Sitting of 21 June 1993

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

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest figure for the number of long-term unemployed in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): The long-term unemployment figure in the April 1993 quarter was 46,690. This is a big decline of over 40 per cent. since the peak of January 1986. I hope that Opposition Members will welcome that decline.
    Mr. Spellar: Half that total of long-term unemployed is 23,000. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to condemn and repudiate the statement made in this Chamber by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), that half the long-term unemployed had no intention of working again and could be termed layabouts? Will the Secretary of State condemn and repudiate that statement now?
    Mr. Redwood: I want to see as many people as possible back to work as quickly as possible. For that reason, the Welsh Office has strong training programmes and many other routes that are designed to help people back to
    2
    prosperity and employment. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all will be done to ensure that all those who seek jobs are given help to find them.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to see the manpower survey that was published today in the Western Mail? Sadly, it was tucked far behind the gloom that we hear from those who sit on the Opposition Benches. It describes Wales as the region that is most optimistic in terms of new job opportunities.
    Does my right hon. Friend share my view that it is particularly pleasing to see that the areas where there are likely to be the greatest job opportunities are the manufacturing areas? Does that not show that Wales, under this Conservative Government, is leading the way out of recession, not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the whole of Europe?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. Wales is leading the way. I wish Opposition Members would get behind Wales when it is leading the way, instead of Opposition Front-Bench Members laughing, as if to say they do not believe it. The trouble is that Labour is whingeing for Wales, while the Government are busily winning for Wales. That is what we intend to go on doing. Opposition Members might like to read a few more of the headlines in the Western Mail.
    "Jobs—Welsh area most optimistic."
    "CBI praise for Welsh lead."
    "Wales at the top."
    Quite right, Madam Speaker, and more of it.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the implications of his remarks in Llangollen—that the development of new jobs in Wales has been prejudiced by hostility towards incomers and by an all-protective attitude towards the environment—has caused considerable dismay in Wales? Is the Secretary of State also aware that, over the years, industry in Wales has grown, with people coming to Wales from all parts of the world?
    Is the Secretary of State further aware that a new company in Llanberis in my constituency that went there last year is exporting 96 per cent. of its products, and that one of its employees, who went to that company from

    3
    Oxford, has said that there is less racism in Gwynedd than was evident in Oxford? Will the Secretary of State reconsider his remarks and not base his policies on the prejudices of the Tory party conference?
    Mr. Redwood: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the speech, which made it very clear that it is the job of Government to balance the different pressures. The speech said that there are important things in the Welsh landscape, Language and history that need to be protected. It also said that there needs to be more investment, more jobs and more activity. The speech did not say that I thought that attitudes in the past had been too restrictive. It said that, in my job, I have an important role to play in achieving the right balance between protection and conservation on the one hand and new jobs and a new spirit on the other.
    Mr. Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, on these occasions in the past, his predecessor had some good news to impart to the House and to the people of Wales? Does he intend to continue in that vein? Does he have some good news for us today—perhaps something to do with inward investment?
    Mr. Redwood: These unscripted questions are always dangerous, but it so happens that I do have something that my hon. Friend might welcome. I hope that the Opposition will welcome it, too. Aiwa Japan is going to announce today a £27 million expansion of the Penyfan industrial estate at Crumlin in Gwent.
    Where are the cries of support now from Opposition Members? That represents 480 possible new jobs by 1996. The Welsh Development Agency will be helping by providing a custom-built factory extension. Let us have some support for that, for it means more manufacturing jobs in Wales and better hi-fis and compact disc systems for customers.
    Mr. Rowlands: But does the right hon. Gentleman realise that last Friday's premature closure of Taff Merthyr colliery wiped out fourfold all the new jobs that we have managed to create in our community in the past 12 or 18 months? In addition, 20 per cent. of men are out of work and 20 per cent. of men are economically inactive in our society. What new initiatives will he take to create new jobs for men in communities like mine, instead of penalising poor people and invalids?
    Mr. Redwood: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take a more positive attitude. All our policies are geared to encouraging prosperity and more jobs. I have already instanced some manufacturing jobs that are going to a hard-pressed area of Wales as a result of another initiative. We need more, and I promise to do more because it is extremely sad to see the loss of jobs with more pits closing and I hope that some people can look to see whether there is any way of rescuing some of the pits that have been scheduled for closure.

    Regional Development Policy
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of Welsh local authorities to discuss regional development policy.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend has met a number of local authorities since taking office and looks forward to continuing the close dialogue that was maintained by his predecessor.
    Mr. Llwyd: I commend to the Minister the report of the Institute of Welsh Affairs, "Wales 2010", and remind him that one of the key reasons why inward investment has been attracted to Wales is assisted area status. I urge the Secretary of State and his colleagues to acknowledge that we need to preserve those areas in Wales. I also urge him to prioritise the Aberconwy case for objective 5b status, not least because it qualified last time. It has a stronger case now and it will experience a knock-on effect from the fact that neighbouring Merseyside has had objective 1 status.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Of course, assisted area status can be very important in attracting inward investment, but its importance should not be exaggerated. Although assisted area status may assist companies in establishing themselves initially, they must be successful to perpetuate themselves and to expand, in the way that Aiwa is doing, as my right hon. Friend has just announced.
    The hon. Gentleman will know that we went out to consultation on the assisted area map, and on 15 June it was submitted to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, whom I am sure we all wish a quick recovery. Once it has returned from the Commission, we hope to announce our proposals before the summer recess. The status of Aberconwy will be considered.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Diolch Yn Fawr, Minister. Is my hon. Friend aware that members of the Conservative group in the European Parliament are pressing very hard to enable tourist areas to receive assistance, even though they are not in objectives 1, 2 or 5b? If they succeed, the coastal areas of Wales, despite not being assisted, may be able, like Morecambe and Blackpool, to avail themselves of this facility.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, tourism is very important to us in Wales and we can assist it through section 4 grant. Obviously, European assistance would be very welcome.
    Mr. Ron Davies: There appears to be some confusion between the view now being expressed by the Minister of State and that expressed previously by the Secretary of State. Does the Minister of State endorse the views expressed by his Secretary of State in the Llangollen speech, which I have read and which I found profoundly depressing? It seems that the view of the Secretary of State is that all we have to be prepared to do is to sacrifice our environment and leave it, in his words,
    "to settlers with strange accents"
    to take the necessary steps to regenerate our economy.
    Since there is now widespread dissatisfaction with the lack of coherence in the Government's policy, will the Minister of State join me in pressing the Secretary of State to convene an early and urgent meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee so that we can discuss the economy of Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had been at the Welsh Conservative party conference in Llangollen to hear the speech; It is clear that he has not read it in any detail. My right hon. Friend rightly said

    5
    —and, if he will forgive me for saying so, there was nothing new in it—that conflict can of course arise between economic development and environmental considerations, and a balance must be struck between

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many (a) men and (b) women were in (i) part-time and (ii) full-time employment in 1979 and at the latest date for which figures are available.
    Mr. Redwood: In September 1981, there were 521,000 full-time and 26,000 part-time male employees and 231,000 full-time and 158,000 part-time female employees. Part-time male employment was not separately identified in 1979.
    In March 1993, it is estimated that there were 415,000 full-time and 59,000 part-time male employees, and 237,000 full-time and 224,000 part-time female employees.
    Mr. Hain: Those figures show that there has been a massive haemorrhage of well-paid, skilled full-time jobs into part-time work, as Wales is transformed into a low-skill, low-pay, casualised economy. Is not that another reason why areas of Wales should have their assisted area status protected by the Secretary of State?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the economically inactive totals, because Wales has higher figures for economic inactivity than anywhere else in the United Kingdom? For example, in the south Wales valleys, is it not the case that four out of 10 adult men are out of work if one takes into account not only those on the official register but the economically inactive totals?
    Mr. Redwood: Of course we want more male employment, and that is one of the targets I have identified for the Welsh Office under my leadership, as it had been identified under that of my predecessor.
    Why does the hon. Gentleman not tell the House that, in his constituency of Neath, unemployment in 1986 stood at 19·1 per cent., whereas it is now 9·9 per cent.—it has almost halved. Surely that is something of which we should be proud. Does he not recognise that many of the jobs that have been created are skilled jobs in manufacturing in which people are making things and adding value to the process? Why does he not welcome the Lucas investment, which has created more than 150 jobs since November 1992 to make parts for the Rover 200 and 400? I hope that he is proud of those vehicles and wants more sold throughout Britain.
    Mr. Sweeney: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his first appearance at Welsh questions in his new post, and wish him every success in promoting the interests of Wales? Instead of Opposition Members selecting figures, as the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) has done, is it not time that we heard figures which will sell Wales positively, such as those which my right hon. Friend has given? Is not that the way to promote Wales and further Welsh interests?
    Mr. Redwood: I agree with my hon. Friend. We must be positive; much is going right in Wales. Policies are in place which will improve matters further, and I look forward to support from all sides and from all the people of good will in order to attract the investment and create the jobs.
    Mr. Ron Davies: I am sorry that I could not make the conference in Llangollen, but I did not receive an invitation—perhaps next time.
    The Secretary of State cannot have much confidence in his policies, as he is running away from defending them in the Welsh Grant Committee. Will he at least guarantee that he will fight in the Cabinet to retain development area status for the areas in south Wales and Deeside which are currently threatened? Will he also guarantee that, when a decision is taken, he will come to the House to defend it before Welsh Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Redwood: Of course I give a guarantee that I shall speak up for Welsh interests in the Cabinet. That is my job, and I would do no less. There will be proper opportunities to debate the proposals in Parliament after they have been viewed by the European Community and when we have the Commission's decision. They are a legitimate matter for debate, and, one way or another, I am sure that they will be debated. I am happy to discuss with the hon. Gentleman through the usual channels the future business and sittings of the Welsh Grand Committee.

    Agri-environmental Policy
    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning agri-environmental policy in Wales.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: We have received 54 responses to the consultation papers entitled "Agriculture and Wales's Environment".
    Mr. Dafis: I am sure that the Minister recognises that an agri-environmental programme supports agriculture at reduced costs, provides more jobs and strengthens the rural economy. But if that is to be brought about, we need to move away from the kind of non-zonal approach advocated by the Welsh Office to the type of integration of the programmes that we have under the ESA and the Tir Cymen approach. That must be on an all-Wales basis, rather than available to some parts of Wales only.
    Does the Minister agree that we do not want the privatisation of Forest Enterprise, which would threaten the valuable environmental work that is being done and public access to the countryside of Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman understands our policy on agri-environmental developments. We intend to work through the environmentally sensitive areas, and the hon. Gentleman may know that Ynys Môn and Radnor have been declared ESAs. New ESAs, at preseli and the Clywdian range, will be designated in August, and other measures will be announced before the end of the year. We are already working along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the level of male unemployment in Newport, Gwent and Wales at the latest available date.
    Mr. Redwood: The unadjusted numbers of male unemployed claimants for the borough of Newport, Gwent and Wales for May are 6,084, 16,978 and 102,056 respectively.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that many people in Newport seek employment outside the borough? Many of them were employed at the Parke-Davis pharmaceutical concern at Mamhilad, Pontypool, but recently the concern has suffered massive redundancies. Those were due, apparently, to the Government's policy of promoting generic drugs which has benefited Germany and France. Can the right hon. Gentleman look into that matter, because we cannot afford to lose such a valuable employer in Gwent?
    Mr. Redwood: Of course I will look into the matter, and I am sorry about the job losses that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. But is he aware that 18,000 people came off the unemployment register in May? A total of 14,000 joined the register, leaving a net gain of 4,000 job losses. I would have thought that Opposition Members would welcome that. Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that there are 9,000 vacancies available? I hope that some of those can be taken up by his constituents.
    Will Opposition Members welcome the major new jobs announced by a number of companies recently, including 320 jobs at Boots Properties at Caerphilly, 38 at Wrexham Wire, 70 at Grayman Tooling, 150 at Delta Dairy Food in Wrexham and 60 at the Friendly hotel in Cardiff. I could go on, Madam Speaker, but I know that you would get impatient if I did.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of unemployment in Wales has benefited from inward investment? Does he think that inward investment would be encouraged by the adoption of the social chapter or by a national minimum wage?
    Mr. Redwood: No, I do not, and that is one of the reasons why this country and Wales are going ahead while other members of the European Community are not. People thinking of investing in the European Community know that here in Britain—here in Wales—they will find both opportunities and protection from the more absurd elements of the EC's job destruction programme, which socialists in the Community seem to favour. I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to one of the reasons why Welsh unemployment is now below the national average and why we can be proud of the Welsh efforts to attract inward investment.
    Mr. Barry Jones: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that the remarks of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) about the long-term unemployed have been received with anger and scorn in my constituency, where there are some 820 people so described, all of whom would like a job? So that more of my constituents may be employed, may I urge the right hon. Gentleman to begin the urgent building of the new River Dee crossing? If he did that, he would end the traffic agony and blight that have existed for a generation. Does he accept that that traffic problem is unrivalled elsewhere in Wales and that, if he tackled it urgently by building the new River Dee crossing, he would also make inroads into the widespread unemployment in north-east Wales?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman offers me good advice. It is a county project; the Government are happy to support it for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has identified.
    Mr. Murphy: When the Secretary of State refers to 150 jobs having been gained in Lucas in south Wales, does he not realise that 150 jobs were lost in the same company in my constituentcy last year? When he talks about 500 new jobs coming to Aiwa in Gwent, does he not realise that 500 jobs have been lost in Parke-Davis, also in my constituency? Does he not accept that the loss of those jobs was due largely to the Government's policy on limited prescription drugs? The right hon. Gentleman is the Health Secretary as well as the Economy Minister for Wales. What does he intend to do to safeguard the remaining jobs in the pharmaceutical industry in the Principality?
    Mr. Redwood: I know that I can always rely on the Opposition to give us the bad news. It is my job to give the good news and the positive face of Wales, and to point out to the House that unemployment has been falling for several months, which we welcome, and that many investors are coming in and creating jobs, which the Opposition should welcome, as we do. I have already answered the other part of the question. I told the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) that I would look into the question of the pharmaceutical company.

    Canada (Trade)
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to improve bilateral trade between businesses based in Wales and those in Canada.
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will lead a trade mission to north America from 14 to 28 September, when he will visit Vancouver and Toronto in Canada.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a bilateral trade agreement exists between the United Kingdom and Ontario? Is that not especially appropriate, given the many Canadian companies that invest in Wales? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that investment is not only because of our non-signing of the social chapter, and not only because of our low inflation, our low interest rates and our low taxes, but because of excellent industrial relations in Wales and because of the very special skills in Wales in audio-electronics?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has been a more eloquent advocate of Wales than Opposition Members have been today. That is a great pity; we should like to hear more from them in defence of Wales as a place for investment. My hon. Friend is right. There is a trade agreement, and we think that it is important to develop ever better relationships with Canada, not least because there are 2,500 employees in 12 companies from Ontario that already operate in Wales.

    Regional Development
    Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet Commissioner Millan in the near future to discuss regional development assistance for Wales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): The former Secretary of State met Mr. Millan in Brussels on 15 March and invited him to

    9
    south Wales. My right hon. Friend intends to pursue that application and to meet other Commissioners when he visits Brussels later this year.
    Mr. Davies: Since the ultimate power and authority in granting regional development aid now reside with the Commission and not with the United Kingdom Cabinet, is it not remiss of the Secretary of State still not to have been to Brussels to see his paymaster, Mr. Bruce Millan?
    Will the Under-Secretary tell the Secretary of State that when he goes to Brussels and meets Mr. Millan, he should leave the propaganda behind in the Welsh Office and tell him that Wales is the poorest area in Britain, with the lowest income per head, and that it is the lowest economically active area—indeed, lower than many areas in Europe with objective 1 status? If he tells Mr. Millan the truth, perhaps the European Commission will not agree with the British Government, and will not devalue the assisted area status of Wales.
    Mr. Jones: I will certainly leave the right hon. Gentleman behind to keep on peddling all his negative propaganda about the Principality. I have already told him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will see Mr. Millan shortly, and the right hon. Gentleman can be assured that my right hon. Friend will fully and properly represent the interests of Wales.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Minister realise that the Secretary of State will not be readily forgiven in Wales because of the nonsensical, bombastic claims, that Wales is leading Britain out of the recession? As a result of those claims, we lose all our regional aid. Is he aware that we have already lost regional development grants, that the special development areas have been abolished, and that those areas that still receive regional aid receive a much reduced sum? The Secretary of State is leading us into further trouble, not salvation.
    Mr. Jones: That is not my claim or the claim of my right hon. Friend. It is the claim made by the CBI and the National Westminster bank. A variety of independent and expert commentators are pointing out that Wales is leading Britain and Europe out of recession. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) would do far better for Wales if he welcomed that.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: When does my hon. Friend the Minister expect to hear from the European Commission the results of our application for assisted area status? Can he confirm that that scheme is beset by many rules and that the more successful regions, which have succeeded under regional development in the past, are quite likely to lose their assisted area status, not because of anything that Her Majesty's Government have done, but simply because they have succeeded in improving those areas and their relative position within the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Jones:: It would he premature to speculate on the outcome or to indicate the likely date. However, I can reassure my hon. Friend and the House that my right hon. Friend has built on the work of his predecessor as Secretary of State in fighting hard for the interests of Wales in this matter.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the Minister comment on reports that circulated at the weekend that the map that was submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on behalf of the United Kingdom on assisted area status
    10
    has been sent back to the United Kingdom because the Commission in Brussels would not accept the redrawing of that map in favour of the south-east of England? When the map is sent back, will he ensure that Wales is not sold down the river this time?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman must content himself and be patient a little longer. He can be assured that my right hon. Friend has lost no opportunities to fight Wales's corner in this matter.
    Mr. Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Secretary of State for Wales that he is not doing Wales any good by simply trumpeting regional development successes without balancing that with the news about pit closures and factory rundowns which would produce the true, balanced picture? Will he tell him that he must not confuse his hwyl with his hype and that he does Wales no good, and will send all the wrong signals to the European Community's regional development people, if he tells them that everything is going well in Wales? There is still a long way to go and he must not expect the Commission to come in and keep regional development status in certain areas if this Government abandon areas like south-east and north-east Wales.
    Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already anticipated that question by pointing out that we hear all the bad news from the Opposition benches and that my right hon. Friend brings the good news. Quite frankly, if overseas investors listened only to the news from the Opposition Benches, they would never consider investing in Wales.

    Environment
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his environmental priorities for the remainder of 1993.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The environmental priorities for the Welsh Office are set out in chapter 7 of its departmental report, published in February 1993. Action is being taken on many fronts with particular emphasis on the removal of dereliction, on urban improvement and on a range of environmental protection measures—all designed to protect and enhance the environment of Wales.
    Mr. Hughes: Given the at least worryingly ambiguous words of the Secretary of State in his Llangollen speech, will the Minister assure us that his Department's priorities in the remaining six months will be to ensure that no road schemes are approved which do not have acceptable status in the communities through which they pass and that no mineral extraction schemes are approved around the coast which are unacceptable to the communities living on the land adjoining those proposed developments? Above all, given the recent flooding once again in north Wales, will he assure us that protection against flood damage, particularly on the coast and also in the valleys, is given a high priority in both north and south Wales in the remaining six months of this year?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his point very clearly. It is quite possible that economic development can lead to pressures on the environment, but we are accustomed to dealing with that in Wales. It is a matter of achieving a proper balance.

    11
    As for the various developments to which the hon. Gentleman referred, of course they are always considered from an environmental viewpoint as well as from the point of view of their economic benefit. If necessary, inquiries are held, assessments are made and regulations are called into play. As for coast protection, the hon. Gentleman will know that it always has priority in our allocation of funds.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we continually reassess our priorities in relation to environmental policy? Will my right hon. Friend consider reassessing his priorities and, if necessary, find extra resources for the railway lines which were recently affected by flooding in north Wales, so that the burden of such work as is necessary does not entirely fall on regional railways? Just how much is the Welsh Office spending this year on its environmental policy?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: To begin with the last part of my hon. Friend's question, our current action on the environment is backed by resources of £198 million this year in our environmental services programmes. That comprises £66 million spent by the Welsh Development Agency on land reclamation and urban renewal, £34 million spent under the urban programme and urban investment grant, and £122 million spent by Housing for Wales. I should add that our agri-environmental programmes will consume twice as much in terms of resources, at £12·6 million in 1995–96, than they consume in the current year.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: With respect to environmental considerations and road building, did the Minister see reports over the weekend that people in the town of Builth Wells do not want the bypass to desecrate the countryside around them? Will the right hon. Gentleman transfer the money set aside for that project to the cross-valley link in Bridgend? That would enable a new, badly needed road to be built, and it would give the county and the borough councils the opportunity to consider the challenge of redeveloping an area of dereliction around the town centre in Bridgend.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: There is hardly a road scheme in Wales that does not attract some environmental criticism, but I doubt whether the majority of people of Builth Wells would support the view that was reported over the weekend that no bypass is needed. The Welsh Office would not be proposing a bypass were it not to be needed in future. I regret to say to the hon. Gentleman that it is most unlikely that we shall transfer the money destined for the Builth Wells bypass to his part of the world, although, of course, we always give considerable attention and priority to developments that will lead to the economic revival of the valleys.

    Local Government (White Paper)
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his proposed timetable for legislation to implement the White Paper on local government in Wales.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend intends to introduce legislation allowing elections to the new authorities to he held in 1994 and for them to assume responsibility for their services in April 1995.
    Mr. Hanson: Does the Secretary of State accept that in my constituency and in those of many other hon. Members
    12
    there remains concern about boundaries in particular? Equally, grave concern is growing daily throughout Wales about the general thrust of the White Paper on the proposed legislation, in terms of privatisation, reduced democracy and the lack of a Welsh assembly. Would it not be better if the Secretary of State and the Minister withdrew the proposals and included a further period of consultation, when he can get it right and achieve consensus rather than what he has at the moment, which is opposition?
    Mr. Jones: There the hon. Gentleman points to it. He would take powers away from local government and give them to a remote quango of a regional assembly for Wales. We want to make local government more direct to the people of Wales. That is why our unitary authorities have been widely welcomed.
    There are opportunities for consultation. We have asked for all consultations to be in by 30 June] know that the hon. Gentleman has already seen my right hon. Friend. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his representations and all of the others will be taken into account before we introduce legislation in the next Session.

