottle.
We have debated at some length the issue of integration and parents' rights over special school placements, as the noble Baroness will appreciate, both today and during Committee stage. I believe she will acknowledge that it can be a delicate balance both to give more weight to parents' views and to encourage integration. There are very strongly held views in different parts of the House as to where that balance should lie. We believe that the Bill strikes the right balance.
The amendment of the noble Baroness would require in primary legislation that advice on a child's special educational needs should state a view on whether the child can be educated in a school that is not a special school. Obviously, I would agree that it

1405
is most important that full and proper consideration in co-operation with the parents must be given to finding the school placement best suited to meeting the child's special education needs. Consequently, consideration as to whether an ordinary school is suitable or whether a special school is necessary must inform a decision over every child's placement.
We believe that this important and sensitive matter is best left to the code of practice to which all LEAs and the tribunal must have regard. The code will therefore cover guidance to LEAs on the appropriate advice to be obtained in forming decisions over school placement. It will specifically address the need to consider carefully in each case the benefits of educating the child in an ordinary school where possible. The guidance and the code of practice will reflect the Government's policy that the child should be integrated wherever possible, but that integration must be sensible and, above all, pursued only if appropriate to the child. I hope that those reassurances are sufficient for the noble Baroness. If they are not, perhaps we may be able to pursue the matter outside the Chamber. I hope that for the moment she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, the Minister will be extremely relieved to hear that there is no need to pursue this matter outside the Chamber, although I am sure there may be other matters. That is a completely satisfactory reply. I thank him very much indeed, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 216A:
Page 99, line 47, at end insert:
("( ) In so specifying as described in subsection (4) above, the local education authority shall take careful account of any parental request that the child's needs be met in an appropriate denominational institution.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that the assurance that has been given probably covers this matter. I should like to have the opportunity to read Hansard and if necessary bring the amendment back at Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 216A not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 100, line 15, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 16 and insert ("(which makes provision in relation to the making and maintenance of statements under this section) shall have effect.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 213. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 218 not moved.]
Schedule 9 [Making and maintenance of statements under section 161]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 218A and 218B:
Page 201, line 18, leave out ("explanation or') and insert ("notice explaining").
Page 201, line 20, at end insert ("and containing such other information as may be prescribed").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 218A and Amendment No. 218B were spoken to with Amendment No. 211. If beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, I now call Amendment No. 219A.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount has failed to call Amendment No. 219 which comes before Amendment No. 219A.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is Amendment No. 219 to be passed over or has it already been spoken to?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry. Amendment No. 219 on the Marshalled List refers to page 201, line 48, whereas Amendment No. 219A refers to page 201, line 31. Therefore Amendment No. 219 will come later.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 219A:
Page 201, line 31, leave out ("explanation") and insert ("notice").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 219A, 219B and 219C were spoken to with Amendment No. 211. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that we should now have Amendment No. 219 which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth).
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 201, line 48, at end insert:
("( ) Where—

(a) a Statement is made under section 161 of this Act, and

(b) the Statement names a special school as the school in which the child is to be educated

the Statement shall specify which of the conditions set out in Section 154 cannot be satisfied and why.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. The purpose of this amendment is to enable parents seeking an integrated placement to know which of the conditions permitting integration cannot be met and why. I moved this amendment in Committee (at cols. 534–535 of Hansard) and withdrew it saying that I hoped to have a discussion about it and maybe come back with it. Following useful discussions with officials from the Department for Education, I am back.
I must just briefly explain that the Special Education Consortium produced a slightly different version of this amendment which gave the same rights to parents seeking a placement in a special school as well, which would take account of the objection of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that the amendment was not even-handed. But I tabled the amendment before I had the consortium's revised version.
The consortium is concerned at the large number of parents seeking an integrated placement who are told that proper provision cannot be made in a mainstream