    Morriston Hospital, Swansea (Cardiac Unit)
    Mr. Donald Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to announce his decision on a possible cardiac unit at Morriston hospital, Swansea.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Following an extensive option appraisal, I am pleased to announce that a second cardiac centre is to be developed at Morriston hospital in Swansea. I have also endorsed the consultants' recommendations that the existing planning objective of 1,200 adult open-heart operations per annum should be increased to 1,400 in the light of the latest estimates of need and the prevalence of the disease in south Wales. I am, therefore, inviting proposals to develop the centre.
    Mr. Anderson: I assure the Minister that this long-awaited decision will be eagerly greeted at Morriston and the staff there will be ready to co-operate with the Welsh Office in its implementation. Is the Minister able to give an assurance to the House that the full revenue and capital costs of the decision are secure?
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome and assurance on behalf of the staff. I already know that they are looking forward to taking the decision forward. We have considered the proposal most carefully, not least the financial implications involved. I am anxious that the centre should come on stream as quickly as possible and I am urging the West Glamorgan health authority, the management of Morriston hospital and the Welsh Health Common Services Authority to initiate the proposals without delay.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: I very much welcome what the Minister has said, but I wish to check three things with him. First, can he confirm that the same situation will not be repeated at Morriston as happened at University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff, when evidence given to the Select Committee at the time he was a member showed that patients were dying on the wards because there were no dedicated intensive care beds? Will he ensure that those beds are in place? Secondly—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Time is short—quickly.
    Mr. Wardell: Will the Minister confirm that the management and funding of the second cardiac unit will be fully under the NHS?
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: We have already made arrangements to expand the activities of the University Hospital of Wales to 800 from April this year. I am fully satisfied that all that is necessary to do that has been put in place. In turn, we shall be working out the arrangements. I have invited the proposal to be submitted as quickly as possible. This will be a tremendous advance for the national health service in Wales. It will be a new facility for the NHS treating NHS patients in Wales and I am especially grateful that the hon. Gentleman welcomes it.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Richards: To ask the Attorney-General if he will set out the aims of the Crown Prosecution Service.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The aim of the Crown Prosecution Service is to undertake a fair and independent review of the evidence in criminal cases and, if proceedings are justified, to prosecute them effectively and efficiently.
    Mr. Richards: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is absolutely outrageous that Mr. Tony Evans, an elderly householder who had his home broken into on more than eight occasions and eventually resorted to defending himself and his property with a shotgun, was arrested and faces the possibility of being prosecuted for attempted murder?
    The Attorney-General: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that that is not the case. Any shooting incident must be carefully investigated. It is not for people to take the law into their own hands. The case of Mr. Evans showed the system working exactly as it should. There was a prompt review of the evidence by the Crown Prosecution Service, acting in close consultation with the police, which showed that Mr. Evans had acted only in self defence. The Crown Prosecution Service advised properly and correctly that no charge was appropriate.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it one of the aims of the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that, when people such as Asil Nadir, who have connections with the Tory party and who are likely to spill the beans if taken to court, somehow or other manage to get away from Britain to northern Cyprus—almost certainly with help from people in the Establishment—they receive a visit from the Lord Chancellor, who went straight off the Woolsack to see a man who had fled bail? Was the President of the Board of Trade in Venice to meet the ex-treasurer of the Tory party McAlpine?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is wandering even more curiously than usual into the realms of fantasy. The notion that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor went to visit Asil Nadir is ridiculous. As I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, if he has the slightest evidence of criminality in relation to this matter against any person, he should tell the police.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend review the amount of time that the police have to spend on paperwork for the Crown Prosecution Service, especially in the case of guilty pleas, so that the police can spend their time out on the beat instead of stuck behind their desks?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will answer a question about that matter a little later. But I can tell my hon. Friend that the amount of paperwork was agreed between the police and the CPS when pre-trial issues were considered recently.
    Mr. Fraser: As head of the Crown Prosecution Service, can the Attorney-General confirm that he has received up to about nine representations about Mr. Asil Nadir from Members of Parliament and from Ministers? Does not that demonstrate that there is one course of advocacy for those who are rich and donate to the Tory party and another course of conduct for others? I should like the Attorney-General to answer two questions. First, how many of the representations that he received contained declarations of interest in accordance with the practices of the House? Secondly, what advice does he have for Members of Parliament so that when representations are made on such matters they should be entirely above reproach?
    The Attorney-General: I receive a large number of representations, sometimes made public and sometimes made in private, from right hon. and hon. Members or members of the public about many prosecutions from time to time. I have no reason to believe that any representations made to me about the case of Mr. Nadir were improperly made. I shall repeat for the hon. Gentleman what I have said many times. If any representation is made to me it will be carefully and dispassionately examined in the appropriate quarters. It is not my policy to publish, where the individual has chosen not to publish, the nature of the representations made.

    Prosecutions
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Attorney-General to what extent the Crown Prosecution Service takes into account the interests of the victim when deciding to institute proceedings.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): When the Crown Prosecution Service is deciding whether to continue proceedings, the interests of the victim are an important factor in determining the balance of the public interest.
    Mr. Booth: In view of the complaints that have been aired in the press this morning about the Government's help for victims, will my hon. and learned Friend tell the House what help has been given to victims and especially to victim support schemes in the past five to 10 years? Is my hon. and learned Friend open to new policy suggestions that will also help victims?
    The Solicitor-General: The Government are strongly committed to helping victims of crime. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government published their victims charter in 1990. Although it is a matter for the Home Office, I can tell my hon. Friend that funding for victim support has increased by 46 per cent. in the past two years, from £5·7 million to £8·4 million this year.

    15
    On my hon. Friend's more specific point about initiatives that the Crown Prosecution Service has under way, it is at present formulating a national operational service standard for victims and witnesses on which the views of victim support are being sought. In the near future the results of those consultations will be made public.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that the increase in the amount of money offered to victim support schemes is nothing like the increase in the number of crimes with which they have to deal? His Department could not only make life a great deal simpler by giving schemes sufficient money to fulfil the task that they have been given, but could examine the habit of not informing victims of any particular action taken and the timing of any action. That lack of information contributes to the feeling of great unease and, indeed, of neglect.
    The Solicitor-General: I understand what the hon. Lady says. We sympathise with those victims who feel that they are not kept abreast of developments in their cases. It is, principally, a matter for the police to inform victims of the progress of their cases. It is not every victim who requires financial support, but the hon. Lady will be aware of the change that we made to the law in 1988, as a result of which, in appropriate cases, the CPS makes application to the court for compensation to be paid by defendants to victims. That is a welcome reform.
    Mr. Brazier: Will my hon. and learned Friend accept from me that one way in which to release extra funds to victims would he by saving money on the scope and size of the CPS, which is involved in almost all criminal cases that the police handle? Since the CPS came into being, it has increased costs and delays and reduced the proportion of cases coming to court. The conviction rate of contested cases in Crown courts has also reduced.
    The Solicitor-General: I always listen with interest to contributions from my hon. Friend on the subject of law and order, but I disagree with every statement of fact that he has just made. It is significant that one of the main ways in which the CPS is able to help victims results from a new form that it has introduced, which contains details of a victim's loss. That can be given to counsel in court to ensure that an application is made to the court for compensation. That surely is progress.

    Serious Fraud
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Attorney-General how many cases are currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.
    The Attorney-General: The Serious Fraud Office has 57 active cases, of which 27 are at the investigation stage.
    Mr. Hutton: Given the great interest in one of those cases—that against Mr. Asil Nadir—will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his decision not to reveal the identity of hon. Members who have made representations to him about that case? Does he further agree that the transparently politically motivated lobbying on behalf of Mr. Nadir has compromised the integrity and independence of the Serious Fraud Office?
    The Attorney-General: No, I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman either in his premise or on the alleged facts which formed the latter part of his question.
    In my view, it is an important part of our criminal justice system that it should be possible for people, whether in the House or elsewhere, to make representations to the Law Officers, in private if they think it appropriate, so that matters can be carefully and dispassionately examined. I have no reason to believe that any impropriety has been committed in relation to the case of Mr. Nadir; nor can I think of any impropriety in relation to other cases. They are all carefully and properly reviewed.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Aid Co-ordination
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have been held in the Development Council of the European Community on co-ordination procedures with other multilateral and bilateral donors.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): The European Community Development Council on 25 May 1993 discussed the co-ordination of development policies between the Community and its member states.
    Mr. Enright: The Minister will be aware that, despite pious promises, there continue to be discrepancies, even in Lome countries, where there is a real opportunity for complementarity. Will he therefore examine urgently how the council, alongside the United Nations Development Programme, can achieve more successful co-ordination? In particular, will he consider the poorest countries which simply do not have the administration to cope with the vagaries of different administrations? I would also include in that non-governmental organisations.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is early days. The new system must develop properly, but the hon. Gentleman, whose considerable expertise in this matter I recognise, should accept that there has been some progress. A resolution on family planning was passed at the meeting of the Development Council in November under our presidency. That has been taken forward in terms of co-ordination through regular expert meetings and meetings at the margins of other international conferences. Co-ordination has begun to develop.
    Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the United Kingdom overseas aid budget is administered through multilateral channels.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Around 45 per cent. of total overseas aid is administered through multilateral channels, including the EC, the World bank, and UN agencies. This proportion is growing.
    Mr. Merchant: In view of the increasing proportion of British aid channelled through multilateral sources, is it not increasingly important for Britain to work closely with those agencies to ensure that our aid is given through the most effective means possible?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, my hon: Friend must be right. I have just answered a question on co-ordination in the European Community of that element of our multilateral aid programme, so it must apply to the other elements of that programme. We maintain close liaison with the international financial institutions and with the World bank, particularly with regard to its special programme of assistance for sub-Saharan Africa. That has been an invaluable mechanism for the support of economic reform programmes.

    World Development Movement
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet representatives of the World Development Movement to discuss overseas aid provision for non-governmental organisations: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has regular meetings with NGOs, including the World Development Movement.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister assure the House that, next time his colleague meets the World Development Movement, she will ensure that the Government's contribution towards the cessation of dumping of toxic waste and other materials in the developing countries and of using dangerous chemicals is maintained and that the Government will not reduce their contribution to protecting and helping the environment in developing countries?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister has regular meetings with a whole range of NGOs, including the one on whose behalf he has asked the question. He will be aware that the ODA has published a manual of environmental appraisal, a copy of which is in the House. It was published in 1989 and has been regularly revised and updated. More than 1,800 copies of it are distributed to a wide range of organisations and to all ODA staff, who have also been given environmental training.
    Mr. Garnier: Could not British business gain a tremendous amount from British donations to multilateral agencies and, further, from donations made by other unilateral donors to the third world?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, both our bilateral and multilateral aid programmes have considerable benefit for British industry. We estimate that the total identifiable spending in Britain from aid has approached about £2 billion a year in recent years and about three quarters of that derives directly from the British aid programme.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what impact he expects the recent Washington agreement to have on humanitarian aid provision to Bosnia.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The parties to the joint action programme in Washington on 22 May 1993 agreed to
    18
    continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Bosnia and to insist that all parties should allow humanitarian aid to pass without hindrance.
    Mr. Watson: As that is clearly not happening, does not the shameful Washington agreement effectively represent a final sell-out of the Bosnian people by the United Nations? It is effectively impotent in the face of the Serbian advances through eastern Bosnia, and once Gorazde falls, as it seems that it soon must, what possibility will there he of delivering humanitarian aid to the Muslims of eastern Bosnia? Is it not time that the Minister put pressure on the Foreign Secretary and that he, in turn, put pressure on the other United Nations Security Council members to ensure that attempts are made to bring about peace by bringing direct pressure to bear on Serbia—and if that involves some form of military action, is that not what is now necessary to ensure that humanitarian aid can effectively be delivered?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: These are aid questions, and we have discussed Bosnia at Foreign and Commonwealth Office Question Time on many occasions. I pay tribute to the dedication and bravery of all the civilian aid workers in Bosnia, many of whom are British, and to our armed forces for their tremendous achievements. I am delighted to see that those considerable efforts were reflected in the recent honours list.
    The hon. Member makes a political point, and it is not for me, in this Question Time, to answer that. He is aware that Bosnia features high on the agenda at the European Council meeting taking place in Copenhagen. Lord Owen met Foreign Ministers yesterday. There will be Foreign Ministers' discussion about the various political matters and the way in which they could he concluded.
    Mr. Meacher: Is not the Minister ashamed that the British Government have signed the Washington agreement, which is a despicable betrayal of the largest population group in Bosnia, the Muslims, who are now being denied both the arms to defend themselves and adequate United Nations protection to guarantee the delivery of humanitarian relief and safe havens?
    Is not the hon. Gentleman also ashamed that nothing is being done to provide for the 2 million refugees who have been driven out of their homes, that atrocities continue at Gorazde and that the delivery of humanitarian relief is dependent on the consent of the Serbs, who are guilty of genocide? If Vance-Owen is now dead, will the Government at least press for the creation of a United Nations transitional authority as the only political framework that may still save the victims of that terrible war from complete annihilation?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman, like the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who leads for the Opposition on foreign affairs, says that something must be done, but does not specify whether he wants British troops to be more at risk than they are. He should recognise that more than 2·3 million people in Bosnia depend on the international relief effort, under the co-ordination of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and that we have made a substantial contribution to that effort.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend accept that no one would challenge the tributes that he has paid to the aid

    19
    workers and the British troops? Indeed, we all echo them. Will he confirm that neither extra aid nor extra protection will be afforded by the Washington agreement?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Those matters are under discussion at this moment in Copenhagen.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that some time ago the House was given solemn assurances by the Department of Trade and Industry about which pits would remain open. This weekend I discovered that Frickley, which is in my constituency, if being referred to as though it is to be thrown on the scrap heap. In view of the disgraceful way in which this matter is now being handled, may I ask whether you have had a request from the DTI for one of its Ministers to come to the House to explain why we have been misled?
Mr. Martin Redmond: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I accept that it is not your job to do ministerial work, but could you advise us on how we can get answers from Ministers? They all have the power and the glory, but apparently no responsibility. How can we get answers to very important questions? Rossington colliery, in my constituency, is now in mothballs and British Coal intends to dismantle the face, making it unsaleable to the private sector. As Ministers are refusing to answer our questions, how would you advise me to go about getting some?
Madam Speaker: On the first point of order, I have not been informed that a DTI Minister wishes to come to the House to make a statement today. On the second, I think that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) is as ingenious as I am in these matters. He will know that DTI Ministers will he replying to questions later this week, so he must try his luck then.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hope that this is a matter for you—
Madam Speaker: So do I.
Mr. Winnick: I have tabled a series of questions to the Attorney-General about people who have made representations to him about the Nadir case. Originally, the reply to my question was that nine—no, seven—Conservative Members made such representations. I then tabled further questions asking for further information, hut not asking for the identity of those concerned. The Attorney-General replied:
"I do not intend to expand on my answer".—[Official Report, 17 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 668.]
You are not responsible for ministerial answers, Madam Speaker, but the Attorney-General's reply means that neither I nor any other hon. Member can table questions seeking further information about the representations made by Conservative Members to the Attorney-General about the Nadir case. Our job as an Opposition is being eroded and undermined because the Table Office will say that, arising from the answer given to me, the blocking mechanism is in place and that neither I nor any other right hon. or hon. Member can table a further question.
The Attorney-General has not only refused to give me any information but has made it virtually impossible to go to the Table Office to put further questions on Asil Nadir. They are hiding something, and it is disgraceful that the Attorney-General should be a party to this.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman prefaced his point of order with the remark that answers to questions are not for me. Ministers are responsible for the comments they make. If the hon. Gentleman is claiming that the Table Office has refused to accept a question, he should not raise that on the Floor of the House—as he knows as a member of the Committee on Procedure. The hon. Gentleman knows the procedures of the House. If there is a refusal, he should come and see me. I should be glad to give him some minutes of my time, to try to be as helpful as I can.
Mr. Winnick rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. Winnick) clearly stated that the Table Office is refusing his questions. If that is the case, he must come to see me.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Today's Order Paper states:
"Questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs relating to Overseas Development will begin not later than 3.20 pm."
Today, they started at 3.22 pm, and the clock had moved to 3.23 pm as the first question was asked. You, Madam Speaker, stopped questions at 3.31 pm. In other words, we lost at least two minutes of Overseas Development Questions. I have a vested interest, in that my question was not answered. I look to you, Madam Speaker, for some redress—either a good selection next time, or at least an opportunity to ask my question on the plight of refugees from western Sahara.
Madam Speaker: I tried to redress the balance of questions, as the hon. Gentleman will realise, although he was not in the Chamber earlier, when hon. Members representing one region of the country asked questions and who are often inclined, if I may say so, to be rather long winded. Therefore, they ran over their time by about 50 seconds, and I had to juggle the other questions to be helpful to the whole House. However, I note the hon. Gentleman's comments.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I shall be very brief, and I am not on the Procedure Committee.
Lady Olga Maitland: But the hon. Gentleman is long winded.
Mr. Skinner: And I am not Welsh.
Personal statements are to some extent a matter for yourself, Madam Speaker. You will agree that they are not always made in the event of a resignation or sacking, or both. Right hon. and hon. Members can make statements on different subjects, with your agreement, Madam Speaker. As we are having trouble getting those nine Tory Members of Parliament to make a statement about their connection with Asil Nadir, will you, Madam Speaker, give each and every one of them, as and when they are available, an opportunity to make a personal statement to the House about their connection?
Madam Speaker: If any applications are made to me, I always consider them very seriously.

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

    PARALYTIC SHELLFISH POISONING
    That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 5) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1515) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
    Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Statement on the Defence Estimates 1992
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [17 June],
  That this House approves the statement on the Defence Estimates 1992 contained in Cm 1981.—[Mr. Rifkind]
  Question again proposed.
  [Relevant documents: Defence Committee report on the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1992, First Report of Session 1992–93, HC 218; Fifth Report from the Defence Committee on Army Commitments and Resources: the Government's Response and Army Manpower Statement of 3rd February 1993, HC 731 of Session 1992–93.]
  Madam Speaker: Before I call the Minister, I must announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Also, although I have not imposed a 10-minute limit on speeches today, I ask right hon. and hon. Members voluntarily to restrict the length of time that they speak.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You stated that you chose the amendment in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and of others of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I tabled an amendment before last Thursday's debate, which unfortunately you were unable to select last Thursday. What consideration have you given to the selection of that amendment, to allow the House the opportunity to express a clear view on the future holding by this country of weapons of mass destruction—nuclear weapons?
  Madam Speaker: I always take seriously into consideration any amendment that is submitted to my office, as I did with the amendment in the name of the hon. Gentleman. As he will appreciate, I find it wise not to give reasons for my selection.
  3.39 pm
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): This is the second day of our debate on the 1992 "Statement on the Defence Estimates". Since it began last Thursday, there have been two historic developments. The Opposition have unexpectedly given birth to their long-awaited defence policy, which appears in the shape of a remarkable amendment to the main motion and can be found on page 5990 of the Order Paper. The amendment entered into the world in a somewhat furtive and surreptitious manner in the doldrums of a Friday afternoon, long after we had concluded the first day of the debate and the usual parliamentary midwives had gone home for the weekend. [Interruption.] Hon. Members cannot say it has anything to do with what the Secretary of State said, because there is no reference to the important points that he made. It was an attempt to heal Labour's wounds, exposed by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) this afternoon.
  The birth of the amendment was a difficult one, which probably gave a new meaning to the phrase "in labour". It is unusual for a policy-making Opposition amendment to be tabled in the middle of a major parliamentary debate. The Government should perhaps take credit for goading Labour into unveiling its policy. My theory is that Labour

  25
  rushed into mid-debate print because of its obsession with market testing. Labour must have carried out a market test between its two defence factions and then decided that the amendment tabled by one section of the party needed some competition from another in-House bid by Friday.
  I do not want to keep intruding into this unlevel playing field, but at least both wings of the Opposition have now unveiled their contradictory defence policies. As Cromwell's Ironside used to say, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition." There is plenty of ammunition around; inevitably, the official Opposition present an easy target. The Opposition amendment is the familiar old ragbag of demands for quangos and disarmament. But there is one remarkable new demand, and that is that our conventional forces should be negotiated away. I do not know how this can possibly be squared with the Opposition's familiar cry in debate after debate that our forces are already far too overstretched. Perhaps the Opposition will later enlarge on that credibility gap. The Government categorically reject the Opposition amendment, and have no intention of negotiating away our conventional armed forces.
  As I said on Thursday, this debate offers a good opportunity to explore in some breadth and depth matters such as our contribution to United Nations operations and our nuclear, naval and air equipment programmes.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: If it is true that the Government have this great commitment to conventional British forces, will the Minister tell us how he can square the commitments that we will continue to have to Belize with the Government's obvious intention to withdraw British troops from that country and, as far as we can see, deploy them in the former Yugoslavia?
  Mr. Aitken: The hon. Lady probably missed Thursday's debate. If she had been here, she would have heard this matter presented in a fairer perspective. We are retaining a training presence in Belize, and there is no question of a total severance of our links.
  The theme of what I have to say this afternoon might be called "centres of excellence". I use that phrase deliberately because, in the present climate of reassessment of the role and size of our armed forces, it is important to make it clear that the Government have every intention of maintaining our centres of excellence and of playing to our strengths, which are formidable.
  If there is one enduring message that I have taken to heart after 15 months as a Defence Minister it is that Britain is a fortunate nation to have such dedicated, highly skilled and totally professional armed forces. Defence ultimately depends on people. Britain excels in the premier world league of fighting and peacekeeping forces because our people—our service men and women—are just about the best in the world at getting their difficult and dangerous jobs done.
  The contribution of the British forces to the UN in Bosnia is an example of this excellence. The Cheshires and the Prince of Wales Regiment, and the many other units involved, can take justified pride—as the House does—in the vital work they have done and the businesslike way in which they have gone about it.
  When the Cheshires deployed last November with a squadron of 9th/12th Royal Lancers, 35th Royal Engineers Regiment, 5th Ordnance battalion and other units, they faced the difficult task of translating the United
  26
  Nations mandate into reality on the ground, in a country whose devastated infrastructure made self-sufficiency essential.
  The first need was to ensure that the roads were passable for heavy civilian lorries. The Royal Engineers had to open up and maintain tracks over a distance of nearly 400 km, from Split on the Dalmatian coast to Tuzla in north-east Bosnia, in mountainous and muddy terrain and often in severe weather. They also had to provide accommodation for our troops and provide essential power, lighting, heating, water and protection.
  The Cheshires concluded that the maximum amount of aid could be delivered to those in need only if transit areas were established. That meant that there was need for a tremendous effort in meeting and negotiating with local leaders and for intensive and high-profile patrolling in Warrior and Scimitar vehicles, which have performed so well. As the House knows, the Cheshires also provided close escorts for convoys when that was necessary. In total, they escorted 562 convoys during their six-month tour and delivered 35,690 tonnes of aid, often operating in difficult and dangerous circumstances.
  In mid-May the Prince of Wales Own Regiment of Yorkshire, supported by a squadron of the Light Dragoons, a squadron of the 21st Engineers Regiment, the Royal Logistic Corps and other units, relieved the Cheshire battalion group. They are continuing to escort United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees convoys to north-east Bosnia. They have inherited many of the same problems as their predecessors faced. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has told the House, the recent fighting between Muslims and Croats in central Bosnia gives some cause for concern. so we continue to monitor the position closely. However, in its first month on duty, the battalion group has already been able to escort 209 convoys, delivering more than 6,000 tonnes of aid.
  Taken in the round, the British contribution to the humanitarian relief effort in Bosnia must have saved tens of thousands of lives this winter in that unhappy country, and the skill and professionalism with which that job has been done have rightly won widespread international acclaim and appreciation, which I know is echoed by the whole House.
  Although I have singled out the Army units in the former Yugoslavia for special praise, I am sure that the House would also like to hear a word of commendation for the naval personnel who have played an important role in the task group in the Adriatic and for the Royal Air Force personnel who have faced very real risks in the humanitarian airlift to Sarajevo.
  In such roles, which incidentally are being performed elsewhere in the world—such as Cambodia, where Royal Navy personnel are deployed on United Nations operations—our service men and women are strengthening the United Nations and responding to the humanitarian efforts of the international community, and are doing so with that special British military excellence which is so much a part of our national pride and heritage.
  The House will not have been surprised to hear me pay those tributes to the quality of our armed forces, but in that context I would like to mention another centre of excellence whose praises are relatively rarely sung—the Ministry of Defence's civilian staff. The Ministry employs about 155,000 civilian men and women in this country and abroad. Their skills and experience are diverse. We have