1407
school or that that would not represent an efficient use of resources. Sometimes they are given no explanation.
Following that very useful meeting with officials —I shall not go into the arguments now—I shall only say that I hope that the Minister will be able to say that he will include something in guidance to ensure that parents are told the reasons for decisions about conditions permitting integration and to ensure that those conditions have been properly explored before a decision is reached. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may just point out that, although I completely accept the reasoning behind the noble Baroness moving this amendment, as drafted it would have the effect of putting more pressure on the parents of a mentally handicapped child (which I referred to in my Amendment No. 211) because, if those parents had said that the placing in a normal school was incompatible with their wishes, this amendment would appear to underline that hurdle. It would have to be part of the statement, which would have to be put into the open much more. Therefore I see it as going the other way, unless its wording were to be changed, and it would make life more difficult than it already is under Clause 154.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we had the same amendment at Committee stage when we considered Clause 154 (then Clause 152). Perhaps I could add a few words of emphasis to my arguments at that earlier stage.
It has been quite clear during the debates that we have been having on issues relating to integration that the House holds a range of different views, each of which places a somewhat different emphasis on the weight to be given to integration or to the value and desirability of a special school education. Obviously I respect all those views. However, I continue to maintain that this part of the Bill offers a proper balance within the legislation for those views to be represented and acted upon.
The naming of a school is the final stage in writing a statement, and that must be right. There is little point in assessing needs and considering provision if the school has already been decided. The logical flow of the statement leads to naming the appropriate school as the last stage. The specification of needs and provision therefore should lead to justification of the naming of a special or ordinary school.
The Bill makes provision for parents to express their views and for LEAs to explain their thinking. At the end of the process, it is for the LEA to decide which school should be named and to arrange the provision. The LEA cannot, in fulfilling its duties, ignore—even if it does not always meet—the wishes of parents. Moreover, LEAs will know that they cannot act arbitrarily in naming a school. Their actions will be subject to scrutiny by the new SEN tribunal. Under the Bill they must tell parents of their rights of appeal to that tribunal. If a case goes to appeal, the LEA will have to justify itself before that tribunal. The tribunal
1408
will have the power to overturn an LEA decision and to instruct the LEA to name the school of the parent's choice on the statement.
Why should the explanation of the statement be one-sided, as this amendment would have it? Why should the LEA not be required to explain in the statement why it believes an integrated placement is appropriate for the child where the parent had believed a special school to be right for the child? Here again, we believe that that is a matter which deserves full, considered and sensitive treatment in the code of practice and is not appropriate for primary legislation. The code will not only reinforce the need for an LEA to keep parents properly informed at all times of the reasons for its decisions, but it will also guide—the noble Baroness was asking what guidance there would be—LEAs on making special and ordinary school placements.
I hope that that is sufficient assurance to the noble Baroness, again at this early hour of the morning, so that she will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall have to read in Hansard what he said to see whether I am completely satisfied. I agree that it should be even-handed and should apply to the parents who have expressed a wish for a special school placement.
I quoted an example at Committee stage of a child whose mother was told that he could not be integrated because his needs could not be met in the mainstream school. It turned out that the LEA had taken an early decision that whatever school the boy attended, the LEA would need to provide full-time welfare support for him. But the only school that was approached by the LEA was not told that the welfare support would be given and naturally said that it could not integrate him. That is the kind of thing I am trying to avoid; to ensure that LEAs explore properly the possibilities of integration. That is why we need something about it in guidance.
I see the Minister nodding, and probably he has satisfied me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 219B and 219C:
Page 202, line 22, leave out ("explanation") and insert ("notice").
Page 202, line 29, leave out ("explanation") and insert ("notice").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I wish to take Amendments Nos. 219B and 219C en bloc. I beg to move.
Clause 163 [Appeal against contents of statement]:
2.45 a.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 219D:
Page 100, line 43, leave out ("amend the") and insert ("make and maintain a new").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendment No. 219E,