  27
  teachers, fire officers, hydrographers, scientists, doctors, engineers and a host of other professions within the Ministry. The jobs carried out by civilians range from the provision of vital stores and equipment, to the repair and servicing of equipment and to policy and administrative functions inside the Ministry.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind words about Ministry of Defence civilian staff. As he knows, the Royal Navy spare parts department has a large facility in my constituency, but the managerial staff may be moved to the new naval support command, which will be based in Bath. The department will be moving from a brand new office block in my constituency, which will shortly be left empty. I fully understand what my hon. Friend says about preserving excellence in our armed forces and their back-up services. Would it not therefore be far more appropriate to keep together a unit that has served the nation and the Navy extremely well and, if a new naval support command is to be formed, to form it around the basis that already exists in my constituency?
  Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend's argument is persuasive on behalf of his constituents, but I know from experience that one needs to look carefully at all sides of the case when an evaluation of this kind has to be made. I shall certainly respond to my hon. Friend's point, perhaps in writing, and see whether there is anything that we can do to meet the argument that he has put forward.
  My hon. Friend's general point, however, is that civilians in his constituency, and elsewhere, play an essential role, in terms of the Department, in support of our troops, sometimes even in the front line. They are integral to our defence, at all levels. We could not do without them. Since 1979, the number of civilians has been reduced by about 40 per cent., and will continue to be reduced, in line with the reductions in our armed forces.
  May I now move from defence people of excellence to defence programmes of excellence and begin by highlighting the ultimate guarantor of our national security, the defence nuclear programme.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Minister of State tell us whether the Americans intend to allow us to have any more tests and whether those tests will be for a new weapons system? If we are to have more tests for a new weapons system, will that not be in contravention of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?
  Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are awaiting an announcement by President Clinton in the next few days. We believe it to be imminent. I intend to say a few words about nuclear testing, but the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that we do not yet know what the American decision is.
  We can be justly proud of the United Kingdom Trident programme. It remains on schedule to enter service from the mid-1990s. Since the Government's decision in 1982 to procure the Trident II weapon system, there has been no slippage in the deployment date, and there has been a decrease, in real terms, of £2·8 billion in our estimate of the procurement costs, an achievement that was warmly praised by the Select Committee.
  Mr. George Foulkes: While the Minister is dealing with our nuclear deterrent, may I ask him about Polaris? He knows that yesterday there was a leak at Faslane which has caused great concern in the surrounding area. There has been a number of leaks from Polaris submarines. What is being done to investigate this particular incident? Can the Minister also say why these incidents are constantly occurring and what he is doing to prevent further occurrences? There seems to be an endemic problem with Polaris submarines. Action is quickly needed.
  Mr. Aitken: I do not accept that there is an endemic problem. Concern about this incident should be seen in a true and measured light. I am able to confirm that there was an alert at the Clyde submarine base on the morning of 20 June. A small quantity of reactor coolant was spilt on the casing of a submarine while she was alongside. The spillage was contained on the casing and did not enter loch waters. An investigation is now under way. I should add that the activation of a nuclear alert was a correct but perhaps over-cautious response by staff to what we know now was a comparatively minor incident.
  Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister of State accept that there have been five or six previous incidents and that there is local cause for concern about the occurrence of these incidents and fear that no long-term solution has been found? The fear is that the next time round it may not be what the Minister describes as a minor incident but a major occurrence. Although many local people accept the presence of Polaris submarines, they are understandably anxious to ensure that the highest possible safety standards are maintained.
  Mr. Aitken: We believe that we make every effort to maintain the highest possible safety standards. It is wrong to suggest that this was the harbinger of a major incident. It was a minor incident. I have nothing to add to the fair and full reply that I have just given.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Can the Minister of State explain how we can support both the Trident programme and the non-proliferation treaty?
  Mr. Aitken: We are supporters of the non-proliferation treaty as a long-term goal; there is no argument about that. We are discussing with our allies the best way of securing it, as I shall make clear in a few moments.
  The point that I wish to make to all those who believe in an independent nuclear deterrent—which is not every Opposition Member—is that all parts of the Trident programme are on schedule. The progress that has been achieved represents a tremendous achievement, both for United Kingdom industry and for our own project managers.
  The first submarine, Vanguard, is now nearing completion at Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. at Barrow. It is planned to be formally accepted by the Royal Navy in the summer. The second submarine, Victorious, will be launched at around the same time. Good progress is also being made with the construction of the third and fourth boats. We need a credible independent nuclear deterrent underpinning our defence strategy because it provides the ultimate guarantee of our security. Conventional forces alone cannot ensure the prevention of war. Nuclear weapons make a unique contribution by

  29
  holding out to any aggressor the prospect of suffering unacceptable damage, outweighing any potential gain that he might believe he could otherwise make.
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to have gradations of nuclear deterrence, and that merely to have art arsenal as an ultimate strategic deterrent may be inadequate, especially against threats from the third world—the Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein type of threat? Will he therefore closely consider re-equipping the Royal Air Force with a tactical stand-off nuclear missile, because free-fall weapons will not be adequate in view of the enhancement of air defences? We do not wish effectively to leave this area of sub-strategic deterrence in Europe to the French.
  Mr. Aitken: I accept that we must carefully consider what sub-strategic weapons may be right for us in the future. I am aware of my hon. Friend's views, which he has articulated on a number of occasions.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Aitken: I cannot give way to every intervention; I shall give way later.
  In the changing strategic environment, the alliance has reduced its reliance on nuclear weapons, and we have played our part in that reduction. Many uncertainties and risks remain, such as the future of Russia's nuclear arsenal and, above all perhaps, the spread of nuclear technology and materials into unstable or unfriendly hands. Because we face an uncertain future, our deterrent must be adequate for whatever the future may bring. The Trident will fulfil that role, and nothing else can provide the same security or represent better value for money. That is the view of the Government.
  Mr. Corbyn: The Minister has not answered the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith). The installation of the Trident submarine system represents an increase in nuclear warheads from 192 to 512—at least a 30 per cent. increase in the killing capacity of nuclear weapons. How on earth can the Government claim to adhere to the United Nations non-proliferation treaty yet propose and encourage an enormous proliferation in Britain's nuclear warheads without saying who the enemy is or at whom these vile weapons are to be directed?
  Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman has missed the crucial point. Our nuclear deterrent is a minimum deterrent. We do not say what warheads or missiles we may use and in what form or in what number. I can assure him, as we have often told the House and the country, that it is a minimum nuclear deterrent consistent with our national security.
  Mr. Corbyn: That does not satisfy me.
  Mr. Aitken: I will never satisfy the hon. Gentleman, and nor could anybody who believes that Britain should have an independent nuclear deterrent. The ideological gulf between us is too wide to be bridged. That may be healthy for democracy, but more healthy for the state of Britain is that the fact that the governing party believes firmly in the necessity of an independent nuclear deterrent.
  Mr. Mark Robinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Aitken: I must not give way every two minutes. I shall give way later, if necessary.
  A discussion of our defence nuclear programme should lead us on to a word or two about nuclear testing, not least because it is vital to correct some of the false assertions that emerged in the speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on Thursday. Far from being in the vanguard of those who oppose a nuclear test ban, the Government are wholly in favour of a comprehensive test ban treaty as a long-term goal. We look forward to early discussions with the American Government on whether we can move more rapidly to achieve it and how it can help our aim of discouraging nuclear proliferation.
  The hon. Member for South Shields was rather naive in suggesting that there is a clear linkage between nuclear testing and nuclear proliferation. In fact, it is possible to develop and deploy a cheap and dirty nuclear device without testing. It is, on the whole, the responsible international priesthood of nuclear specialists who are most supportive of nuclear testing for reasons of safety and credibility. We in Britain do not forget that our limited programme of nuclear tests has made a significant contribution to our confidence in the continued safety of our own nuclear deterrent.
  Dr. David Clark: I have listened to the Minister carefully. Has he not read or seen the letter written to me by the Secretary of State and from which I quoted last Thursday in which the Secretary of State admits that; in the preparatory talks on the nonproliferation treaty, other signatories have said that they want evidence of progress on a comprehensive test ban treaty before they will sign an on-going NPT? That is not a wild allegation by me but a precise quotation of what the Secretary of State wrote to me.
  Mr. Aitken: We too want progress and are striving towards it. We do not broadcast on the BBC or anywhere else every step in our negotiations with our friends and allies, but, as I said, we are committed to a comprehensive test ban treaty as a long-term goal.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked about the future of President Clinton's nuclear testing programme. Our nuclear testing programme is, to some extent, dependent on the outcome of the President's review. The House will not expect me to go into detail about the current state of our discussions with the United States Administration, but we believe that our views are well understood.
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the ability of some countries to develop, in particular, dirty nuclear weapons without testing. Will he assure the House that we give a high priority to and adequately fund the organisations under Britain's control which help us to identify such countries?
  Mr. Aitken: Certainly; I give my hon. Friend that assurance. We do indeed make every effort in that difficult sphere.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Aitken: Yes, but I shall not do so after this time.
  Mr. Campbell: The Minister has been very generous in giving way, and I am sure that the House would like to acknowledge that. A moment ago he said that Britain was,

  31
  to a large extent, dependent on the United States. Of course, it is more than that—we are entirely dependent on the United States. If the United States determines that there shall be no more tests, we shall have access to no more facilities for tests. Are the three tests for which the United Kingdom is seeking authority designed to test a new weapon? While he was a Minister, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) told the House several times last year that the moratorium had no consequences for the Trident programme. If we are seeking additional tests, does not it imply that the Government wish to develop a further device?
  Mr. Aitken: The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is that, although the Trident programme has been well tried and tested, we nevertheless need a programme of tests for the continuing safety and credibility of all our nuclear weapons. I cannot go further than that today.
  On nuclear issues, I should like to say a word about the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston and the recent "Panorama" programme about it. The fundamental point about the AWE is that it is vital to our independent nuclear deterrent. It is the intellectual industrial power house which not only ensures that our nuclear weapons meet their requirements cost-effectively but keeps them safe, effective and reliable throughout their long lives. I have no hesitation in saying that I am proud of the AWE at Aldermaston, of its splendid record of world class achievement, of its immensely skilled industrial work force and, not least, of its calm, assured and responsible attitude to safety.
  I should also like to make it clear what the AWE is not. It is most certainly not the caricature institution portrayed by a recent edition of "Panorama" of unsafe buildings, shoddy procedures and mendacious Dr. Strangeloves deliberately misleading the Select Committee. In fact, when it comes to the charge of misleading the public, I hope that the director general of the BBC will take a hard, critical look at that particular edition of "Panorama" and enter a plea of guilty.
  "Panorama", which is supposed to be the flagship current affairs programme of the BBC, took its AWE programme into the highly dubious territory of "faction". Actors were employed to reconstruct scenes of alarm and emergency at AWE and impersonated scientists and workers; they even pretended to be genuine interviewees answering reporters' questions. But the really serious editorial crime was that the viewers were not told that any of the scenes were theatrical reconstructions or that any of the interviewees were being played by actors.
  Moreover, my Department's press office asked which of the interviewees were unacknowledged actors, which scenes were theatrical reconstructions and where, by the way, was the evidence for making the serious charge that the Select Committee was misled. The answer came back, "Sorry, we will not tell you—it is a BBC secret." That was a classic example of double standards from a programme that was critical of the Ministry of Defence for being too secretive.
  Mr. Foulkes: I agree with the Minister about some of the unfortunate presentational aspects of the "Panorama" programme. I also agree that it would be unfortunate if the
  32
  BBC were to get as secretive as the Ministry of Defence. But two people on the programme—the former director and an official of the Health and Safety Executive—made valid and sensible criticisms about safety at Aldermaston. It is clear that there are delays in the provision of some buildings.
  I hope that, notwithstanding the presentational problems of the programme, the Minister will give clear assurances that those two people's criticisms will be looked into and that a report will be published so that everyone can see and know that that establishment is completely safe.
  Mr. Aitken: I referred the small incident at AWE to the Health and Safety Executive, and I agreed with the executive that it should publish its report. There is no doubt that a responsible and measured approach to those issues will be taken. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman seems to have come off his high horse of suggesting that I should appear on the programme. I somehow missed out on doing that. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am not an actor and I did not want to appear. I am sure that I made the right judgment.
  Let me refer to some non-nuclear equipment programme matters, which I know are potentially of interest to the House. The first is Eurofighter 2000, a project that remains the keystone of the RAF's future capability. It is good to recall that the project enjoys support from all parts of the House. That support made an important contribution to the project's success in negotiating a turbulent passage last year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, and the hon. Member for Carlisle, who wound up for the Opposition on Thursday, both raised valid questions about the cost of the programme and the delay in achieving the first flight. The cost figures are complicated but consistent. Recent press speculation concerning a 50 per cent. increase in the cost of the project is, I am glad to say, wide of the mark. The increase in real terms since the start of the EFA development in 1988 is about 10 per cent. I do not welcome that figure or view it with complacency, but such an increase—particularly as it relates to estimates—is not altogether surprising for such a complex international project at the leading edge of technology.
  The hon. Member for Carlisle raised the matter of the aircraft's first flight. I share his disappointment that the aircraft did not fly at this year's Paris air show—although, on second thoughts, Paris may have been an inappropriate venue as the French opted out of the project.
  Nevertheless, I am glad to have an opportunity to assure the House that the delay is not an indication of major difficulties but the consequence of a number of relatively minor, but time-consuming, technical problems that have to be resolved. Central to those is the proving and qualification of the software for the aircraft's flight control system. With an aerodynamically sophisticated computer-controlled aircraft of that type, the integration of the software is clearly critical to flight safety. There is nothing that cannot be solved here, but the work is taking longer than was originally expected. The precise timing of the first flight is a matter not for the Government but for the manufacturers to decide. I am confident that we will he seeing the aircraft make a successful first flight this year.

  33
  With the German funding problems well on the way to being solved, and an excellent spirit of co-operation now flourishing among the partners, the future of the Eurofighter 2000 project now looks in good shape.
  Mr. Mark Robinson: A defence debate is the only occasion on which we do not hear employment mentioned by the Opposition. My hon. Friend's announcement will be welcomed by my constituents who work at Normalair-Garrett in Yeovil. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his announcement last week that the Sonar 2054 contract would be awarded to Marconi at Templecombe, in my constituency. That is an excellent fully integrated underwater system, and the announcement is good news not just for Somerset but for those who live in Dorset and work in my constituency. It is also important for the west country, where the defence industries are so important.
  Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He reminds us, as do other hon. Members from time to time, that, although the defence requirement of the Eurofighter and other projects is the Government's predominant concern, nevertheless there are important industrial factors to consider. Eurofighter 2000 should create some 28,000 jobs in Britain and 60,000 jobs across Europe. Already some 300 companies—some of them in my hon. Friend's constituency—are working in the high-tech area of the development phase. It would be tragic if, in the military aviation business in which we have been so successful since the days of the Spitfire and the Hurricane, we were to opt out. That would be a sad day industrially for Britain.
  Dr. John Reid: The project was supported by both sides of the House.
  Mr. Aitken: It was accepted by all parties, as the hon. Gentleman would have heard me make clear a few moments ago, if he had been listening.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Aitken: No. I am trying to speak about the Royal Navy's new helicopter carrier.
  The understandable sadness about the consequences of our choice of contractor for the future of Swan Hunter has rather overshadowed the importance of that vessel to the Royal Navy. We expect the LPH to enter service towards the end of the decade and to remain in service until the end of the first quarter of the 21st century.
  Mr. Stephen Byers: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on this specific point. He rightly refers to the disappointment felt on Tyneside about the loss of that order. He will also be aware of the concern that, because Swan Hunter is now in receivership, it may not be permitted to complete the contract on the three frigates that are presently in the yard. I urge the Minister to state that the Ministry of Defence wants the work to be completed on Tyneside. I urge him to reach a speedy conclusion in the current discussions between his Department and the receivers to lift the cloud of uncertainty that currently hangs over shipbuilding on the River Tyne.
  Mr. Aitken: I am certainly sympathetic to the point made by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members whose constituencies are in that part of the country. Those matters are under active discussion between the receiver
  34
  and ourselves and we are cautiously optimistic that a satisfactory outcome may be possible, but it is too early to say that definitively. We are certainly trying to achieve what the hon. Gentleman hopes we will achieve.
  I shall continue to make the obvious point about the helicopter carrier—that it will be a highly versatile ship, with spots for 12 assault helicopters and accommodation for several hundred fully armed troops. It will incorporate all the lessons on damage control learnt from the Falklands conflict. Above all, it will strengthen our armed forces' amphibious capability, which is just the type of highly flexible, mobile and sustainable capability that may be needed more than ever in the changing security environment of the 21st century.
  At the beginning of my speech, I said that there had been two historic developments since the debate began on Thursday. The first was when the Opposition gave birth to their latest defence policy, and the second was also an Opposition initiative. An historic first occurred during the opening speech of the hon. Member for South Shields when he made a joke. I correct myself; he borrowed someoned else's joke—from the diary of Alan Clark—probably the Opposition's only joke book because, when the hon. Member for Carlisle wound up, he too relied on quotes and jests from Alan Clark's compendium of wit and wisdom.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I quoted from the book "The Donkeys", written 30 years ago, but the comment still applies td the Minister today.
  Mr. Aitken: Donkeys, diaries, it all comes to much the same thing. That is the Opposition's source of speech ideas. Having discovered its source, I thought I had better catch up on this esoteric homework, so over the weekend I too dipped into Alan Clark's fascinating reminiscences of life as the Minister for Defence Procurement.
  My weekend reading left me with the grim realisation that I must seem a very dull, drab, impecunious and unimaginative successor to my friend Alan Clark. Leaving aside one or two faintly envious feelings of regret on personal lifestyle matters, such as the fact that I do not regularly spin down the motorway to Kent at 140 mph in my Porsche for assignations in my medieval castle, what I found really riveting was my predecessor's work style within the Department. As he might have put it, during his days at the Ministry of Defence, the actualité was always highly mouvementé. After one has got through the paragraphs in the diaries that echo literary fantasies more commonly associated with Harold Robbins or with John le Carré than with the home life of our own dear MOD, one clear truth emerges from Alan Clark's writings on which I feel considerable empathy with and sympathy for the author.
  All Ministers who have had the honour to serve in the Ministry of Defence since the destruction of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the subsequent disintegration of the Warsaw pact and of the Soviet Union have had to wrestle with one of the most difficult and testing policy judgments of 20th century politics: how do we adjust Britain's defence strategy, spending and policy to the needs of the new security environment while maintaining the standards of excellence that have kept us a premier fighting and peacekeeping force among the leading nations of the international community?

  35
  Alan Clark had his own idiosyncratic and, at times, valuable input in the area. In his somewhat different style, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) did the state great service when he produced his measured blueprint in the shape of his "Options for Change" statement in July 1990. However, no sooner was the ink dry on "Options for Change" than we had further upheavals in the security environment, such as the continuing instability within Russia, the muscle-flexing of Iran and of North Korea and the growing evidence that the demise of the communist empire had released tectonic forces of nationalistic hatred and violence of which the Bosnia tragedy may have been only the first eruption.
  Against that background, my right hon. and learned Friend the present Secretary of State for Defence has had to make further changes and adjustments to aspects of "Options for Change". Some, such as the increase in Army manpower, have already been announced. Without our Department and within the Government as a whole, we have had a rigorous intellectual and strategic debate whose conclusions will become known when my right hon. and learned Friend publishes next month what I predict will be a seminal White Paper refitting and outlining Britain's defence policy, with more detailed information and explanation than has ever before been published.
  Parliament too has a vital part to play in the continuing great debate. There were some valuable contributions to it last Thursday, although not, I am bound to say, from the Opposition. Indeed, looking back on Thursday's debate, the high point was surely the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) and his spirited exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, who chairs the Select Committee on Defence with such distinction. Their exchange elegantly delineated one of the basic issues that we face in defence policy today.
  My right hon. Friend the former Minister of State for the Armed Forces put most eloquently the argument that we cannot realistically expect a larger defence budget and that we must match our commitments accordingly. My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee, on the other hand, quite fairly drew attention to our responsibilities as a permanent member of the Security Council and to the unique contribution that our forces can make. He said that we should not allow a resource ceiling to be the controlling factor on the size of our forces. Those exchanges put into relief the classic dilemma of the defence planner today.
  The reality is that one has to make a judgment. Government is all about choosing. Of course, our defence posture should not be purely resource led, nor is it, but nor should it be unconstrained by resource considerations. The harsh fact is that defence expenditure must take its place within our overall priorities for public expenditure. As I said, we have to make a judgment about the level of forces and about the quality of equipment required to meet the contingencies that are likely to arise. That will always involve an element of risk. Total security in defence would mean the total bankruptcy of the Exchequer.
  The judgments that we have to make should be supported by a most rigorous analysis of our military commitments and of the forces needed to fulfil them. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State
  36
  has said, at the moment we have in hand precisely such an analysis. Its conclusions and the judgments that we reach based on them will be set out fully in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993" which we expect to publish in the first week of July. When they see it, I am confident that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster and other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in this debate will be impressed by the careful thought that we have given the issues and that there will be far greater understanding and support for the policies set out in the White Paper.
  I doubt whether the Opposition will support the forthcoming White Paper any more than they will support the White Paper that we are debating today. To judge by the Opposition amendment on this midsummer's day, they are living in a midsummer night's dream world on defence.
  Mr. Martlew: Come on, Bottom.
  Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman calls out, "Come on, Bottom." That is just who we are missing: the actor who spends half the play wearing the head of a donkey. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Carlisle is applying for that job.
  The Opposition's amendment brays about the starry-eyed proposals of disarmament, defence conversion, quangos and negotiating away our conventional forces. The record of the Government's solid achievement, which I have tried to outline today, contrasts only too clearly with the hollow sham that passes for Opposition defence policy as reflected by their amendment. I urge the House to reject it as decisively as it deserves.
  4.20 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'believes that the Government's plans, sketched out in the Statement on the Defence Estimates, Cm. 1981, demonstrate its unwillingness and inability to analyse the long term security needs of the United Kingdom; calls upon the Government to undertake a full defence review which properly assesses UK defence requirements in the light of the recent and fundamental changes in the strategic situation; demands an immediate end to British nuclear testing, which would greatly assist efforts to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons; urges the inclusion of British nuclear and conventional forces in further international disarmament negotiations; and condemns the Government for its failure to provide effective assistance for defence industry diversification or the housing and employment needs of ex-service personnel.'.
  I start my first speech in an estimates debate as an Opposition Defence spokesman by joining hon. Members on both sides of the House who, in Thursday's debate, sent good wishes to British troops serving overseas in Bosnia and in the other areas of conflict around the world. The confidence that we have in their courage and ability is, unfortunately, in stark contrast to the widespread lack of confidence in the Government's defence policy.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said last Thursday, we welcome this debate on the estimates White Paper. However, there are some remarkable features to the debate. First, it is remarkable that we have managed to squeeze it in just in the nick of time. As the Minister has just said, the 1993 White Paper is due to be published in only a fortnight's time. Secondly, and even more remarkably, in opening this two-day debate—what the Minister of State for Defence Procurement described to me privately as an "all-singing, all-dancing

  37
  debate"—the Secretary of State spoke for almost an hour and said almost nothing, which was unlike his normal eloquent self.
  The Secretary of State began with a few comments about Bosnia and we welcome those. At the end, he launched a rather limp, personal attack on my colleagues and myself—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We can take it and we can give it as well: just wait for it. Almost all the Secretary of State's speech was devoted to a long and detailed announcement about the Navy and Air Force reserves which incurred the slightly delayed wrath—I understand the reason for that delay—of most of his Conservative colleagues as they began fully to understand the implications.
  That announcement could have been made better as an oral statement when questions could have been asked directly and perhaps answered. Many questions still remain unanswered, not least the question that both Conservative and Opposition Members raised. which relates to page 4 of the document which, the Secretary of State seemed to forget, was issued by his predecessor as Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who is in the Chamber today and who is known to Alan Clark as TK. The document states:
  "The Department should consider extending employment protection to Reserves for training endorsed by the Secretary of State when full-time training is needed for an emergency."
  Important questions like that have yet to be answered. As many hon. Members said on Thursday, that is a very important issue.
  However, the real purpose of Thursday's announcement was revealed in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) by the Minister of State, who admitted that the purpose of the exercise was to save £10 million. This is the latest in a series of random, salami slicing of the forces' manpower: first, the regiments; then the full-time sailors, air men and air women and now the reserves. All the cuts were dictated by the Treasury with no assessment of how they fit in with the developing defence requirements of the country.
  Defence strategy formed no part of the Secretary of State's speech and neither did any of the major defence issues facing this country. The Secretary of State was a dog of war which did not bark. There was no mention of NATO, European security structures, arms control or peacekeeping, which are all covered in detail in the White Paper that we are supposed to be discussing.
  What is the explanation? I am a reasonable person, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps the charitable explanation is that the Secretary of State did not want to pre-empt the 1939—[Interruption]—the 1993 White Paper. It seemed like 1939. That was a very Freudian slip, perhaps it was even Adlerian. Perhaps he did not want to pre-empt the White Paper, but that has not inhibited the Secretary of State in the past. Or is it because each issue is so tricky that an ambitious Cabinet Minister—he is indeed an ambitious Cabinet Minister—wants to play it safe in the volatile world of the Cabinet of today? More likely, is it because the Government are so racked with indecision and uncertainty on defence, as on other issues, that there is no longer any coherent strategy or clear policy to expound?
  It is the Secretary of State's misfortune to preside over a Department which has been forced to make major cuts in expenditure. It is his great mistake, however, to attempt to carry out such major cuts—well in excess of "Options
  38
  for Change"—without anything that approaches a full strategic analysis and review. The Minister of State, in the eloquent last few paragraphs of his speech, covered those points, but, of course, the answer to his dilemma is to conduct the review for which we and even some Conservative Members have been arguing for so long. A full review is the sine qua non of defence policy in the post-cold war world. Yet again, there were calls for such a review on Thursday.
  The entire Defence team has been in full-scale retreat for months. No Minister has demonstrated the decisiveness or the progressive thinking that are needed. It is small wonder that the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) chose to be airlifted out of the trenches.
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement has had constant criticism from Back-Bench Conservative Members, yet he had strange support from an unexpected quarter. I hope that he read The Independent on Sunday in March, which quoted his old friend Baroness Thatcher singling him out for praise because of his arms sales negotiations. Perhaps she has a wee bit of a vested family interest. She described the Minister of State as one of the few Ministers doing well, adding rather wickedly
  "and who would have thought that".
  [Interruption.] It all comes back.
  Much of the Minister of State's supposed success has been in securing British arms contracts in the middle east. I hate to spoil the party, but his actual record of success has been fairly patchy: reconfirmation of an old deal—Yamamah 2—the signing of the memorandum with Kuwait, and a relatively small contract for 36 tanks to Oman: only 18 definite and 18 predicted. Compare that with the 400 Leclerc tanks that the United Arab Emirates have bought from France or more than 200 Abrams tanks sold to Kuwait from the United States. In both cases, the British Challenger 2 lost out. If the Minister of State is one of the most successful Ministers, that says something for the rest of them, doesn't it?"
  One of the major issues that the Secretary of State did not touch on and one of the major issues in defence circles is the role of the United Nations in peacekeeping and humanitarian work, not just in Bosnia and Somalia but in general. The Opposition support the enhanced role for the United Nations in peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts, but more emphasis needs to be put on preventive peacekeeping, with diplomacy and conciliation at an early stage. We welcome United Nations resolution 795 on the deployment of a preventive peacekeeping force in Macedonia as a good example of that.
  However, one of the consequences of the increased United Nations role and of Britain playing its full part in it is the emphasis on manpower and on equipment to support the fast, flexible deployment of such manpower—equipment such as the EH101. That is why the current service manpower cuts are so short-sighted. They do not recognise that new and expanding role and they are being done merely for the quickest possible savings to satisfy the Treasury.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Hercules, which came into squadron service in the Royal Air Force in 1967, when it equipped one of our squadrons then based in Singapore and was one of the aircraft that brought Britain's resources back from east of Suez, is still in service more than 25 years later, and facing

  39
  equal, if not greater, demands and placing even more demands on the crews who are flying that aircraft in very dangerous air?
  Mr. Foulkes: I agree fully with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I was going to mention that matter later, but I do not need to do so, as he spelt it out so eloquently. I agree with him.
  A proper defence review would have identified the range of new needs, new threats, equipment such as the Hercules to which my hon. Friend referred and the manpower required to meet them and, incidentally, the systems and equipment that are no longer necessary such as the tactical air-to-surface missile or any replacement for the free-fall bomb. The review would have examined the respective roles of NATO, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Western European Union and the need to develop complementary roles and forces for every country in the framework.
  The Secretary of State did not mention arms control, which is a crucial issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said, it is essential that Britain abandons its unnecessary and unhealthy craving for more nuclear tests. How can we—this deals with what the Minister said earlier—reasonably propose, as the White Paper says, that we will suggest to the non-proliferation treaty conference in 1995 that there should be an indefinite extension of the treaty if we are still testing at the same time and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) rightly said, increasing the number of warheads on Trident from the level on Polaris?
  There is a link between the non-proliferation treaty and the comprehensive test ban treaty, as the Secretary of State agreed in his letter to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields.
  Mr. Llew Smith: I shall ask my hon. Friend the same question about the non-proliferation treaty that I asked the Minister, who failed to answer. How can we support that treaty and the Trident programme?
  Mr. Foulkes: I understand the point made by my hon. Friend. It will be dealt with in great detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I hope that all hon. Members will wait until the end to hear my hon. Friend deal with it in great detail.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): It is worth waiting for.
  Mr. Foulkes: There is more to come. Nuclear weapons are not the only horrific weapons of mass destruction.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Sometimes the trailer is better than the big picture.
  Mr. Foulkes: The comic is even better.
  The Secretary of State did not tell us when the Government will take the necessary action in the legislative programme to implement the provisions of the chemical weapons convention. That is important. Incidentally, I hope that the Government will examine the allegations that the Iranian arms supply office in London is to be reopened, and ensure that that does not happen. London is still tarred with the reputation of being the arms-dealing capital of the world.
  40
  I can understand why the Secretary of State felt shy on Thursday about mentioning the Trident refit. At the very least, he could have told the House what stage had been reached in the decision-making process and when an announcement could be expected. I hope that the Minister of State will recall that, in the Navy debate in early May, he said that it would be in a few weeks—and we are still waiting. The Government's indecision and the futher delay on the issue have been devastating.
  The polarisation that has taken place between Rosyth and Devonport has deepened over the months as the delay increases. It is unfortunate that the managing director of Devonport Management Ltd. said on Scottish television that
  "this is a fight to the death"
  between the two yards as the Government continue to dither. Tory Members from south-west England and Scotland have been forced to raise the stakes and the two yards are pushed into what could ultimately be a destructive Dutch auction.
  The Secretary of State rightly pledged a two-yard solution but that has been made increasingly difficult as the procrastination continues. Such a solution will be possible only if the yard that does not get the Trident refit gets some long-term guarantee of other naval work. The matter could have been dealt with much more quickly and with greater certainty of success if the two dockyards had still been under direct Government control instead of facing the uncertainty of contractorisation and privatisation.
  If it were in the commercial interests of the company that did not win the Trident refit to reject an alternative, it would have no hesitation in doing so. The Opposition's view is that it is in the strategic and security interests, as well as the economic and employment interests, of the nation that the two dockyards should remain open. By a continuation of delay and dogma, the Government have made that increasingly less likely. I urge that the announcement should be made soon and that it should contain long-term assurances for both Rosyth and Devonport.
  Mr. Ray Whitney: The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to the United Kingdom's including its nuclear deterrent in disarmament negotiations. He now seems to have left the subject of disarmament negotiations. The House would welcome hearing his party's view on the proposal set out in the amendment to include British conventional forces in international disarmament negotiations. Does the hon. Gentleman intend to touch on that important subject?
  Mr. Foulkes: I shall certainly touch on it. I shall give a preview or a trailer, as the Secretary of State described it. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North will pick up the subject later. I shall come to it shortly, but before I do I want to deal with the issue of arms to Iraq, another item which, understandably, the Secretary of State did not touch on.
  Many of the revelations from the Scott inquiry so far have shed some light on the Government's knowledge of, and complicity in, the sending of arms-related equipment to Iraq. I shall not go into too much detail, but I wish to draw particular attention to the role played by IMS—a Government-owned arms company.
  The inquiry heard how IMS built for Iraq a weapons complex to prepare Exocet missiles and applied to export

  41
  spare parts for Chieftain tanks. New Ministry of Defence documents have revealed how military advisers recommended that IMS—remember that it is the Government's own arms export company—be rebuked for trying to break the Government's guidelines. I raised the activities of IMS last year, as did some of my hon. Friends. When I met Lord Justice Scott. I asked him to examine the company as part of his inquiry.
  My colleagues and I received for my trouble a vitriolic and ill-judged personal attack from the Secretary of State in a speech during last year's debate on arms to Iraq. I shall make no personal attack on him in return. After all, it is his birthday, so it would be inappropriate for me to do so and I can leave that to some of the rightwingers on his own side.
  I wish to respond seriously to the Secretary of State's charge that Labour smeared British companies. I have criticised no British company. I believe that companies were led by the Government in exporting defence equipment to Iraq. The Secretary of State also accused me of using the tactics of the spiv and the trickster. He did so for the sole reason that I used information provided by people who wished to remain anonymous. I was attempting to piece together the extent to which Britain had contributed to Saddam's war machine. Surely the Secretary of State does not blame those who wish to remain anonymous and who have seen what happened to the directors of Matrix Churchill and other companies.
  The spivs and tricksters are those who seek to have one policy publicly, while pursuing another privately. The Secretary of State reached some new heights of hypocrisy in seeking to divert attacks on Government policy by making personal attacks on Opposition Members.
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Does he recall that a year after the bombing with chemical weapons of Kurdish places such as Halabja by Saddam Hussein in 1988, the British Government supported the Baghdad arms fair and bankrolled British companies to take part in it and sell defence-related equipment to the Baghdad regime? They were then surprised when the whole thing developed into a war.
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon.-Friend is right. It is a continuing series of tragedies that British forces often have to go into theatres of war and face weapons supplied by previous British Governments.
  I shall now deal with conventional weapons. There must be some attempt to halt the spread of conventional weapons. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North will deal with some aspects of that.
  The effect of the arms trade was put into perspective recently by a report from the organisation Saferworld—its director of communications is a former Conservative candidate for Edinburgh, South and is known to the Secretary of State and me. That report compared the level of regional arms sales with the cost of peacekeeping in those regions. It concluded that Britain, in the 10 years up to 1991, sold £3·8 billion worth of arms to areas where the United Nations is now peacekeeping and that, last year alone, Britain had to pay £250 million to finance the growing United Nations burden. British troops will take part in operations to quell conflicts fuelled by British arms. Surely that is remarkable stupidity.
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement does not seem to remember that I welcomed the establishment
  42
  of the United Nations arms register. It was the Prime Minister who suggested that first step towards some control of conventional arms. The scope of the register must be extended, the types of weapon included should be increased and more specific information should be given about how old or how sophisticated certain weapons are. Information about a state's domestic weapons procurement could also be included. Such an extended register would greatly increase transparency.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Saferworld report. Was his attention also attracted by the affirmation in that report of what many people had suspected, that the five most successful arms-selling countries in the world are the five permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations?
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a telling point, as he did in the Navy debate.
  Diversification was another subject unmentioned by the Secretary of State or the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. In view of what I am about to say, I can understand why. The rate of job losses in the defence industry is deeply worrying and has been seriously underestimated by the Ministry of Defence. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed the House:
  "The number of lost jobs since 1990 is approximately 40,000".—[Official Report, 9 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 769.]
  The hon. Gentleman has since admitted that he was wrong. The MOD's estimate of the number of job losses was at least 25, per cent. too low. According to the Library, the true figure of defence-related job losses since June 1990, including redundancies from the armed forces, is approximately 81,000.
  If we apply the MOD's calculation to subcontractors, it reveals that, for each job lost in a primary supplier, 0·87 jobs have been lost from subcontracting firms. The overall total number of job losses since "Options for Change" was published is three times greater than the Minister of State was prepared to admit. If the Government do not even know the scale of job losses, how can we expect them to do something to prevent them?
  On Thursday, Ministers sought to imply that there was some contradiction between what I have said in the past and my policy today. We should follow the practice of other Governments, however, including that of the United States, and take an active role in helping defence companies to convert from arms production to civil production. We should set up a Government agency for that purpose. [Interruption.] This is an important issue. Ministers often shrug their shoulders for years at various suggestions, but are finally forced to take them up. That is what the United States Government had to do.
  Our Government agency could meet, head on, the shrinking defence market, which is the major challenge facing the defence industry. It could assist the vast amount of British skill and expertise in that market to produce for civil industry. We need vision from central Government, but all we get is inaction on a grand scale.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned Belize, because the decision to withdraw our garrison is extremely short-sighted. The remaining troops will have a training role—they will not fulfil their previous function. When the Government made their announcement they said that their
  "assessment of the security threats to Belize is that they are very low".

  43
  Just a few days later, there was a coup in Guatemala. The subsequent instability in that country proves that the military remains a dominant force there. Surely Ministers, especially those in the MOD, should remember from their experience in the south Atlantic that sending the wrong signals to Latin America can be extremely dangerous. I hope that the MOD will give some further thought to that decision.
  I hope that when the Minister of State for the Armed Forces replies to the debate he will also clarify the future of the Caribbean guard ship, because nothing explicity has been said about it. It not only has an important defence role, but an important disaster relief role when hurricanes strike.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the hon. Gentleman lost his way, as he does not appear to be keeping to the terms of the Opposition amendment, which calls specifically for
  "the inclusion of … conventional forces in further international disarmament negotiations"?
  The hon. Gentleman has, however, specifically expressed concern about reducing the number of our armed forces around the world. He appears to be speaking in opposition to his amendment.
  Mr. Foulkes: I can understand that the hon. Gentleman, as a Back Bencher, is unaware of the conventional forces in Europe negotiations, which are already under way, but I was most surprised that the Minister also seemed to be unaware of them. As I have already said, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North, who is an acknowledged world expert on this matter, will deal with it in more detail later.
  As the Minister has said, the Opposition have consistently given full support to the Eurofighter project. Indeed, one of my first acts as Opposition spokesman on procurement was to reaffirm Labour's support for the fighter at a time when the project was in serious trouble. The aircraft is the fighter which the Royal Air Force needs for the next century. We fully support the continuation of the programme on that strategic basis.
  Mr. Keith Mans: I acknowledge the support that the hon. Gentleman has given to the project. Can he tell the House what he is doing to convince the members of the Social Democratic party, the SPD, in Germany of the need for that aircraft so that we can go forward together?
  Mr. Foulkes: I have had discussions, courtesy of the Minister of State, with members of the SPD, but, more importantly, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields has had discussions with high-ranking members of that party. He has stressed our support for the Eurofighter project. The Minister said that he expected the cost of the project to increase by 10 per cent. The Daily Telegraph said of the cost increases:
  "This is creative accounting to eclipse even the most adventurous City takeover arithmetic."
  I hope that the Minister will spell out exactly how he reached that figure of 10 per cent.
  I also hope that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will state, simply, Britain's share of the overall cost and whether our share is expected to rise in the next few years even above the 10 per cent. increase forecast.
  44
  It might also be helpful if the Minister were able to ask the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle about Britain's share of the work on Eurofighter. The Opposition hope that that share will match the level of our contribution.
  Mr. Aitken: The work share arrangements cannot possibly be finalised until we enter the production phase. It is premature for any decisions to be made now. They will be made by industry on the basis of the off-take of the numbers of aircraft. That must await the final decision of the four Governments as we enter the production phase.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. I am sure that he would agree, however, that, as those decisions are made, we should bear in mind our contribution and ensure that we get a fair, rather than an unduly unfair, return on it.
  The Opposition still support Eurofighter as an essential project, but that does not mean that we are in favour of a blank cheque. Money that is overspent on Eurofighter could and should be spent on other badly needed defence projects.
  I had intended to mention other procurement projects, such as the EH101 and the Challenger I upgrade. I hope that, at some point, we shall have an opportunity to pursue the particular procurement issues with which the MOD is faced and which are subject to delay. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has already mentioned the great delays to which the Hercules replacement project has been subject.
  I know that a great many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate so, in conclusion, I should like to return to the Secretary of State's attempt, last week, to divert attention from his own inadequacies. I know that there are many diversionary tactics—the RAF experts, of whom there are many here, describe it as laying down chaff. That is exactly what the Secretary of State was doing on Thursday—laying down chaff.
  Mr. Wolfson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foulkes: More chaff.
  Mr. Wolfson: I think not. As the hon. Gentleman is returning, presumably, to what he sees as the key issues, may I remind him that the key issues in the debate on Thursday were costs and expenditure? The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a number of projects which the Labour party supports. Will he tell us how, in terms of Labour policy, all that will be paid for? Will it be at the same level as now, at a higher or at a lower level?
  Mr. Foulkes: It was best put in the manifesto on which we fought the last election. It said:
  "We will provide whatever resources are needed for effective defence for our country, providing the necessary level of forces with the appropriate equipment and weapons."
  That pledge was not included in the Conservative party manifesto. In the year since the election, we have seen cuts that are unco-ordinated and unplanned because the Government do not have an overall defence strategy. In the debate on the Navy, I said, and it bears repeating, that the people whom we represent have fought in successive conflicts, including the Falklands. There are those who fight and those who support them, cooking the meals and repairing the vehicles.
  We seek the resolution of conflict by peaceful means. We want to stop the arms trade which fuels such conflicts.