1409
with which it is inextricably linked. These amendments would give the parent of an already statemented child who has been subject of a further assessment the same rights as are enjoyed by parents following the issuing of a child's first statement. Those rights are, first, to be sent copies of all the professional advice obtained by the LEA as part of its assessment of the child; secondly, to express a preference as to which school they wish to be named on the statement; thirdly, to require a meeting to be arranged with an officer of the authority; and fourthly, to require a meeting to be arranged with any or all of the professionals who have written the advice on their child.
Surely the rights that parents enjoy after this first assessment are equally vital for a subsequent assessment of the child. To deny a parent these rights would be to go against the whole spirit of the new legislation enshrined in the Bill and would be contrary to the spirit of the Private Member's Bill first introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, which was the catalyst for this Bill.
Again, at this useful meeting with the officials from the Department for Education on 27th May, an assurance was given that it was not the Government's intention to deny parents of statemented children the rights which they have hitherto enjoyed with regard to meetings, copies of professional reports and the other two matters that I have mentioned, following subsequent assessments of their child. I very much hope that I will hear the Minister give a clear emphatic statement that parents will have the same rights following subsequent assessment as they will following a first assessment, and a commitment to include specific reference to this in the code of practice. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness's concern and I hope that I can give her some reassurance that her amendment is unnecessary. Let me briefly explain the procedure under the Bill regarding the amendment of statements.
Under paragraph 10 of Schedule 9, an authority which proposes to amend a statement, including following an assessment under Clause 160, is required to serve on the child's parent notice of its proposal. It must also serve on the parent written explanation of his right to make representations to the authority about its intention. These representations may concern any aspect of the proposed amendments to the statement, including the school to be named.
The authority must consider any representations before deciding whether to go ahead with the amendment to the statement as it originally proposed, to amend it differently in the light of those representations, or, indeed, not to amend it at all. Once its decision is made, it is then required to write to the parent explaining that decision.
In any case where an authority proposes to amend a statement, be it following an assessment under Clause 160 or not, it would be unreasonable for the authority to refuse to allow the parent to see the professional advice. Indeed, we would expect the authority to provide the parent with that information.
1410
This is already good practice. Furthermore, and most importantly, the code of practice will address this point.
We are all now familiar with the code of practice. The House will also recall that we have debated it at some length. Local education authorities will be under a statutory duty to have regard to the code when carrying out their functions under Part III of the Bill. Among those functions is the procedure that they must follow when amending a statement.
Thus the code will address the issue of a parent's ability to request a meeting with the authority and, where appropriate, with its advisers, when his child's statement is to be amended. It will also stress the importance of enabling a parent to discuss the professional advice which has informed the authority's determination to amend the statement. Again, this is existing good practice—and so it should be—and it would certainly be unreasonable of any authority to deny the parent such meetings.
In short we believe that the code will reinforce the present good practice among LEAs of enabling parents to play an active role in deciding their children's future on the basis of full information. With that assurance I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. If I do not sound totally enthusiastic, it is because I shall have to read what he said to make sure that parents have all the rights that they would have following a first assessment. I am very grateful for that reply. I think that the noble Lord has totally satisfied me. I shall read his response very carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 219E not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 219F:
After Clause 163, insert the following new clause:
Access for local education authority to certain schools
(".— (1) This section applies where—

(a) a local education authority maintain a statement for a child under section 161 of this Act, and

(b) in pursuance of the statement education is provided for the child at—

(i) a school maintained by another local education authority,

(ii) a grant-maintained school, or

(iii) a grant-maintained special school.

(2) Any person authorised by the local education authority shall be entitled to have access at any reasonable time to the premises of any such school for the purpose of monitoring the special educational provision made in pursuance of the statement for the child at the school.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall be speaking also to Amendment No. 219G. According to the groupings, I understand that I shall also be speaking to Amendment No. 219H in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock.
The two government amendments tabled in our name are designed to give greater assurance about the continuing suitability of the individual child's statement on the delivery of the special educational provision specified in the statement. Amendment No. 219F would enable LEAs to monitor the provision of the special education which they have determined in a