  45
  We want to alleviate the underlying poverty and prejudice on which conflicts breed. If we fail in peaceful resolution of such conflicts, and if the security of our country or our allies is threatened, we accept the need to defend ourselves and the corollary of that—that we need to provide the means to make that defence both credible and effective.
  The bottom line on the Government's defence policy is that it is in a mess. Time and again, those on the Treasury Bench have had to make embarrassing retreats and postpone important decisions. The few decisions that they have made have been exposed as plain wrong. They stand guilty of inconsistency, indecision and old-fashioned incompetence.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Tom King: I congratulate the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on his speech—the first that I have heard him make from the Front Bench—and compliment him on his vigour and gall. I would not have used the word "chaff' against my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman reminded the House of the largest piece of chaff used by a political party—the statement on defence policy in the Labour party's last manifesto in which it tried to cover up the inadequacy of its defence policy.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly said that we must not engage in personal attacks, but it required quite an exercise in restraint arid courtesy to listen to the hon. Gentleman, and other Labour Members, chiding my right hon. and learned Friend about every procurement programme, when the Labour party's defence policy would decimate our defence industries and our defence.
  I do not wish to indulge in party politics, because there are serious issues to be addressed, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said today. Among the challenges in the world, we face two serious problems, which I wish to set out for the Secretary of State and the Minister. I have certain recommendations to make which may be helpful, and worth further study.
  I readily join my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley in paying tribute to our forces. We are seeing yet another chapter of extraordinary achievement by our forces in Bosnia. The way in which they are being asked to conduct themselves, not just in the past week, in turning the other cheek in difficult circumstances that could have appalling consequences shows that the tributes paid to them are quite deserved. I associate with those the tributes that anybody who has held the office that I have held would pay to our forces serving now and at any time in Northern Ireland for the work that they carry out to protect the community there.
  I also pay tribute to the civilians and all who work in the Ministry of Defence. They have to carry out some of the most difficult tasks, at a time of inevitable change. We have set the course of reorganisation and reduction which involves some redundancy, some movement and some closure. There is widespread understanding in the House that that is necessary, but this is still a worrying time for those involved.
  I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) set in train a programme; my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was also a member of the Cabinet then. We tend to focus on the
  46
  infantry, and I understand why that is so; it is obviously much in our thoughts at this time. However, one must remember the full spread of the Ministry of Defence. Nearly half a million people are employed there, with 140,000 civilians and 330,000 uniformed staff. Many people are also employed by suppliers to the industry.
  All those people are embarking on the process of change sensibly. I pay tribute to those on the Treasury Front Bench who are carrying out this difficult and demanding task. I am pleased that one or two tributes have been paid, perhaps unconsciously, by Labour Members.
  When I read the Hansard of Thursday's debate, I saw that they had asked that we keep open the employment office advice centre in Hereford. That is a tribute to the quality of the resettlement advice and of the work being done to help with housing. All that resulted from what I like to believe was an unequalled programme, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell played a major part. I congratulate him on seeing that, in such a difficult situation, our forces had as much help as we could give them.
  In paying tribute to my right hon. Friend, I give the warmest possible welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who takes over those responsibilities. I know that he will bring to the challenge of the care of, and concern for, our forces the qualities that make him a valuable member of the Ministry of Defence team.
  My first concern is that we set in hand a difficult programme of change designed to operate over four years. It was fully funded and gave people some certainty about the course on which they were embarked. Now, we have a changed situation, for which I make no criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend.
  I have considerably more sympathy with an article written by Lord Rees-Mogg that appears in The Times today than I have with others that he has written recently. No responsible member of the Cabinet can pretend that he can remain completely separate from the difficult financial situation that we face at a time of recession, like every other significant country. Many other Governments are facing problems greater than ours.
  We built flexibility into the "Options for Change" programme. That is why I was able to support the decision of my right hon. and learned Friend not to remove some battalions. We said that we would allow change so that, if circumstances were different, that could be taken into account. My right hon. and learned Friend was right to do so.
  What is also true is what my right hon. and learned Friend said to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). The claim that everything was Treasury-led was rubbish. We made decisions and proposals, and it was done by the military and civilian staffs in the Ministry—I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said in his winding-up speech on Thursday, when he set out the matter clearly—under the direction and leadership of one of the most distinguished serving officers of recent years, Field Marshal Sir Richard Vincent, who was vice-chief of the defence staff and who went on to become chief of the defence staff, and is now a distinguished chairman of the military committee of NATO.
  As I said, my programme had some flexibility built into it. I recognise that problems, especially financial ones, have

  47
  arisen since then, but if we ask people to accept change, it is our duty clearly to set out what that entails so that they know what they face. Constant changes lead to low morale. One of the greatest pressures is the overstretching of the infantry. It was always going to be difficult because of the rationalisation of regiments, but it is being made even more difficult by the need for additional regiments in Northern Ireland and those required to form part of the peacekeeping commitments in Bosnia and elsewhere.
  I urge on my right hon. and learned Friend the need for a most serious study of the way in which we meet the security commitments of Northern Ireland. It is our duty to meet them. We must consider how the challenges there can be most effectively met without impinging on the roulement commitment and all that that means for our armed forces.
  On the wider issue of flexibility, I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend is paying particular attention to reserves. I have not yet had the opportunity to study his consultation paper, but I am sure that it deals with the intelligent use of reserves. Indeed, he was kind enough to quote my consultation paper on that matter, and I am glad that he and the Ministry of Defence are building on that.
  There appears to be a serious gap in our present contribution to what Ministers have rightly called the third objective of our defence provision. In his foreword to the 1992 White Paper, my right hon. and learned Friend referred to promoting
  "the United Kingdom's wider security interests through the maintenance of international peace and stability."
  The House knows that the liberation of Kuwait, under the auspices of the United Nations, was a very successful operation. We had the resources, mechanisms and instruments to meet that threat to international peace and stability.
  Bosnia poses different needs, and therefore requires different approaches. We have found it much more difficult to meet the challenges there, and I want to discuss ways in which we might better deal with them.
  I am not criticising the Government; I simply want to examine the readiness and capability of the United Nations to deal with the challenges. One of the first requirements is to ensure that, in times of potential conflict or disorder, we are able at the earliest possible moment to mount an effective team of observers which might be able to intervene and make a contribution.
  I was impressed by the suggestion of Mr. John Keegan, the distinguished defence commentator, of the development of a cadre of political, military and diplomatic observers, perhaps drawn from the ranks of retired officers and diplomats. People may think that I am talking about elderly generals, but there are a number of young retired officers sitting on our Back Benches, and I am sure that people like them could make a highly useful contribution. They are the sort of people that I sent to Bosnia as observers in the early stages of the conflict, and they did valuable work. I do not envisage a standing cadre, as that would be unrealistic. However, the UN should organise a register of available people with the right experience in peacekeeping, monitoring and reconciliation.
  Sir Jim Spicer: I hope to catch Madam Speaker's eye later, when I intend to refer to the
  48
  Commonwealth. Does my right hon. Friend think that within the Commonwealth, and as we become a much more positive force in the world, we could draw up such a list and present it to the United Nations?
  Mr. King: The sort of thing that I am talking about is very relevant to the Commonwealth. Mr. Keegan's article drew attention to the French, with their experience in Africa, and to the British colonial experience. Many people have considerable experience of different territories. If they are available—quickly; there is a need for speed—they could make a useful contribution. What we need is a range of instruments that can help in particular situations, each of which is likely to be different.
  We need to concentrate in peacekeeping on the speed with which we can move. The UN Secretary General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, is calling for a standby arrangement of groups of forces from individual countries. I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell said on the first day of this debate about the need for the maximum number of countries to make a contribution.
  I am pleased that Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali has called upon Germany and Japan to make forces available so that the burden of meeting the UN's requirements can be spread as widely as possible. That will make it possible to rotate the troops so that we are not stuck with permanent commitments that put an added strain on our deployments.
  Another serious matter is the gap between peacekeeping and peacemaking. We need a body that carries greater credibility than pure peacekeeping forces, which have no power to retaliate. In the Gulf, under the auspices of the UN, we blew out of the way an army of 500,000 men and a considerable amount of modern equipment. In the former Yugoslavia, one old peasant with a shotgun prevented the passage of a convoy of 10 Warrior APCs with 30 mm cannon. That happened because of his total commitment, and the understandable limits on the ability of our people to retaliate.
  The position is never easy, but there may be times when a different sort of force is needed. It is difficult for individual countries to deploy forces that will take that extra step towards confrontation and retaliation. That calls for a small UN standing force made up of volunteers, not troops seconded from national forces.
  I am thinking of suitable groups around the world—the Gurkhas, for example. Many of them would be willing to serve in a force pursuing a responsible aim, and they would be outstandingly good soldiers. I think also of people who have recently left the British forces—perhaps, sadly, because they are no longer required. I think also of the French, the Germans and even the eastern Europeans.
  All of those could make up the core of a body that would be prepared to take slightly greater risks of casualty than can be authorised by national Governments for their forces. Those volunteers could move with speed, and perhaps greater conviction, in difficult circumstances. It is not possible in such a debate to examine all the serious issues that would need to be considered, but I think that proposal is worthy of discussion at the highest level with other countries to see whether we could promote that instrument within the United Nations.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am listening with interest to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. He has made a very

  49
  positive contribution to the debate. Does he agree that a group drawn together in the way he described would ultimately depend for its effectiveness on the rules of engagement on which it was invited to act—which would depend on the United Nations' political commitment—and to the extent to which it could be seen to act in a unified political fashion?
  Mr. King: That is obviously true, but I sense that it might be possible for the Security Council, operating entirely with its own forces, and with them as volunteers on clear terms of engagement, could go just that step further than is possible with individual Governments, who must be sensitive to public opinion at home and who have to explain to individuals what it is they run the risk of dying for.
  That was not difficult in the Gulf, because in that conflict there was a cause for which people were prepared to engage themselves—and to die, if necessary. The country accepted that also. I do not believe that there is wide public support for dying for the United Nations in Bosnia. That is a real problem, and the instrument that I suggested might just help, although it is not a total answer.
  There is then a problem about costs. This year's United Nations peacekeeping operation is already $1 billion in debt. The budget provision for the year was $1·4 billion, but peacekeeping in Somalia has already totalled $1·5 billion, and Cambodia is expected to cost $800 million. The cost of 5,000 men at United Nations rates is £400 million a year, to which must be added equipment, ships, helicopters and other aircraft.
  The United Nations' present peacekeeping costs are equivalent to 0·14 per cent. of the defence budgets of the world. It is not easy to raise the issue of costs just now for any country. However, given the self-interest of national Governments, that must be considered—otherwise, peacekeeping will distort individual defence budgets and impose unacceptable pressures on individual defence requirements. I understand that Canada's difficulties have already led it to withdraw its forces from Somalia, and the French are already complaining about the distortion of their defence budget.
  One great breakthrough in the Gulf war, and a consequence of the ending of the cold war, is that the Security Council can now work. The use of chapter VII of the charter is becoming more and more frequent. Forty five years ago, the then United Nations Secretary-General said that the time had come to give attention and imagination to strengthening the United Nations. He put forward just such a proposal—and in readiness the United States earmarked 300,000 troops, 1,250 bombers and 2,250 fighters for that standby force.
  I am not talking about anything remotely approaching that scale of operation. That earlier initiative was killed by the cold war—and now that has ended, that option is back on the table. The United Nations Secretary-General said that the nations of the world failed to give attention and imagination to strengthening the United Nations. Now is the time to give them again.
  5.14 pm
  Dr. John Gilbert: The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) makes far more interesting speeches now as a Back Bencher than he ever did or was able to do as Secretary of State for Defence.
  50
  Various ex-Ministers are affected that way. I shall enjoy reading the right hon. Gentleman's remarks with close attention when I see them set down in print tomorrow.
  At the end of today's debate, I propose to join my right hon. and hon. Friends in opposing the Government motion, but I shall not be with them when they vote for their amendment. That will come as no suprise to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench.
  The reason for my difficulty with the Opposition amendment relates to a sentence in the middle that
  "demands an immediate end to British nuclear testing, which would greatly assist efforts to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons".
  I do not hold myself up for one moment as an expert on nuclear testing, but there are few experts on that subject in the House, and it is an issue on which Ministers are almost bound to accept the advice that is given to them.
  The proposition that the end of nuclear testing by the Government would contribute in any way to a reduction in the proliferation of nuclear weapons strikes me as an insight into the thought process of the great and good leaders of North Korea—I am not being sarcastic, for that is the title that they give themselves—Saddam Hussein, and those responsible for Iran's defence policy that is very different from my own.
  As to the motion, I am astonished to see a Conservative Government responsible for the havoc that the present Government are wreaking on the armed forces of this country. I am particularly concerned about the rundown in the Army and Royal Navy reserves, which are totally deplorable. I am certain that the Government are seeking to put commitments on the armed forces that they do not have the manpower to meet.
  That is due in no small part to the Treasury's baleful influence, and I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Bridgwater or his successor as Secretary of State put up nearly as big a fight as they should have done against the Treasury in respect of manpower reductions.
  I was interested to hear the remarks of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement about procurement decisions. We must buy where it is cheapest, provided that quality needs are satisfied. I know perfectly well the agonies through which Ministers went at the time of Swan Hunter. I will not criticise them for that decision, because I went through the same agony many times over in respect of Cammell Laird, when I was responsible for warship procurement.
  I am not against industrial and regional considerations being taken into account when defence procurement decisions are made—of course not—but any costs attached to those decisions should fall squarely on regional budgets and on the budget of the Department of Employment, and not on the Ministry of Defence's budget.
  That Ministry is voted funds by the House to provide the most effective resources as economically as it can for the defence of this country. Those other considerations are wholly admirable, but the cost should not be attached to the Minister of Defence's budget. It is easy to ascertain the cost of a non-optable, non-cheaper solution. Such costs should be placed on the budgets of other Departments—whether it is a case of keeping an order within a certain facility in this country against competition from elsewhere in this country, or of competition from abroad.
  I am afraid that it has become a truism to say that we are now free of the cold war, and face an entirely different

  51
  set of security considerations; it is precisely because it is a truism, however, that we must deal with it. We are now confronted by the problems of state-sponsored terrorism, the deliberate imposition of mass starvation on the populations of certain countries, the use of chemical weapons on countries' inhabitants by their leaders, and deliberate genocide masquerading as "ethnic cleansing"—a disgusting term.
  Some developments in the United States seem to have been discussed very little on this side of the Atlantic, developments in what is described as "non-lethal warfare". Hon. Members may consider that almost a contradiction in terms. In fact, there has already been a good deal of research into methods of non-lethal warfare on the other side of the Atlantic. I hope that Ministers are paying attention, as I should like a response to my remarks at the end of the debate.
  In September last year, the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command published a document entitled "Operations Concept for Disabling Measures". It seems that a range of methods are available—for instance, supercaustics, which are much more caustic than hydrofluoric acid. An artillery round delivers super-acids that can destroy the optics of heavily armoured vehicles, penetrate vision blocks or glass, or be employed silently to destory key weapons systems or components.
  There are many kinds of anti-traction technology which can make it extremely difficult for vehicles to move across bridges or through other narrow defiles. The surfaces of airport runways can be made extremely slippery, so that it is difficult for aircraft to use them. There are many other disabling weapons, often employing laser technology. I shall not try to deceive the House: it is not very pleasant to be on the receiving end. Although disabling, those weapons are in no way lethal.
  I understand that there is some argument in the Pentagon about whether such technologies should be treated as "black technologies"—kept as secret programmes—or whether they should be put into the public domain. The argument against the latter option is that, if talked about at length in public, those programmes would have to compete with other "conventional" programmes. I hope to hear that Her Majesty's Government are currently studying the position; I also hope that we can be told whether research is being done here, and how much access this country has to research in the United States.
  I wish next to deal with a matter on which I have touched before in the House—the operation of the missile technology control regime. As hon. Members who have been kind enough to listen to my speeches in the past will know, I have long believed that it is more important for us to get a grip on the spread of technology and the development of medium and long-range missiles than it ever was for us to deal with the non-proliferation treaty and nuclear devices. I am especially concerned to note what is apparently still happening in North Korea.
  I understand that the model D Scud missile, which has a range of between 1,000 and 1,300 km, will come into service later this year, if it is not in service already. Based in North Korea, it could reach Osaka, the whole of the south of the Korean peninsula, Beijing and Shanghai. I gather that testing is taking place for the model E Scud, which has a range of at least 1,500 km.
  52
  We may ask what concern that is of ours. If an effective missile with such a range were sold by the North Koreans to unfriendly powers in the middle east—or to what could become unfriendly powers on the southern shores of the Mediterranean—a great many cities in western Europe, including English cities, would come within its range. I hope that the Government are taking the North Korean developments seriously, will make representations—as they may already be doing—and will take part in joint representations with the Americans. Not only the Americans but the Chinese, the Taiwanese and the Japanese are anxious to introduce some sense into the difficult regime in North Korea.
  I shall deal tangentially with some of the subjects raised by the fomer Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). I shall not detain the House by bemoaning what I consider to be a cause for concern for all of us—the inability, so far, of the United Nations, the European Community and NATO to make any effective contribution to ending the appalling events in what was Yugoslavia.
  I believe that the Community has failed to contribute not just because it does not want to make a financial contribution; one of the main reasons is the fact that it has ideological and psychological difficulties with intervening, using its own troops as part of a joint force, in that or any other part of the world. We observed such difficulties, to a lesser degree, during the recent Gulf war: our European partners were far from unanimous in advocating participation with us, the French, the Americans, the Italians and the Dutch.
  This country and France have usually been in the van of peacekeeping or peacemaking activities in relation to western European countries, and I think that that will continue. I do not necessarily welcome that state of affairs, but I do not find it deplorable; it is understandable that countries such as Denmark, Portugal and Greece are less enthusiastic than we are about engaging in some of those conflicts.
  In a few months, a conference will take place within the European Community to discuss its constitution. It has nothing to do with Maastricht; the aim is to settle some of the constitutional outlines of the Community's future. I hope that, at that conference, the Government will take the initiative and suggest that we should not be so concerned about whether all our Community colleagues contributed material and manpower to operations of this kind, as long as they were prepared to pay a reasonable share of the costs and to take the burden off our defence budget.
  If we could reach agreement in advance, over a period, so that these decisions were not always made at the last minute, it would make a substantial contribution to the defence budget of this country. Furthermore, it would make it possible to ease the grotesque overstretch to which the armed forces of this country are subject. and it would add greatly to future stability on the fringes of Europe.
  I confess that these are imprecise thoughts that I put before the House. However, I hope that they, together with the suggestions made earlier by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater, will be taken seriously by Her Majesty's Government.
  Something has got to be done. We cannot afford a repetition of this shameful inactivity in territories so close to our own, whose civilisations are so close to our own. It

  53
  could have an immediate impact elsewhere in Europe. Furthermore, it could affect our own security and the wider security of Europe.
  5.30 pm
  Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: The debate has addressed some uncomfortable questions regarding this country's future defence policy. Much of the optimism in the aftermath of the collapse of communism has evaporated. We are debating the defence estimates against a gloomy background of increasing world disorder.
  As the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said in his wind-up speech on the first day of the debate:
  "Defence tasks consist of the imperative, the desirable and the optional."—[Official Report, 17 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 1084.]
  If we start from the assumption that the imperative is an absolute, what we are talking about principally today is the future shape of our armed forces in the other two categories. I shall develop that theme, for it involves the issue of double hatting. I cannot resist saying to the Minister of State for Defence Procurement that I notice that he has been double hatting, inasmuch as he wound up the debate the other day and opened today's debate. I am sure, however, that he would be the last to complain.
  I begin by endorsing heartily the Foreign Secretary's declaration that we "punch above our weight." That we can still do so is a tribute to the universally recognised skill and dedication of our armed forces. That is clearly good for this country's standing in the world, and for its self-esteem. Far more flows from this than narrow, but important, military engagements, such as training teams world wide. Our economy has benefited from trade, both military and non-military, and good will has been generated throughout the world. Several hon. Members have, however, pointed out that we cannot be expected to get involved in every area of conflict and that priorities must be set. We must be selective. To do otherwise would undermine the standards set by the British armed forces.
  The "Options for Change" proposals were set out as a direct reaction to the collapse of the Warsaw pact. Since then, events in the Gulf and in Bosnia, let alone in Somalia and 25 or so other conflicts that have erupted throughout the world, have reminded us all that unforeseen commitments can crop up at any time. It is thus essential that the implementation of the inevitable drawdown is done, to coin a phrase, with flexible response.
  Many hon. Members feel uncomfortable that those close to the decisions made in "Options for Change"—I should make it clear that I am referring to the military and not to my two right hon. Friends sitting in front of me, my right hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton)—when confronted by developments since "Options for Change" have tended to shrug their shoulders and declare, "Well the resources went one way and the commitments another." I suggest that we shall. have to do better than that.
  The fact is that "Options for Change" does not reflect the present rapidly altering world. That is hardly surprising, for it was published some three years ago. I welcome the fact, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater, that the Government have already acknowledged that in reprieving two infantry battalions, in the light of changed circumstances, the criteria that the Minister and his right hon. Friends set out were indeed
  54
  followed. However, I must point out a certain irony in that the changed circumstances consisted of two parts: the first was a new commitment in Bosnia that was totally unforeseen; the second was the expansion of an existing commitment in Northern Ireland.
  I understand that in the defence estimates for 1993, to be published next month, a new form is to be adopted. There will be an assessment of our capability to perform some 50 military tasks on a tri-service basis. I hope that this will, in effect, be a strategic review. For 30 years and more, Governments of both parties have shied away from this concept, but I hope that whatever label is put on it, the defence estimates will, in effect, be a strategic review.
  The timing could hardly be better. The United States is reassessing its world-wide role. Russia is preoccupied with its own internal problems. Germany and Japan are constrained by constitutional issues. That leaves only this country and France capable, from Europe, of operating on a global basis.
  I hope that I am not unduly cynical when I point out that it is not the capability of carrying out 50 individual tasks as paper exercises that matters. What matters is the capability to carry out what amounts to the actual and inevitable overlap of unpredictable combinations of those tasks. Unless the House is conscious of that problem, I suspect that the exercise will look very neat but will have precious little practical application. One might have 50 things on the menu, but I doubt very much whether any hon. Member would ever have put the Falklands or the Gulf on the menu 12 or more years ago.
  Hon. Members in all parts of the House have been critical of past projections by the Ministry of Defence and of the matching of units to tasks. I continue to be deeply concerned about that. We have all seen overstretch. We need to be convinced that the sums are indeed right. Both I and others have put forward sums, but we have not received adequate answers. The Select Committee on Defence, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), has produced in its appendices similar sums showing that the arithmetic is wrong. The House deserves a better answer to these statistical questions.
  When I refer to my concern about the 24-month aspiration for tour intervals, one has to remember that it has two aspects. The first is the actual aspect of how impossibly difficult it is to maintain morale in the Army if we do not have a 24-month tour interval. Secondly, the 24-month interval is the index of whether our troops are overstretched or not. I have looked at the numbers carefully and consulted people both inside and outside the House. I cannot say that I am any more convinced that we have a realistic chance of getting to a 24-month tour interval than when the question was first raised in the House about two years ago.
  We shall need to be convinced that we achieve meaningful training at brigade, divisional and even at corps level. I am informed that in the past two years there has been virtually no training at brigade level. If my hon. Friend can confirm that that is true, I shall be grateful if he will tell the House what plans have been made to remedy what I believe to be potentially an extremely dangerous situation.
  We shall also want to know what is to be done about what I have described in this House before as two-timing NATO. I refer to our troops,, with their NATO

  55
  commitments, serving in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether, and if, that will be tolerated by our NATO partners. We shall need to be convinced about that.
  Finally, we shall need to be convinced that, together with the peace dividend, there is such a thing as a service dividend—in other words, that our brilliantly respected service men and their families are allowed to live the sort of lives that they are entitled to live in this day and age. In a debate last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster told an extraordinary story of service men having to dump their wives in sovereign bases in Cyprus and go off to do an emergency tour in the Falklands. I believe that, in the late 1990s, that cannot and will not be tolerated.
  Furthermore, at a time of recession and high unemployment, I find it extremely alarming that recruitment to all ranks has fallen. It is below target, and that is merely storing up trouble for us all in the future. It will have a disastrous effect on morale and, if my somewhat pessimistic comments are well founded, it is not the least able who are leaving our armed forces but the most able, and the lessons of that are obvious to us all.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) and I have not always seen eye to eye on defence matters, but I thank him for his many acts of courtesy during his term of office and congratulate him on his distinguished tenure of his important job.
  I should like to return to finance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell and my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster had an interesting exchange on the subject the other day, which will be dealt with later by my hon. Friend the Minister. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster differed about how the armed forces should be funded. I should like to make my position quite clear. In the current economic climate, further resources must be found from within the existing defence budget. That, I believe, is the stand taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell.
  One must follow that argument through. It seems to me, at the risk of being simplistic, that there are two different ways of tackling the problem. First, we can reduce our commitments. Hon. Members have expressed reservations about our reduced commitment in Belize which, although I am not an expert on the area, seems strange in view of the uncertainties in Guatemala and central America generally.
  Moving on to the question of Ulster, I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) to the Front Bench. We shall rely on his specialised knowledge of security in Ulster, whose problems can be considered constructively by a combination of military and political initiatives. I do not think that this is the right forum in which to discuss the details, but I very much welcome his expertise and ideas on that sensitive subject.
  The second way of tackling the problem is to increase efficiency, which can be considered under three headings. The first is the civilian establishment. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement rightly identified the vast array of jobs that are done magnificently by civilians in the Ministry of Defence. It is strange that under "Options for Change" the civilian establishment will be reduced by only 20 per cent. According to briefing
  56
  papers, that is the proposed reduction in the Army. In fact, if my mathematics are right, the reduction in the Army is 24 per cent.; more importantly, however, the number of fighting troops is being cut by around 40 per cent. It lies rather uneasily to have a 20 per cent. cut in civilian manpower, however well they do their job, but a 40 per cent. cut in fighting forces.
  Unfortunately, I missed the remarks of the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert), but I suggest that, due to the diversity of employment of the Ministry's civilian employees, other Departments may be able to employ them or, alternatively, their functions may 'be taken away from the Ministry.
  The second heading is management of the defence estate. I shall not go into detail, but I have considerable anecdotal evidence of less than efficient management of the defence estates. That needs critical and fresh examination.
  Finally, under the heading of increasing efficiency, I ask the House to consider the question of reserves, in which I declare an interest. I noted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave an assurance that the legal position of reserves will be reconsidered. In the Gulf it really came down to, "If we call you up, would you like to come along?", which was not satisfactory. That is a slight over-simplification, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater is nodding and we know that it did not work as well as it should have.
  I took up with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell when he was still in office the way in which reservists are now being treated. The mechanism for calling up reserves has been changed. One no longer has to report annually to say, "I am here, fit and can do whatever task is required." There is now what is known as the postal reporting system. If that system is adequate for calling people up at war time, it is an idea that the Whip on duty might pass to the Patronage Secretary. Rather than coming in here and traipsing through the Lobby, hon. Members could send a note saying, "We agree with Government policy" or, in a purely hypothetical case, "We do not agree with Government policy."
  The reserves represent a very low cost, well-motivated group of people and their demands on the defence budget are negligible, but I do not think that they are used properly. Many disciplines followed in civilian life could easily be translated into the military on an ad hoc basis: engineers, for instance, and experts in communications, medicine and logistics. I hope that many of the Territorial Army volunteer reserve associations that have expressed concerns to Ministers, and no doubt to Opposition Members, will be actively involved in the consultation process when the role of the reserve forces in the Army is defined.
  I should be negligent if I did not point out that we must consider defence budgets and estimates in the context of history over a span. Under "Options for Change", the percentage of gross domestic product devoted to -defence will fall to 3·4 per cent. It has not been so low since 1935, with all the sinister connotations of that dark age. The House should address that point. The percentage has never fallen below 4 per cent. since, and although our actual expenditure is almost identical to that of France and Germany the House knows that our unique commitments place special demands on our budget.
  The days of countries taking military action alone are coming to an end for political and economic reasons. We must thus consider British forces towards the end of the

  57
  century in the context of international organisations. I was fascinated by some of the ideas proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater. The world will look back on its reaction to the tragic events in the former Yugoslavia with shame. To see the international community paralysed and impotent was a pathetic spectacle. The diplomacy of Lords Carrington and Owen and of Mr. Vance was almost certainly doomed from the start in the absence of military sanctions. History teaches us that the only sanctions that work are military sanctions.
  There has been much wringing of hands and much hypocrisy. Is the United Nations ever to be more than an instrument of persuasion or more than a thin blue line? What happened to the much-vaunted Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and to the Western European Union? Is it not clear that the only organisation with a competent command structure for a regional coalition is NATO? If that is so, and as we have a rapid reaction corps, why are we not willing to use it? Do we lack the resolve or the resources?
  Much has been said and little has been done, but I believe that the whole sad episode yet to unfold has the smell of something approaching appeasement. One day we shall all pay the price unless we get the international organisation in the right mind and the right shape to deal with future tragedies.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence recently said that our aim is not to be an international gendarmerie. We must therefore aim for a proper modern army, by which I mean properly manned and trained, retaining existing capabilities and focused on the tasks ahead. If we get it wrong, we shall prejudice our permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council and our leadership of the rapid reaction corps, let alone this country's reputation and its safety. If we get it right, we may yet find the role that Dean Acheson said that we had lost, by giving a lead with our special expertise in international organisations. I wish my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues well in their difficult task.
  As I have already suggested in previous debates—I do not apologise for raising this again—one of our imperatives, to repeat the description that I used at the start of my speech, needs re-examining urgently, especially in view of the extraordinary and unfortunate lag between the publication of the defence estimates and the events to which they refer—
  Dr. Reid: It is called a debate.
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Indeed, the debate which follows. I am referring to the easy solution to get out of the problems I have outlined, which is to shift the drawdown set out in "Options for Change" from 1995 to 1997. In practical politics, one must bear in mind what is certain in this world. One yardstick is that in 1997 we shall withdraw from Hong Kong, so it makes sense militarily and politically for the Government to take that decision which, above all, is a matter of common sense.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I should like to put it on the record and make it known that I am a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and proud to be so. I joined CND in 1966 and am a member of its national council, and I am a vice-chair of Labour Action
  58
  for Peace. My constituency is very pleased to have in it the offices of the Campaign Against the Arms Trade. I make my remarks from that standpoint.
  Unfortunately, the amendment tabled by some of my colleagues and myself was not called. Apparently, we are not able to debate why it was not called, but it rejected the defence estimates and called instead for a reduction in spending at least to the European average. That was, in fact, official policy as it was carried by a majority of more than two thirds at last year's Labour party conference. Our amendment also called for a halt to
  "the production and testing of nuclear missiles and de-commission Polaris and Trident submarines; and calls for those employed in the arms and related industries to be provided with economically and socially useful work and for overall spending reductions to be used to benefit the social needs of Britain and the overseas aid programme."
  Every week, we receive unsolicited bumph about high technology weapons of war. For example, I read Worldwide Weekly Defence News avidly because I am fascinated by the technology involved in the production of weapons of mass destruction. I wish that some—just some—of the scientists and brilliant brains could be put to work solving the world's ecological, health and social problems. The world economy is seriously out of kilter.
  Not so long ago, the House went along with the Government's policy on the Gulf war. I remind hon. Members that, only a short time before, the few of us who opposed the arms trade with Iraq prior to the invasion of Kuwait were told to shut up. Indeed, a Minister told me that trade came before anything else in policy considerations. In any case, the Gulf war happened. I ask those who so happily went along with it to consider the outcome of the war: the cost, the bombing of unarmed, retreating soldiers on the road to Basra after the liberation of Kuwait, and the question of human rights, equality and democracy in the liberated Kuwait, which is apparently now one of our staunchest allies. Such issues raise serious questions to which people are entitled to an answer. In addition, the families of the 300,000 mainly Iraqi but also British, American and other soldiers who died in the Gulf war are also entitled to know what the war was all about.
  I cannot see what were the great advantages of that awful conflict. There are still enormous denials of human rights and there is still a bloodthirsty regime in power in Iraq, which many of my colleagues opposed—not from 1990 but from 1980 onwards, when we tried to expose its human rights record.
  The post cold war era has not brought peace and stability to much of the former Soviet Union. In fact, it has brought a great deal of social conflict, poverty and unrest. I am not defending everything about the previous system, but the break-up of the Soviet Union has not brought peace to the area. In any case, I do not believe that the former Soviet Union presented a threat, any more than I believe that the remains of the Soviet Union, or Russia, present an external threat now.
  What concerns me is the NATO strategy enunciated in paragraphs 106 to 109 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1992". There is talk of extending NATO's activities outside its sphere of influence in order to protect the security of western Europe and its member states. I am not sure what the out-of-area activities are able or likely to achieve.
  It is time for an examination of the history of NATO, the way in which the United States forces were brought back to Britain in 1948, the way in which this country's

  59
  defence policy and that of every other member state was taken over by a group of generals sitting in the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe headquarters in Brussels, the fantastic expenditure on arms and the arms race promoted by NATO which ended up creating the biggest ever federal deficit in the United States, bankrupting the Soviet Union and leading to its break-up. The arms race also led to a massive proliferation of nuclear arms.
  Let us consider the effect of the level of defence spending in NATO member states and the industrial development of non-NATO member states. There are obvious parallels. The standard of living in Britain compared to that in Japan or the Scandinavian countries and many others is different from what it was in 1945 or 1950. One of the problems for British industry has been the high level of defence spending and the way in which so much research and development has been diverted into military needs and requirements rather than peaceful needs or the development of our industrial base.
  British industry is working with out-of-date equipment because many possible sources of research and development have gone into the arms trade rather than into developing civilian industry. The present problems of the shipbuilding industry have in part been caused by the industry's reliance on defence contracts. The Government should have supported the development of civilian orders and a civilian shipbuilding industry. There are brilliant workers with brilliant skills in the defence industry. I should like those workers to be making bulk carriers, oil tankers and river craft. I do not like their skills being used to develop nuclear weapons or—the current obsession—in the Trident submarine programme.
  I wish to mention specifically the issues of Trident and nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have been used twice in war—in 1945, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People are still dying today in Japan as a result of the fallout from those small nuclear explosions. The airborne nuclear testing that continued for 30 years after those explosions has caused increased radiation throughout the world, which in turn has probably caused a large number of cancers—as many as have been caused by smaller nuclear explosions such as those at Chernobyl and in other nuclear accidents, some of them unreported, around the world.
  I cannot go along with the idea that nuclear defence is any kind of defence at all. Bruce Kent made the point once and his audience immediately knew what he was talking about. He said that having a nuclear weapon was like firing a gun in which there were two bullets, the second of which came out of the back of the gun and killed the person who had fired it. There can never be any kind of defence against nuclear weapons. Indeed, the first to fire a nuclear weapon will be the first to suffer as a consequence of nuclear fallout. Yet we are told that, somehow or other, the massive expense on nuclear weapons is a guarantee of peace around the world. It has been no guarantee whatever—28 wars are being fought between nuclear and non-nuclear countries as we speak. They are being fought in many different theatres and scenarios. Nuclear weapons have not sorted out the world's problems, but have resulted in enormous expenditure on research and development capability. The holding and use of nuclear weapons is fundamentally wrong and immoral.
  60
  Hon. Members are asked to approve estimates that include the further development of the Trident nuclear submarine system. Let me cite information that has been given to many hon. Members. The current Polaris nuclear system has four submarines, 16 missiles per submarine and three warheads per missile—a maximum warhead deployment of 192. That makes a total system yield of 38,400 kilotonnes—the equivalent of 3,072 Hiroshima explosions. I remind the House that 60,000 people were killed immediately at Hiroshima, and probably as many more have died in subsequent years.
  We are now expected to support and approve the Trident system. That system will have a total of four vessels, unless someone proposes to build the fifth, sixth or seventh. The total yield per warhead is 100 kilotonnes, and the total system yield is 1,200 kilotonnes—the equivalent of 4,096 Hiroshimas—with a range of 6,000 miles. The Trident submarine system has 512 warheads.
  We are entitled to know where those warheads are directed. Who is the enemy apparently threatening this country and requiring us to have 512 warheads that can destroy the world and the people in it several times over? What on earth are those warheads for? Whom are they directed against—Iceland, France, Somalia, Angola, South Africa? Who is the enemy against whom we are expected to defend ourselves with a ludicrous amount of firepower, sufficient to destroy our whole world? The cost of the Trident submarine system is absolutely unbelievable. Every time anyone looks into it, we get nearer to realising what that true cost is. I tend to believe the Greenpeace estimate, which puts the figure at a total of £30 billion, including decommissioning costs.
  In my view, we need a policy of arms reduction. We need to end once and for all the holding and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. Anyone who managed to see the "Panorama" programme on the problems of Aldermaston will begin to realise the danger of the manufacture of nuclear warheads to those who manufacture them or live near their place of manufacture—never mind those against whom they might be directed in future. I repeat that we need a programme of arms reduction. We also need a Government-sponsored arms conversion programme. We do not want pressure for increased arms expenditure of the kind that understandably comes from the endless groups of people whose jobs at shipyards, dockyards and factories are threatened because of the changes in defence priorities and who have been offered no alternative work by the Government from people who themselves know that such an increase is neither necessary nor wanted. We need a Government—sponsored arms conversion agency that can put those people's skills to better use.
  I believe that the British Government and others are promoting the arms trade. At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned the arms sold to Iraq, to Indonesia and to bloodthirsty dictatorships all round the world as a result of the British Government's obsession with and heavily subsidised expansion of the arms trade. British industry is falling behind because of the emphasis that has been placed on military rather than peaceful developments. Why cannot the shipyards produce vessels of peace rather than weapons of war?
  Let us take a look at what is happening in the world—at the causes and the basic problems. Wealth is being transferred at an unprecedented rate from the poorest to the richest people and countries in the world.

  61
  Environmental destruction is continuing at an unprecedented rate. Are we seriously approving the expenditure of nearly £24 billion on arms this year at a time when a quarter of the world's population is on the brink of starvation and when life expectancy in a third of the world is rather less than two thirds of the life expectancy of 75 or so that we enjoy in this country?
  Why on earth cannot we look towards the real causes of conflict in the world—the imbalance of wealth and power, resources and health resources, life expectancy, education and many other things? We should be using the opportunity afforded by changes in the world to support the principles on which the United Nations was founded—to identify the basic causes of conflict and to try to end armed conflict. Nuclear weapons provide no solution to any of those problems.
  Let me quote from a briefing that the Quaker peace organisation was kind enough to send me:
  "In these changing circumstances we suggest it might be helpful to look at security in a different way and consider how one country is not made more safe by its ability to threaten another because these are threats to our common security. In the future wars may arise from a number of sources, in addition to those noted above, and we must consider how to create common security in the face of these threats: economic problems (… maldistribution of resources globally, between north and south as well as east and west … poverty, starvation, debt … environmental problems (climate change, deterioration in life systems such as soil and water), global resources scarcity"—
  a major factor in the Gulf war—
  "political oppression and human rights abuses"—
  which receive scant regard from the Ministry of Defence and the arms manufacturers, who are happy to sell arms to Indonesia and similar regimes—
  "terrorism, crime and disease."
  We are on completely the wrong track. We should look to develop peace in the world, and to develop and support peaceful institutions, rather than arming ourselves for conflicts in order to maintain the unfair economic relationship between north and south. We should be using this opportunity to rid ourselves once and for all of the scourge of nuclear weapons and the threat that they constitute to the whole of humanity.
  6.8 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will acquit me of any charge of discourtesy if I do not follow or try to rebut his argument. I have heard it before. I know that he speaks with great conviction, and I have no doubt that, over the years, he has totally convinced himself that he has the right answers. He has so far failed to convince Conservative Members. No Government in the western world would espouse his view, and an increasing number of those in his party oppose it. I am sorry that I cannot continue further, but I would rather return to the mainstream of the debate, which is not really about nuclear weapons.
  I start on a rather sour note. I address my remarks not to the Ministry of Defence but to the way in which we conduct our affairs. It is no good our debating estimates that were published over a year ago when we know that, in a few weeks' time, we shall have another lot. 11 is like trying to guess what this year's train timetable will be by looking at last year's Bradshaw. That is about the size of it.
  62
  The speeches by Ministers so far have been reasonably comforting. Of course, there is a promise of better things to come, so Opposition Members had better be careful what they say. They know very well that the Government are far better at handling defence than the Labour party is because they have a united group behind them—except in one area where Back Benchers and Opposition Members continually voice the criticism that we are in danger of spoiling the efficiency of our armed forces by too big a downward pressure on our defence expenditure. That has been the theme of most of the Back-Bench speeches on Thursday and so far today.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) was concerned about the level of expenditure. He talked about the trooping of the colour and the battalion of the Coldstream Guards walking into the sunset, leaving just one battalion. He also mentioned the overstretching of resources, as did the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who was concerned about the enormous strain on families as a result of having to undertake too many emergency tours.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) struck a strong chord with many Conservative Members when he said that there was no longer really effective combined training in our armed forces, and that the first three exercises carried out in a base training camp in Canada—with the generosity and help of the Canadian Government—were a fiasco because all were conducted without infantry. Military commanders will echo some of those points.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends must realise that on the Back Benches today there is a remarkable number of hon. Members, some quite new to the House, who are extremely well informed about what is happening in our armed forces. Not all of us agree on the question of the overstretch of resources because of one big difference lying behind people's judgments. I am not asking the Government to spend more in such financial circumstances. I. do not think that that is possible, and I understand that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) said, it is unrealistic to expect it. We spend on defence about the same as France and Germany spend and there is nothing special about Britain that should lead us to insist that the Government should do more.
  The disagreement lies in the extent to which we-believe that we face a greater threat than we did before the end of the cold war. One of my hon. Friends said that he did not see any great reduction in the threat from the Warsaw pact countries. I disagree. There is a marked decline in the threat, but I shall not elaborate on that view because I think that it is shared by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. On the other hand, it is no good kidding ourselves; the criticisms about the strain and overstretch of our armed forces are valid and therefore we must reach some conslusions about how we will be able to meet those strains.
  We on the Back Benches must insist that, at the very least and beyond any doubt, the Ministry of Defence will resist and continue to resist any further pressures on the defence budget. We do not believe that our armed forces, and especially the Army, will continue to be able to discharge their current duties at the standard we have come to expect if there is a further downward pressure on our already stretched budget. Of course, we recognise that