1411
statement and which they have a statutory duty to arrange in schools maintained by other authorities, self-governing grant-maintained schools and grant-maintained special schools.
The purpose of this right of access is twofold: to empower LEAs to fulfil their statutory duties to ensure that arrangements for making the special educational provisions specified in the statement are appropriate and to enable them to monitor the provision for which they are directly responsible for funding in the light of their duty to ensure the efficient use of their resources.
Section 77(3) of the 1944 Act allows LEAs to make an inspection of any of their educational establishments. They therefore have the right of access to their schools to monitor the arrangements made for a child with a statement. Regulations governing the approval of non-maintained special schools require such schools to afford access at all reasonable times to an LEA which has placed a child at that school. Similar regulations apply in the independent sector.
Schools which have sought and been given approval under the Education (Special Educational Needs) (Approval of Independent Schools) Regulations must also allow access to a placing authority at all reasonable times. At the moment LEAs have no automatic right of access to grant-maintained schools or to schools maintained by other LEAs to monitor the special educational provision made for the child by virtue of a statement made by the LEA and for which the LEA is paying.
This amendment is about the LEA's accountability for its resources. It must be assured over the quality and the value for money of the provisions specified within the child's statement which it is responsible for arranging and funding. It therefore gives the LEA that restricted right of access to grant-maintained schools and schools maintained by other LEAs.
Turning to our second amendment, Amendment No. 219G, Clause 164(6) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the conduct of reviews of statements. The monitoring of the statement and the efficacy of the provisions specified are an important part of the process. We anticipate that the new regulations governing the format of statements will endorse the need for the statement to specify, first, the broad objectives against which to measure the pupil's progress and, secondly, the arrangements for setting more detailed targets and monitoring provision.
We intend that progress should be monitored at least annually through the statement review. The review would serve both to monitor the child's progress over the year against the agreed targets and to set new targets for the next year. Although the LEA will have responsibility for conducting the review within its overall responsibility for the statement, the review itself will need to be school-based if it is sensibly to monitor progress and set realistic targets. Effective monitoring of the child's progress against objectives can only be made with the school's co-operation. Detailed, realistic targets can only be set with the agreement of the school.
We have been advised that the regulation-making power in Clause 164(6) does not allow the regulations to be extended to cover the school's role in the review of statements. This amendment would extend the vires of the regulations made under Clause 164(6) to cover the role of the school in the review process. Therefore, I ask the House to accept this and the previous amendment.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, will agree that our two amendments, Nos. 219F and 219G, go to the heart of the issues relevant to this debate about the accountability of all schools to make proper provision for their pupils with statements of SEN. I hope that they will address the concerns which lie behind the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 219H. I shall say nothing more about her amendment for the moment. I do not know whether the noble Baroness wishes to speak to it or to move it, but if she does feel it necessary to move it, I shall respond at the end of this short debate. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, all I was going to say is that Amendment No. 219H is mentioned in an amendment which your Lordships have already accepted—
Lord Henley: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? The Question has not yet been put.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, Amendment No. 219H is mentioned in an amendment which has already been accepted by your Lordships, Amendment No. 213A. This is the only reason why I now wish to move Amendment No. 219H. Almost all its main points have been incorporated or are covered in Amendments Nos. 219Fand 2I9G. Therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 219H on the assumption that it will somehow be amalgamated with the two government amendments that precede it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure whether our procedures quite allow us to do that. I think that I understand what the noble Baroness is getting at. Perhaps, with the leave of the House and bearing in mind that we are on Report, she could elucidate. Am I right in thinking that the noble Baroness feels that that our two amendments, Amendments Nos. 219F and 219G, do not go quite far enough and that therefore Amendment No. 219H should somehow be merged into them? At the moment, I do not think that I can accept that. I should have to say, "May I take that away and have a look at it?" Our feeling was that Amendments Nos. 219F and 219G met her particular concerns, but, if she feels that Amendment No. 219H takes us further, it is probably something that is best left for consideration between now and a later stage. If if is necessary to meet her concerns, perhaps we could properly discuss this by means of correspondence, then either we or the noble Baroness could come forward with an amendment at Third Reading. I shall give way now in case the noble Baroness wishes to intervene again, and shall then formally put the amendment to the House.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I think that that is exactly the position that I would take about the