  63
  during the interim period, when the strain is especially harsh, the garrisons in Hong Kong and Belize will be withdrawn. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, the Chairman of the Select Committee, was opposed to that, but as long as we maintain the training, I think that it is fine. I do not see why we must have a premanent occupation of those areas—perhaps the RAF have a different view, judging from the faces of my hon. Friends.
  If we understand the realities of finance and that the threat is not as great as it was, it is no good bleating from the Back Benches for the Government to hold on to everything and not withdraw from Cyprus or some other place. That is not fair and it is not common sense. That is one area in which I may differ in emphasis from some of my hon. Friends who have been critical of the stress that is put on the armed forces as a result of the downward pressures on the budget. However, I have no doubt that, unless we stick strongly to the policy that I asserted a moment ago, we shall concede that we can spend less, which will lead to the structure and morale of our armed forces falling apart.
  What can we do in the meantime? My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has told us that he gets better value for money. There are signs that that is happening through competition. Savings cannot wholly be ascribed to the fact that the percentage of the budget that is spent on equipment has declined. My hon. Friend would argue that his economies have been a result of his being able to get better value for money. However, there are undoubtedly pressures on procurement.
  There is one area in which we can take some more imaginative steps, which were signalled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on Thursday. He referred to the reserves and he said that he expected to come forward later this year with a programme which would make it much more possible for the reserves to be used, by calling out whole units at a time, in a more productive and useful role. I am sure that that is right because it would give the reserves a sense of purpose. As we all know, the first priority of defence is defence of the realm. There is no real threat to the United Kingdom right now.
  We have a highly professional Army which, in too many cases, performs duties that do not need to be performed by people with such high skills. It is imperative, therefore, that we should welcome, as I did on Thursday, the first step taken by my right hon. and learned Friend when he said that we should see whether we could have volunteers who would volunteer to serve in a Territorial Army unit on peacekeeping duties overseas. He was not suggesting sending them to Bosnia and getting into that sort of ball game. He was suggesting something less intense and less dangerous than that, which would release highly trained troops.
  I rashly jumped to my feet and said that I was sure that such a step would be widely welcomed by both sides. However, when I looked at Opposition Members, I saw that they were very po-faced. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said that he would have to reserve his judgment on that and that he would give us his opinion today. I should welcome his comments.
  Dr. Reid: I know that the hon. Gentleman would expect the courtesy of a reply to that specific point. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said that we should, of course, wish to see the small print. We welcome the general principle of integration of the Territorial Army into operational duties, although we share the view expressed by those who warned about having to volunteer twice. It is sufficient that a person volunteers once for the Territorial Army. On the second occasion, he should be called up. He should not be asked to run the risk of losing a job or a home by volunteering a second time.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can talk about someone having to volunteer for a second time. Either he volunteers or he does not. I do not see anyone volunteering twice. He can volunteer for a company, as suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend, which he knows before he volunteers will discharge overseas duties. That is a very simple proposition.
  What I did not like about some of the feelings expressed in reaction to my right hon. and learned Friend's initiative was the idea that we would try to get infantry on the cheap. That is an old argument that has been brought out in every generation by some Regulars. The more enlightened understand what we are about. Some argue, "Oh my golly, that is money that would otherwise go to the Regulars. It is going to the TA." That is why they do not want the TA to take a more prominent role. I doubt whether that view is strongly held today by our enlightened military leadership. However, that was the little murmur that went round our Back Benches on Thursday.
  I stick to my guns. I believe that if we are to be realistic about defence, we must be more flexible. It is no good our asking the military to be flexible unless we have political flexibility. I welcome my right hon. Friend's suggestion.
  I would like to consider briefly a subject that was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). I will deal with the point rather more quickly than might otherwise have been the case because my right hon. Friend covered the ground extremely well. However, there are certain differences of emphasis.
  There is no area in which our armed forces have displayed their skills so apparently to the world as they have done in Bosnia. They have also displayed their skills elsewhere in other peacekeeping duties—for example, in Cyprus. Those tasks place enormous strains on our soldiers who face intense provocation. They demand courage and cool judgment when the moment comes for our soldiers to take firm military action.
  It is not a criticism of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to say that the UN cannot discharge its functions efficiently. Dr. Boutrous Ghali, the Secretary-General, as good as admitted that in "Agenda for Peace", which was a good document. The Secretary-General is aware that the new international context makes demands on the UN which have become increasingly burdensome. For example, many countries do not pay their bills.
  The Secretariat has been called upon to engage in fact-finding, observation, mediation, peacekeeping and peace enforcement. I am sure that we are all familiar with the comments of the first UN commander in Bosnia, the Canadian Major General Mackenzie, who complained

  65
  about the lack of 24-hour, seven-day service from the United Nations. He said something like, "If you phone on Friday, you'll get the answer when the weekend is over."
  Brian Urquhart, a countryman of ours who served so successfully as deputy Secretary-General, put his finger on the matter in an article in the New York Times, of 29 December. He argued that the time had come for the UN to see how far it would welcome an overhaul of its machinery. The Secretary-General followed that up by asking all countries to consider taking chapter VII more seriously as that would give the Security Council the option of using military force to restore international peace and security. He said that that would require the realisation of article 43
  "whereby member states undertake to make armed forces, assistance and facilities available to the Security Council on a permanent basis."
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater suggested that one way of doing that would be for the UN to have a permanent force in which there would be more volunteers from the United Kingdom, France, Germany and goodness knows where else. That would be a kind of Foreign Legion of the UN. I believe that that suggestion should be studied closely. However, I have strong reservations about such a force. I do not know where it would be based, who would train it and to what standard. As some nations do not pay their bills, I am not sure how that force will be financed or equipped.
  I do not want to kill stone dead the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater. We know what line my right hon. Friend is taking and I do not think that he will die at the last ditch in respect of his suggestion. However, as a former Secretary of State, he might believe that a more practical way of dealing with the problem would be to set up with the UN a system whereby it could more easily call on regional frameworks that already existed.
  Some of those frameworks are better than others and the best is clearly the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I have worked for the North Atlantic Assembly for 12 years and I have seen a great deal of NATO, so I am very biased. I believe that NATO is ace. It knows what it is on about and its important feature is that the Americans are right there. If the Americans do not want to send troops on peacekeeping ventures because of the bloody nose that they received in Vietnam, I understand that. However, the Americans have a great military characteristic: they have the logistical capacity to take any number of troops, food and the rest to the four corners of the earth. That is what we need. With its superb record and idealism in international affairs, and with its firm commitment to NATO, America would find that to be a very useful role.
  If we do not want our soldiers to spend a disproportionate amount of their time on peacekeeping duties or paying a disproportionate burden for the task, the NATO regional framework can best ensure that we pay our fair share and no more and no less.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) is an old friend of mine and chairman of the Defence Committee of the Western European Union. I do not believe that WEU is a rival to NATO. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington is aware, some NATO circles are not always as complimentary about WEU as I would like them to be
  66
  because they fear that WEU is the forerunner of control by the European Commission and a kind of federal European army. They hate the idea of that.
  I know that that is not the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington. However, we know that we must not go through this ridiculous business of duplication and fighting and squabbling. Many NATO countries are members of WEU and they must sort out that problem. The Heads of Government in the North Atlantic Assembly, all of which are members of WEU, have agreed that NATO should be called upon to contribute to global stability. However, the European nation members of NATO should, among their other problems, resolve their problems to avoid the awful duplication that took place in respect of Yugoslavia.
  Sir Dudley Smith: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said. Does he agree that Bosnia happened, rather inconveniently, two or three years too early? Had it happened in two or three years' time, we would have been much better prepared. I agree with my hon. Friend that duplication is wasteful and must be overcome. However, we must achieve that very carefully and many of us have real anxieties about the European Commission taking over the whole of the defence of Europe.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I understand that the time was out of kilter. However, we now have time to think and to do something about the problem.
  I should like my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to consider the fact that there is money to be made out of anything that involves peacekeeping on a regional basis. As my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, after the Falklands, many NATO ships come in for special survival training and we are said to run a very good training course. We are paid for that training. If there were a peacekeeping training school, the Brits could be very helpful and provide advice to countries which have not had Our experience—and I do not say that with any sense of vanity.
  We have a great responsibility to take the lead in these matters. One of my colleagues referred earlier to "punching our weight" when he quoted my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We can punch more than our economic weight by virtue of our diplomatic skills, knowledge, integrity in public affairs and our economic weight in terms of overseas aid and so on. We want to live up to our responsibilities and we have the public behind us. It is right to affirm and strengthen the observance of civilised behaviour in international affairs and to strengthen the values of democracy. I believe that our country is well up to that task.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: We have heard many endorsements and much praise for our service men who are serving in various parts of the world. I am sure that we all associate ourselves with that praise and endorse those comments.
  However, a large body of ex-service personnel who heard the endorsements from the Treasury Bench will find those words rather windy, hollow and little more than rhetoric. I refer to the 26,000 personnel who, in the 1950s,

  67
  were sent to witness nuclear test explosions. It is sad that the defence estimates and Ministers have not mentioned those service men.
  In my brief contribution, I wish to ask one very simple question. When are those men, the widows—there are now too many widows—and their families going to get justice? In the 1950s, 26,000 service personnel, many of them young men, were called up for national service and were sent to places such as Monte Bello Island in north-west Australia, Maralinga and Emu in South Australia, and Christmas Island and Malden Island in the Pacific, and 14,000 of them directly witnessed nuclear explosions. Eleven men from my own home town went to those tests. Five of them are now dead, and six of them suffer from some form of illness associated with exposure to radiation. One of them, William Rettie, even had it recorded on his death certificate that the cause of his illness was associated with exposure to radiation. Those men and their bereaved families still await justice.
  The Government have long said that there was no case for those men to be compensated. Contrary to the official propaganda films that were made at the time and all the subsequent Government statements, for many of those men no protective clothing, either for their bodies or for their eyes, was issued. In the hot sunny weather, many of them wore shorts, vests and sandals.
  Back in 1951, the Ministry of Defence stated in a secret memorandum that it needed to test the impact of radiation on human beings. Those tests, as acknowledged by the memorandum, were as much about testing the effects of radiation on human beings as about testing the effects of the nuclear weapons themselves. The Director of Trials Planning at the Admiralty at the time wrote:
  "Ill effects may be long delayed. With any claims for compensation I feel that some formula might be accepted by Ministries which would dispose any tribunal in favour of a … claimant."
  Sir William Penny went on to state that there was a need for
  "adequate insurance for participating personnel, especially against radioactive hazards, without undue disclosure to insurance companies."
  We know also that, on 28 April 1958, in the Grapple Y test, the second test off Christmas Island, the megaton nuclear explosion was at a much lower height than the officially reported 8,000 ft, and that it happened not five miles out but one and a half miles from the island. We know that there was greater exposure to radiation than has been acknowledged.
  Successive Governments have refused to pay compensation. There has never been more evidence available than is available now. The British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, to its great credit, has gathered much of that information. Indeed, the association was founded only about 10 years ago by a friend of mine who at the time was not involved in politics—a man by the name of Ken McGinley.
  Ken is a constituent of mine. He was disgusted at the official position of the Government. He has been an active member of the Labour party for some time; he is now a Labour councillor, and has broadened his activities in relation to helping people. However, his main cause remains the winning of justice for veterans of British nuclear tests.
  68
  Let us consider Ken McGinley's experience. The protection that he was offered when he served on Christmas Island was to cover his eyes with his hands. When the bomb went off, Ken saw the skeleton of his hand. Since then, he has suffered many ill effects which he would not wish to be put on the public record, and he has fought consistently for 10 years to win justice for his colleagues.
  Those men know what happened on the island—they were at the tests. Many of them feel that all that they did wrong was to serve their country and obey orders.
  The case has been taken up over the 10 years by many people, notably the former right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, Mr. Jack Ashley, as he then was; the former Member for Sunderland, North, Mr. Bob Clay; and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). It has also been taken up by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins).
  During that period, the Government have hidden behind the 1988 study by the National Radiological Protection Board, which the Government have always claimed gave no credence to the nuclear test veterans' claim. The report states:
  "It is concluded from the study that participation has not had a detectable effect on the participants expectation of life nor their total risk of developing cancer"—
  then, almost as an afterthought, it adds—
  "apart from a possible effect on the risks of developing Multiple Myeloma and Leukaemia."
  That is a matter of political presentation. The report could and should have said something along the lines that participation might have caused death from multiple myeloma and leukaemia, although not from other cancers. That is the real conclusion of the 1988 report.
  Of course, since then, the Government have said, "Hang on: that report was not conclusive, so we will commission another one, and it will be ready at any time." In fact, on 5 June last year, in reply to a parliamentary question, the Prime Minister said:
  "A further report from the NRPB on more recent data on mortality and cancer evidence is expected later this year." —[Official Report, 5 June 1992; Vol. 208, c. 655]
  On 5 June, the report was to come later.
  On 29 July, in response to a letter which I wrote on behalf of Mrs. Rettie and her two daughters—as I said, her husband had died—we were told that it would be later still. The most recent reply from the Prime Minister was on 14 May, and he told me that it would be produced later in 1993.
  The report is desperately awaited by those men who are dying from the effects of radiation. More important, it is desperately awaited by widows and children who have lost a loved one, and who feel that they are not getting justice from the Government.
  Let us compare that with the situation in the United States of America. In 1988, the year in which the NRPB study was published in Britain, the American Government considered what they would do for their veterans. Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia, speaking in Congress, said:
  "I think it is time to bring an end to the research and to the injustice and to respond with recognition and compassion to what these people went through in the line of duty. We know enough to act."
  When new legislation was announced by President Ronald Reagan, hardly a left-wing campaigner, he said:

  69
  "The nation is grateful for their special service, and enactment of the law makes clear the nation's concern for their continued welfare."
  He said:
  "The nation is grateful … We know enough to act."
  Why is it that the United States of America, with all the research that it has done, has said that it knows enough to act while our Government have continued to stonewall? Men are dead, men are dying, wives are becoming widows, and children are losing fathers, while the Government claim that there is no link with the exposure to nuclear radiation in those tests. Frankly, that argument is believed by fewer and fewer people. The Government's case is becoming less and less credible as more and more evidence accumulates.
  I return to the simple question that I want answered: when are those men and their families going to get justice? When can we expect the full publication of the NRPB study? Why have the Government waited and not done the same as the United States has done and said, "Enough research, enough investigation—let's pay just and adequate compensation now"? The motto of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association is
  "All we seek is justice "
  Let the House give justice to those men and their families.
  6.38 pm
  Sir Jim Spicer: I start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), who has carried out a difficult task over the years with good humour and great efficiency, always supplemented by the fact that he towers over us and we are not prepared to risk a punch-up if we disagree too strongly with him. I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who has taken over that difficult task.
  I am never sure how handover notes are arranged, but I wonder whether one small item has been omitted from them. That would have read, "Watch for an invitation about January of next year to lunch at the annual regimental sergeant-majors conference of the Parachute Regiment." My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell came to that lunch the year before last, and the Secretary of State came last year. They found it an interesting experience, which I do not think either of them wants to repeat.
  That may well be the reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell decided that discretion was the better part of valour and that he had better leave office. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes has about nine months in which to show himself worthy of lunch with the parachute RSMs and to come away virtually unscathed. I am sure that he will do that very well.
  I shall first say a word about the welcome announcement by my right hon. Friend on Thursday about giving the Territorial Army a new role and a positive sense of purpose. For 40 years, our Territorial Army had that sense of purpose, because it knew exactly where the enemy was and what its role would be in fighting that enemy if it ever came to war. Suddenly, the whole idea of and reason for a Territorial Army in that context has gone out of the window. I served on the staff of the 16th Airborne Division of the Territorial Army for two years.
  70
  I know about the quality that we had there—I know that it still exists today and is even better than it was in the 1950s and 1960s.
  I warmly welcome what was said on Thursday about calling up those volunteers from the TA and giving them a role. What I do not welcome is the delay that we will face before that decision is implemented. Such a delay may be necessary, but I suggest that one of the first things that the Minister of State should do is earmark those units and give them warning that they may be required for such a duty once the measures are fully implemented.
  There seems to be general agreement on both sides of the House that such a warning would be welcome. Obviously, I do not need to stress that too much. Clearly, if the Minister is looking for the right sort of company or companies to perform that function, his first port of call will be the Territorial Army parachute battalions, because they would provide the best source of supply for such a force.
  On Thursday, I was delighted that the Secretary of State spent so much time talking about the role of the United Nations. We all know that this will be the decade of the United Nations and, increasingly, we will be involved in United Nations operations, rather than acting independently.
  That point was strongly reinforced today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). There is absolutely no problem if we are dealing with a European theatre of operations, because we have NATO and with it a command structure that is second to none, and so we do not need to look any further. The United Nations can simply designate a NATO command structure to take over the role.
  What happens in the rest of the world? That is where our problems begin, because a command structure cannot be cobbled together in a matter of weeks. Much more proper training is needed in a command structure than for the troops who will be answerable to that command. The command structure then needs to be in a position, if possible, to command a homogeneous group of troops who have worked together before and who have a common language—if that can be achieved. If there are common weapons as well, so much the better.
  One of my greatest disappointments in the past couple of years is how little has been said about the 1991 Commonwealth conference in Harare. Everyone I know who attended that conference, from the Secretary-General and all the members of the secretariat down, said that it marked a watershed for the Commonwealth. This was for various reasons. South Africa was on the back burner, but also, for the first time, a Commonwealth conference showed a sense of unity and purpose, and began to make sense once again. I have been told that the main reason was the fact that our Prime Minister played a crucial role at the conference. In three months' time, the Commonwealth conference will gather again in Cyprus.
  To add to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden said, I am sure that there is another way in which we could operate under United Nations command. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater talked about observers, perhaps drawn from the Commonwealth. We then looked at the possibility of having a regional force. Another option would be a direct United Nations force under the command of the Secretary-General.

  71
  Why should we not at least explore the possibility of the Commonwealth playing a part under the United Nations? Why should we not have a small Commonwealth planning group drawn together to discuss this? It would be not regional but worldwide, and above all would give the Commonwealth a sense of purpose that, sadly, it has not had for the past 25 years.
  I pass that idea to my hon. Friend the Minister, for what it is worth. I hope that he will forward it through the usual channels and ensure that something is made of it in Cyprus. After all, we are simply looking at a small initial step—a planning group to see whether there would be support in the Commonwealth to ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations whether he would like us to go down that road, and then possibly the establishment of a small permanent planning force with the idea of drawing regional groupings from the Commonwealth as and when required.
  It would be impossible for me to finish without saying a word about procurement policy. Five hon. Members have mentioned the EH101 directly—and most other hon. Members have done so indirectly. All of them said that now is the time for a decision.
  All hon. Members accept the need for a radical rethink and restructuring of our armed forces to meet the challenge of this decade and those to come. Far be it from me to put the boot in the Armoured Corps, but there is no place in the 1990s and beyond for great massive heavy armed forces sitting around on the north German plain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden said, the threat from the east has virtually disappeared and we must think more about the sort of conflict in which we might be involved in the future. In my view, it is down with most of the tanks and into helicopters in a more positive way, in support of infantry.
  In that context, the helicopter becomes crucial if we are to produce an effective infantry force for any situation under United Nations command and control. That fact was recognised by the former Secretary of State, Lord Younger, when he said, in 1987, that he intended to place an order for 50 utility 101s, with the proviso that the price and the contract could be satisfactorily concluded.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Twenty-five.
  Sir Jim Spicer: It should be 50. My recollection is much better. Fifty is the minimum figure, and would be much better at 75.
  Sadly, there is still no order. We now have a major problem. It is not as if we are fighting over whether the order should go to Rosyth or Devonport: we seem to be skirmishing over whether a British world beater is ordered or whether we go for a Chinook. The Chinook is a marvellous helicopter, but it is almost in the same category as the Hercules. It has been around for 30 years. It is a good workhorse, but it is at the end of its shelf life. Is it any wonder that the American manufacturers are perfectly prepared to undercut Westland all the way down the line? They want to get shot of their Chinooks. They have far too many. They would like to undermine the challenge that Westland will mount worldwide with the EH101.
  Whether we order 25, 50 or 75 helicopters is neither here nor there. It is important that our Government put in an order for that utility version now. That would be the
  72
  turnkey for orders worldwide for at least 400 utility versions of the EH101. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and that he does not have full responsibility for procurement policy, but I inform him that the matter will be on the agenda when he meets the RSMs and the Parachute Regiment next year. I hope that he will have achieved a solution before then.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. John Hutton: This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak in a defence debate since I was elected to the House. I begin by paying tribute to the professionalism and dedication and the humanitarian efforts of Britain's armed forces around the world. We have heard recently of some of the heroic exploits in Bosnia of our soldiers from the Cheshire Regiment and now the Yorkshire Regiment. It is a tribute to the training and professionalism of our soldiers to draw attention to their work.
  Service in the armed forces is public service of the highest order. It is perfectly appropriate for hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to make that clear. I also have a clear constituency connection with the subject of the debate. As many hon. Members will know, the shipyard at Barrow-in-Furness is synonymous with the Royal Navy. Over many generations and many years, we have provided some of the finest ships that the Navy has ever had.
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement spoke about the impressive engineering accomplishment of my constituency in completing the Trident programme to schedule and to cost. It is worthy of note that that is a signal engineering achievement which is without parallel in the history of naval architecture in Britain.
  It is also worth placing on record the concern felt in my constituency that, although Ministers talk in the House about the achievements of the men and women who work in the shipyard at Barrow in completing the Trident programme and building many other ships for the Navy, they appear content to do nothing while thousands of my constituents lose their jobs at the shipyard.
  It is clearly important for the security and the health of the nation that shipbuilding remains active in my constituency. I must inform Ministers on the Treasury Bench that in 10 or 15 years' time, when the needs of the nation might be different and new and different forms of naval procurement might be required, they may ask the shipbuilding workers in my constituency to co-operate and find that they are not there.
  I have said on previous occasions that there is a real danger that, in our drive to reduce defence spending, we shall strike deeply at the core of the defence industry of Britain. There is a strong strategic case for the House, and especially Conservative Members, to pay careful attention to what is happening in the defence industries.
  The defence industries are a strategically important part of Britain's engineering base. It is dangerous and damaging for the Government to wring their hands and claim that the problems can be solved by the market and that diversification is about defence cuts. It is not. The case for diversification is a central strategic military case. It is a mistake for Conservative Members to say that there is a problem of over-capacity in the defence industries. That is not the problem. At present we have under-utilised