1413
amendment. As I have said, I am moving it only because Amendment No. 213A refers to it, so, in a way, it is a technical amendment. I beg to move, but in the full expectation that thereafter it will be tinkered about with. I beg to move—
Lord Henley: My Lords, no. The noble Baroness cannot move it because we are actually discussing my amendment, Amendment No. 219F, which I have moved. The noble Baroness was speaking to that. What I was trying to get over—again, I speak with the leave of the House—is that I cannot accept the noble Baroness's amendment at the moment. What I should like to do is to move my amendments —and I ask the House's agreement to my two amendments. I would then hope that the noble Baroness would refrain from moving hers. We can then continue this discussion by means of correspondence and see whether her amendment takes us further. I am not sure that it actually relates to Amendment No. 213A, as the noble Baroness suggested, but that is probably something that could best be taken forward by means of correspondence between now and Third Reading.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether I may raise a point. He has referred to the financial concerns of the LEA. Something of concern to this side of the House is that it is not just a matter of financial considerations, but of the provision of the special educational support for the child involved. That is what is of primary importance. It is the monitoring of that provision and the ensuring that that provision is actually furnished that is important rather than it being a question of the LEA simply looking after its financial contribution.
My feeling is that it will be necessary to include Amendment No. 219H to ensure that the provision of special educational needs support is not only made, hut continues to be made. No doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, will make that decision in her own cognisance. It may be that we shall have to return to this subject on Third Reading to clarify the situation.
3 a.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that this is the Report stage. I emphasise that LEAs must be sure of the quality and value for money of any provision that they specify. We are bringing in these provisions to make sure that LEAs knew they were getting the service that particular child needed and that they were not just throwing their money down the drain.
[Amendment No. 21911 not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 220:
After Clause 172, insert the following new clause:
("Parenral choice
In any case where the parent of a child has made representation in favour of a non-maintained or independent special school and the tribunal is satisfied that the cost to the local authority of sending the child to that school would not be significantly greater than the cost of sending him to the
1414
school proposed by the local authority there shall be a presumption in favour of the parent's choice provided this would not be against the best interests of the child.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the help that she has given me over Clause 218 (a) and (b). However, I am not absolutely satisfied that this quite meets the extent of the advantage which is given to maintained schools by a parent's preference, which is only enforceable against a maintained school. Therefore, if I may, I should like to have a discussion between now and the next stage, and reserve the right, if necessary, to bring the matter back at Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 220 not moved.].
Schedule 10 [Government and conduct of grant-maintained
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 220A, 221 and 221ZA:
Page 205, line 38, at end insert ("but, in the case of a governing body incorporated in pursuance of proposals made under section 175(3) (a) of this Act, such of the articles as may he prescribed shall have effect as from the incorporation date.").
Page 209, line 11, at end insert:
("( ) Any additional first governor appointed in pursuance of such a provision is to hold office for such term (not being more than five years) as may be specified in the terms of his appointment.").
Page 209, line 24. after ("conducted") insert ("or formerly conducted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are all technical and drafting amendments and I do not think it is necessary to detain the House with their details now, unless any noble Lord wishes to have such details. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the noble Lord did not mention Amendment No. 221ZB. Just on a point of clarification, that is also part of the group.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is entirely my fault. I apologise for not mentioning Amendment No. 221ZB and I thank the noble Lord for bringing that to my attention. I beg to include this amendment with the others.
Page 209, line 27, after ("VI") insert ("VII").
[Amendment No. 221A not moved.]
Clause 175 [Establishment, etc. of maintained or grant-maintained special schools]:
[Amendments Nos. 221B and 221C not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 222 to 226B:
Page 107, line 24, leave out ("intend").
Page 107, line 25, at beginning insert ("intend").
Page 107, line 27, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert:
("( ) are of the opinion that any prescribed alteration should be made to a grant-maintained special school, or
( ) are of the opinion that such a school should be discontinued").
Page 107, line 30, at beginning insert:
("and an order under section 10(1) of this Act applies to the area concerned").
Page 108, line 1, leave out ("under") and insert ("referred to in").
Page 108, line 6, after ("notice") insert ("or, in the case of proposals under subsection (3) (b) or (c) above, the governing body of the school").
Page 108, line 8, leave out ("in accordance with Schedule 10 to this Act").
Page 108, line 13, after ("IV") insert ("or V").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments together. These were spoken to with Amendment No. 220A.
[Amendment No. 226C not moved.]
Clause 176 [Procedure for dealing with proposals]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 227 and 228:
Page 108, line 37, after first ("them") insert ("and, in the case of proposals under section 175(3) (b) or (c) of this Act, the governing body").
Page 108, line 39, leave out from ("may") to end of line 41 and insert ("modify any proposals required under section 175 of this Act to be implemented—
( ) in the case of proposals under section 175(3) (b) or (c) of this Act—
( ) at the request of the governing body, or
( ) at the request of the funding authority and after consulting the governing body, or
( ) in any other case, at the request of the body which served notice of the proposals").
Clause 178 [Maintained special school becoming grant-maintained special school]:
[Amendments Nos. 228A and 228B not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 228C:
Page 110, line 10, leave out ("or III") and insert ("III or V").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment was debated with Amendment No. 220A. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 229:
After Clause 178, insert the following new clause:—
—Groups including grant-maintained special schools
(".—(1) Regulations may modify the provisions of Chapter IX of Part II of this Act for the purpose of securing that

(a) two or more grant-maintained special schools, or one or more grant-maintained special schools together with one or more grant-maintained schools, may be conducted as a group by a single governing body,

1416

(b) a special school maintained by a local education authority may cease to be so maintained and may be conducted by a governing body incorporated under that Chapter, and

(c) a grant-maintained special school may become a member of a group of schools conducted by such a governing body,

and that, where a group of schools including one or more special schools is conducted by such a governing body, the governing body is appropriately constituted.
(2) Regulations made for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) above may modify sections 175 to 177 and 179 of this Act and Schedule 10 to this Act.
(3) Where that Chapter applies to special schools by virtue of regulationss2014;

(a) section 20(1) of this Act shall not be read as applying to such schools,

(b) a special school conducted by a governing body incorporated under that Chapter shall be known as a grant-maintained special school, and

(c) references in Chapter I of Part V of this Act to a group of grant-maintained schools include a group of one or more grant-maintained special schools together with one or more grant-maintained schools.").

[Amendments Nos. 230 and 231 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 232 and 232A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 185 [Specification of schools in notices under section 184(2)]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 233:
Page 115, line 15, after ("body") insert ("and head teacher of the school").
Clause 187 [Choice of school: child with statement of special educational needs]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 234:
Page 116, line 30, after ("name") insert ("of the school").
Clause 190 [Offence: failure to secure regular attendance at school of registered pupil]:
[Amendment No. 235 not moved.]
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
House adjourned at eight minutes past three o'clock.

  UNHCR: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM UN MEMBERS
  UNHCR: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM UN MEMBERS
  SCOTTISH ARTS COUNCIL: GRANTS
  SCOTTISH ARTS COUNCIL: GRANTS
  CHILDREN ON CHILD PROTECTION REGISTERS
  CHILDREN ON CHILD PROTECTION REGISTERS
  HEART SURGERY: FUTURE
  HEART SURGERY: FUTURE
  HAREFIELD HOSPITAL
  HAREFIELD HOSPITAL
  ROAD TRAFFIC: FORECAST OF INCREASED VOLUME
  ROAD TRAFFIC: FORECAST OF INCREASED VOLUME
  TRANSPORT INVESTMENT POLICY
  TRANSPORT INVESTMENT POLICY
  TRANSPORT COUNCIL, 7TH AND 8TH JUNE
  TRANSPORT COUNCIL, 7TH AND 8TH JUNE