  73
  capacity. Diversification is necessary not only to save jobs in the short term but to preserve engineering capability in the long term.
  In 10 or 15 years' time, there may well be a need for different types of defence procurement. If the engineering base is not there, as a result of the programme of running down and cutting defence—the problems are felt not only in my constituency but in the constituencies of many other hon. Members who are present tonight—there will be serious strategic problems for the country in the years that lie ahead.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) for his comments about the need for justice for the nuclear test veterans. He made an extremely strong argument to the House. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a positive response.
  The House also has a responsibility to set the right parameters for British defence and security policy in a rapidly changing world. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that not all the recent changes have been for the better. Clearly, the end of the cold war and the dismantling of the Warsaw pact were positive developments for Britain and our allies. That is not questioned. There is a consensus between the two sides of the House. However, those changes have not been without other difficulties, as we see in the territory of the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere. Real security problems face many Europeans. Therefore, it is imperative that Britain acts in co-operation with our colleagues in NATO, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and the United Nations to develop new security structures and policies for the changed world in which we live.
  Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that the Government are not effective and rigorous in pursuing some of those changed security priorities. As many hon. Members have said, it is important that the House provides the armed services with the right equipment at the right time and at the right price. Much of the two days of our debate has dealt with difficult decisions on individual items of procurement such as helicopters, main battle tanks, frigates and other items of essential equipment.
  Although I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) said, the Government repeatedly give the impression that their policy is Treasury-led. It is not sufficient to rely on competition to secure value for money in defence procurement policy. As we saw recently with the demise of Swan Hunter, competition may deliver to the Government equipment of a certain price and value, but the end result is that we lose capacity. It is clear that Swan Hunter might not be there to build ships, frigates or other boats for the Royal Navy in the years that lie ahead.
  Competition is obviously important, but it is not sufficient in itself to guarantee some of the long-term procurement priorities that the Government must have.
  I said that there was evidence that the Government's policy for procurement was Treasury-led. The Select Committee's first report on the White Paper said at paragraph 4.18 in its discussion of the lightweight Sea Wolf missile system that it was the strong view of the Committee that the decision to cancel the development of lightweight Sea Wolf was
  "another example of financial disciplines overriding military requirement."
  I choose that as one exmaple of the weakness at the heart of the Government's policy.
  74
  As the hon. Member for Wealden and others have said, we cannot expect any substantial increase, or any increase whatever, in the defence budget for many years to come. That is common ground. However, there is a legitimate debate, which we have had tonight and on previous occasions, about how the Government manage the process of change in the defence policy of Britain. Increasingly, there is evidence that the policy is being determined by the Treasury. It is incumbent on defence Ministers to provide a more convincing case than they have been able to produce to date for the priorities that underpin their policy. Ritual incantation of the policy from the Front Bench is not evidence that the policy is not Treasury-led. So long as the Select Committee continues its excellent work to track the Government's progress to date, hon. Members will be furnished with more examples of Treasury-led cuts in our defence programme.
  It is important that hon. Members actively support efforts to contain the spread of inappropriate military technology—the nuclear weapon technology. For what it is worth, I believe that the threat from, and spread of, nuclear technology around the world is one of the greatest threats to security for many decades. The Opposition believe that the Government have not paid sufficient attention or devoted enough energy to that issue.
  It is important to consider the scant and rather flimsy attention that was paid to nuclear testing and nuclear proliferation in the White Paper. Paragraph 135 strikes me as indicative of some of the problems that we face. On the issue of non-proliferation, the Government say:
  "Our aim at the 1995 NPT"—
  non-proliferation treaty—
  "Extension Conference will be to negotiate an indefinite extension to the Treaty."
  I am sure that that approach represents common ground between hon. Members, perhaps with the exception of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert). I am sure that there is consensus on the fact that it should be an international priority to extend the non-proliferation treaty.
  The timetable that the Government have announced in the White Paper, however, is far too optimistic given the rather laggardly way in which they have approached the issue to date. The recent preparatory committee meeting in New York was a wasted opportunity for the Government, who concerned themselves with procedural and technical issues. Insufficient attention was paid to making progress on the substantive issues that could form a real agenda for progress on the treaty.
  It is also important that we should consider the replacement for the WE177 nuclear gravity bomb. I know that hon. Members have already spoken about that, but I do not believe that there is any such need. It would be an extremely expensive item of equipment to produce in the present economic and political climate. I have not heard any convincing strategic case for it.
  To some extent, defence policy lags behind events. It is, therefore, easy for some people to remain fixed in their belief that a panoply of nuclear weaponry is essential to maintain peace. Even in the past four years, however, the world has changed dramatically. I, for one on the Opposition Benches, have always been prepared to accept the case for an independent nuclear deterrent. I have never made any secret of my views on that, subject; after all, I

  75
  represent Barrow and Furness. The case for a tactical, nuclear replacement for the WE177 gravity bomb, however, cannot be made in current circumstances.
  The defence posture encapsulated in the Government's White Paper involves a new programme of nuclear weapon testing at the test site in Nevada. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement has made it clear that the three additional tests requested by the British Government relate to developing a replacement for the gravity bomb. They have nothing to do with Trident, because, as we know, the testing programme for that has been completed. I do not believe that there is any case for the tests to go ahead. That is why I am particularly glad to note that the Opposition amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Leader of the Opposition contains a specific reference to nuclear testing.
  Mr. Mans: Am I right to say that the hon. Gentleman believes that once the capability of the strike role of the Tornado becomes obsolete, as a result of the free-fall bomb no longer being a capable system for delivering nuclear weapons, we should rely solely on Trident, despite what he said about nuclear proliferation?
  Mr. Hutton: I do not believe that there is a strategic or military case for that type of tactical nuclear weapon. I cannot foresee a range of military circumstances in which that weapon could be deployed effectively.
  As I said earlier, I believe that there is a case for an independent nuclear deterrent. I stick to that argument. The particular replacement weapon that we are discussing, however, is unnecessary. In the context of continued pressure on the procurement budget, expenditure on developing the tactical air-to-surface missile, TASM, is wholly unjustified. There is no plausible military case for it.
  A decision on the replacement of the WE177 is long overdue—that point has not been made. According to paragraph 7.28 of the 1991 White Paper on the defence estimates, the Government said that a decision on WE117 would be made during 1992. We are obviously some way behind that timetable. I hope that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will be able to give us the benefit of his opinion on this subject, because it is an issue on which opinion on both sides of the House is divided.
  I hope that I have made it clear that my perspective in the debate is based on my strong support of the armed forces and the men and women who serve this country and the international community, through the United Nations, as their members. There are a number of specific concerns, however, on which I want to address the House. They come within the context of my remarks about addressing the House as a constituency Member with an interest at heart.
  I must say how delighted my constituents and I were at the Government's decision to place an order to build a helicopter carrier in my constituency. I am sure that my constituents will build a first-class ship for the Royal Navy and provide a good deal for the taxpayer at the same time. However, there is a great deal of concern and sadness in my constituency about what has happened to Swan Hunter. No one in any shipbuilding community takes any satisfaction from seeing other shipyard employees lose their jobs, particularly at a fine shipyard like Swan Hunter,
  76
  which has developed a reputation for excellence over many years. I urge the Government to find the means to resolve the uncertainty that hangs over the future of that shipyard. It was an important decision to place the order for the carrier, however, and, on behalf of my constituents, I am delighted that it was placed with a shipyard in Barrow and Furness.
  In addition to preserving the amphibious role of the Royal Navy, which is crucial in terms of the wider security context in which the British armed forces will operate in the future, and, in particular, to the assistance that we can give to the United Nations in its peacekeeping work, it is also important that the Government can confirm that it will be their policy to place early orders for the replacement of HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. It is important to concentrate on the complete package. The helicopter carrier is an important part of the amphibious jigsaw. Without replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid, the Royal Navy, including the Royal Marines, will not be able to play a complete role in that arena.
  Other important decisions must be taken about the future procurement of the Royal Navy. The decision on HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid will, however, be awaited with eagerness in my constituency.
  I am also concerned about the future size and structure of the Royal Navy submarine fleet. It has been my understanding for some time that the Government are sticking to their assertion that that fleet will consist of 16 submarines. It will be made up of 12 nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines, predominantly from the Trafalgar class, and four type 2400 Upholder diesel electric submarines—a design which was pioneered at Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. shipyard in Barrow.
  The future of the Upholder class submarines has been subject to much attention in recent months. The Opposition have tried to raise the issue with the Government. I know that other hon. Members share my concern that the Government might be proposing to dispose of those four diesel electric submarines to a foreign navy. What has changed since "Options for Change"? What strategic assessment underlines the Government's case for believing that they can dispose of those four submarines? I am unaware of any such case. Quite the contrary—without a diesel electric component in the submarine service, the capability, the role, the range of missions and functions that the submarine service can discharge will be handicapped.
  In navies throughout the world, including the many successful ones, diesel electric submarines play an important role in the configuration of submarine forces. Particularly in export sales, diesel electric submarines have a sellable identity; the transfer of nuclear technology is a completely different issue, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would have strong reservations about that technology being widely sold around the world.
  The technology in some diesel electronic submarines is world class and, in particular, the Upholder class submarine could, with the right backing and support from the Government, form the basis of a successful export operation. However, it will be immensely difficult to sell a unique development such as the Upholder class if the Royal Navy does not operate it. What other navy is likely to say, "We'll buy some of those" if the Royal Navy has given up any operating capability _ in that class? On

  77
  strategic, military and industrial grounds, the type 2400 diesel electric submarine should not be sold but should remain part of the Royal Navy.
  There is a more pressing issue in the submarine fleet—the Government's intention to procure a replacement for the Trafalgar class or the Swiftsure submarine. It is important that the Government go ahead with their decision to produce a follow-on to the Trafalgar class boat at the earliest opportunity. The minimum number for the batch-2 Trafalgars should be six. That is the way to guarantee an operational deployment of 12 SSNs, assuming that we maintain our fleet of diesel electric submarines. That is of particular interest to my constituents, because we hope and expect to build those submarines.
  I have another concern, and again I locate my comments in the context of the emerging role of Britain's armed forces in a changed world. There is a need for new procurement for the Army to ensure that it has a genuine rapid reaction role. In particular, I should like the Minister to be aware of one item of equipment, if he is not already. VSEL is developing an ultra-lightweight howitzer, which is undergoing tests in the United States. That is an ideal weapon for a rapid reaction corps, and I am delighted that British units will play a leading role in that corps. It will be useful because it is air portable and can be lifted by light helicopters.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends have for some time been raising the issue of diversification, and I have also spoken about it. Paragraph 350 of the White Paper., in the words of the Select Committee, offers "nothing but cold comfort" to the defence industry. That is an accurate assessment. At least 80,000 jobs have been lost in the defence industry in the past two and half years. That is a catastrophic loss of skills and talents, which the nation cannot afford for very much longer. I simply emphasise to the Minister and the Government that diversification is not the soft way. It is not an excuse for defence cuts. Far from it—it is a method of retaining capability in an industrial sector.
  If we do not have an industrial strategy—I know that those are dirty words to some Tory Members—for preserving skills and jobs, and capacity in the defence industry, we run a serious risk of undermining the capability of Britain's industrial base to equip British armed forces in the years ahead. It is essential that our industrial base has that capacity. That is the point and purpose of a policy of diversification. That is why it forms such an important part of the amendment to the Government's motion. International co-operation is to be encouraged, and collaboration between nations on projects is worthy, but it is not an exclusive policy.
  In opening the debate, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement rightly said that the main challenge for defence policyrnakers in the west was how to respond to, and deal with, a changed international climate. I am not convinced that he provided us with any real evidence that the Government either understand the nature of those changes or have any strategy to meet the challenge.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Keith Mans: I am glad that we are having this debate on the 1992 White Paper, albeit a bit late. I sincerely hope that we shall not wait quite so long for the debate on this year's White Paper. I follow my hon. Friend
  78
  the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) in welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) to his new duties on the Front Bench.
  I have listened to most of the debate, and I fully agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) about nuclear testing. I served with a number of people in the Royal Air Force who took part in those tests in the Pacific, and have little doubt that, if we have to wait for the sort of evidence that is thought necessary before admitting that there are problems, most of them will be dead. It is important that the Ministry of Defence looks closely at the matter immediately to see whether something can be done.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) that our only nuclear independent weapon should be Trident. It is important to have a flexible deterrent. I question the credibility of Trident as a proper deterrent in the sort of situation that may occur when some of the countries in Asia that are already in possession of nuclear weapons pose a threat to us. A better deterrent is an air-borne system which can be deployed in a way that makes it clear to those nations that we are serious in our intentions. I am not convinced that a submarine-based deterrent would be able to achieve that.
  The hon. Gentleman made a good point about the equipment of the Royal Navy. His comments turned into something of a shopping list. Although I fully commend him on representing so well his constituency, and the firm that employs so many people in it, he should be careful about the amount that he suggests should be spent. When I added up the figures, they came to well over £1 billion. Recent Labour party conferences have proposed cutting spending on defence; conference decisions last year or the year before asked for £6·5 billion worth of cuts. I hope that future Labour conferences will be a little more responsible and will match the amount that they propose to spend on defence with the comments made by Opposition Members today and last Thursday about the equipment that they wish the armed services to have. There is a huge gap between the shopping list that they set out and the actual sums that they are prepared to spend on defence.
  Defence has already taken a large cut. Figures published as recently as last week by the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies show that the defence budget for 1984–85 is £26 billion at 1991–92 prices. By 1994–95, that figure will be reduced to £21·5 billion, a cut of nearly 20 per cent. What is even more significant is that, for that first year, the equipment budget consumed 46 per cent. of the defence budget whereas in 1994–95 it will consume 37 per cent. That shows that equipment has taken a larger share of the cuts than personnel, although the number of personnel will fall from 336,000 to 265,000 by 1994–95.
  I mention those figures because in the current public expenditure round it is important to recognise the cuts that have already occurred in the armed forces. If we are to meet our future commitments, they cannot continue. The RAF strike attack capability has been reduced by 40 per cent. and our air defence capability is to be reduced by 30 per cent. Those are large cuts and they are causing a problem with morale. The older service men are concerned that they may be candidates for redundancy and the young service men are concerned about their careers. I meet a number of young service men in my minor capacity as an RAF reserve pilot. When they are part or full way through their training, they often have to wait. for up to two years

  79
  before completing their training or joining their operational squadrons. That is demoralising and they begin to question whether a career in the armed services is right for them. It costs between £4 million and £5 million to train a front-line Tornado pilot, so it is essential to have a steady throughput.
  I hope that the Ministry of Defence will consider ways in which young service men can be used more effectively during the gaps in their training. I accept that such gaps must occur, but I hope not to the extent that has been happening. We need to deploy our young service men in a way that encourages greater motivation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) suggested, they could be used in peacekeeping roles. Detachment to one of the areas in which we are currently involved would make a good start to their careers.
  It is my belief that we have already largely spent the peace dividend, so we cannot spend it again. Although the cold war is over, there is a proliferation of nuclear weapons. There are unstable regimes throughout the world, especially in north Africa and Asia. When determining the size and shape of our future armed forces, we must remember that not only should they be involved in peacekeeping; they should be able to fight in a major conflict. That is an important point to bear in mind when considering budget constraints.
  The new roles that will undoubtedly evolve over the next few years mean new weapons systems and equipment. I agree with the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness that there must be a viable defence industry on this side of the Atlantic. However, I do not agree with his suggestion of the establishment of a defence diversification agency. The history of such agencies is not good. The Labour Government established one in 1965 when they cancelled the TSR2, but, if my memory is correct, it lasted for only about six months and was then disbanded.
  A better route would be to examine the possibility of combining the research and development facilities in the defence industry with wider industrial research, thereby providing a research and development base in engineering that could apply equally to military and commercial products. I hope that the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence will consider funding projects on a partnership basis, as happens successfully in the USA.
  I want to refer to two pieces of new equipment that demonstrate the importance of collaboration in military and civilian research. The first is the replacement for the C130. One of the most interesting points that came out of the recent tragic crash of a C130, with the resultant loss of life, was that the aircraft did not have a black box recorder. That was because it was designed long ago, when black box recorders did not exist in the form that we know them now.
  The Labour Government decided to buy American aircraft, and the C130 came into service with the RAF in 1967. I do not want to enter into a debate about whether that decision was right or wrong, although I think it was wrong. What has been evident is not only that the initial purchase of the aircraft caused employment problems in Britain, but that over the past 27 years we have had to rely on the USA for a steady supply of spare parts,
  80
  maintenance and updating. That has been both a drain on our balance of payments and a cause of unemployment in Britain.
  The MOD must seriously consider the whole life costs of a replacement for the C130, not just the costs of the initial purchase. It is a fact that almost any new military aircraft involves spending more on spare parts and modifications during its life than was spent on the initial purchase. Therefore, the case for the C130J is nothing like as attractive is it might initially have appeared to be.
  I argue that there is a case for becoming more fully involved in the European future large aircraft programme. Then, not only will we keep a viable aircraft industry on this side of the Atlantic, but we will get good value for the RAF during the life of the aircraft. I understand the time scale problems; it is only a paper aircraft and no detailed design work has been done. I hope that the consortia, both in this country and elsewhere, will firm up their proposals and, perhaps, base the aircraft on some of the technology that already exists in the airbus.
  It would be right for the RAF to suggest further modification and renovation of some of its existing C130 fleet so that, at the end of the century, it can purchase the future large aircraft. It will have the ability not just to take on the role of the C130, but to replace some of our tanker force and our maritime reconnaissance force of Nimrods.
  That sums up the importance not only of having the right aircraft for the RAF, but of finding a way to retain the technology on this side of the Atlantic so that we can continue to replace the aircraft into the foreseeable future and not rely solely on the Americans.
  My final point about the C130 replacement is the importance of having a decent airlift capacity in Europe. At present, as hon. Members said last Thursday, we rely almost solely on the Americans for our heavy lift capability. I do not know how much longer we shall be able to do that, so it makes even greater sense to combine with some other European nations—perhaps encouraging them to take a fuller part in the sort of operations in which British armed forces participated over the past few years—in producing an aircraft that can do the job.
  The second project, the EH101, was mentioned by six hon. Members on Thursday and today. The difference between them and me is that I do not have a constituency in the south-west. None the less, I am convinced that the right way forward is for the EH101 to meet the RAF's need for a medium-lift helicopter, not the Chinook.
  Again, the full-life costs are important. Whereas the Chinook is cheap to buy, the costs over the life of that aircraft are likely to be much larger. It is difficult to maintain, and while the RAF already has a good training base at Odiham and therefore the on-costs of introducing further aircraft of the same type are small, that advantage must be balanced against having the same helicopter that the Navy has decided to purchase. I argue that, again in the medium term, there are training cost-savings to be made if the EH101 is bought.
  Perhaps I should have made the point also in relation to the FLA—the future large aircraft—that there is undoubtedly export potential for the EH101. The Canadians have already bought it, and I am convinced that many other armed forces around the world are only waiting for the RAF to confirm the stated intention of a former Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Younger, seven or eight years ago and firm up the order for that aircraft before considering purchasing the EH 101

  81
  themselves. That important decision should be made soon if we are to retain a viable helicopter industry on this side of the Atlantic alongside a viable fixed-wing aircraft industry.
  Both projects can demonstrate the link between civilian and military research. Much of the technology that would go into the FLA is readily transferable to the next generation of civilian airlines. In the same way that the American 707 was built on the basis of the defence money that went into the KC135 tanker, and the 747 was based on the American defence spending on the competition for what turned out to be the Galaxy heavy lift transporter, we too should look at ways of ensuring that money put into the FLA will result in another generation of airliners on this side of the Atlantic to succeed the airbus generation that has been so successful to date.
  The 1993 White Paper will be published in less than a month, and I hope that it will answer at least some of the questions posed in this debate about the future direction of our armed forces. We have a clearer idea now of what the post-cold war world is likely to be like. It is plain that it will be more unstable, and that in future our armed forces will play varied roles. Beyond that, nothing is clear.
  If we are to punch above our weight, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, it is important to restore morale in our armed services by giving them a much clearer idea of what they will be asked to do in future and the size and shape of the forces that we will have to complete those tasks. I hope very much that the imminent 1993 White Paper will answer at least some of those questions.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Only one hour and 45 minutes is left before the winding-up speeches, and no fewer than 12 hon. Members still hope to catch my eye. If hon. Members will co-operate, it may be possible for them all to contribute.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I will follow some of the important points made by the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), but I will first comment on an earlier reference to Matrix Churchill and trade with Iraq. I was reminded that on the day on which the Select Committee was supposed to begin its deliberations, directors or employees of Forgemasters were arrested and placed in cells in the police station at Rawmarsh in my constituency. I never received a satisfactory explanation for that arrest, except that the Government were passing on to the shoulders of business men burdens that the Government should have been openly eager to bear themselves.
  That is not least because it was argued that it was thought that a pipeline rather than a gun was being built. Apparently, that was the Government's view, but if they had even the most rudimentary grasp of metallurgy and had placed a piece of steel in a spectrometer, they could have ascertained that the steel used in a pipeline is rather different from that used to manufacture gun barrels—even long gun barrels of the sort involved in the Matrix Churchill affair.
  Just as the Government were eager to have business men serve as fall guys in respect of trade with Iraq, so are the Government deliberately placing service men in an
  82
  impossible situation. The Government have not adequately reviewed their arrangements since "Options for Change", although since it was published the burdens and responsibilities placed on the services have grown enormously.
  In many parts of our armed services, men are repeatedly away from home on short, unaccompanied detachments. The strain on their families is enormous. At the same time, the service man does not know whether he has adequate career prospects. Ministers pay tribute to service men, but those men do not know whether they can maintain the careers that they are currently fulfilling with dedication, ability and courage. That is not a satisfactory situation.
  Over the past 18 months on visits to a number of RAF stations, I have been enormously impressed by the technological skills exhibited by those involved in avionics and engineering, who possess a considerable ability to keep old aircraft flying. The hon. Member for Wyre referred also to pilots and pilot training. However, many of those dedicated and able men do not know whether their careers have a future. They must reach certain ranks by certain ages. If promotion is frozen or delayed, they must go. That is not a particularly happy outcome.
  Those men know that if they leave, the skills that they have learnt in the RAF will enable them to obtain jobs with private contractors. However, many have asked me, "Who will replace us when we retire, because contractors are much less willing to train than the services?" That aspect should command much more attention. The review should consider also whether the services have an adequate, guaranteed long-term capacity to maintain their equipment.
  In the years since the first Halton apprentice, the services have trained people in advanced technology, and have had the use of their services for an average of 12 to 15 years. Then they left, and the largest part of their working life may have been spent applying skills acquired in the services to many areas of British industrial technology. If the training in the services dries up, that will not help Britain today—lacking, as it does, skills training—for that is forefeited in the name of economy.
  It is odd that, for some time, we have had little opportunity to hear the sort of speech made by the hon. Member for Wyre. A long time has elapsed since the last Royal Air Force debate. Last July, we briefly debated discipline. Then there was a mongrel debate—to quote the Foreign Secretary—when we hoped to debate the Royal Air Force, but the powers that be decided that it should be a debate about Iraq instead. I trust that the serious decisions that must be made will indeed be made, and that the House will have an opportunity to debate them at an early stage.
  Much has been said about aircraft. I referred to the Hercules in an intervention on the Minister. As the hon. Member for Wyre reminded us, it is an old aircraft, but it is not the oldest: the Wessex entered squadron service in 1964, a long time ago. It is a gas-guzzling helicopter, which has had its day. The Puma is not much younger; I believe that it entered squadron service in 1971. In recent years, those two helicopters will have been used much more heavily than was thought possible when they were introduced. The service must be given a new helicopter.
  I accept that that puts the Government in some difficulty. As the House has been reminded, they are Treasury led. However, the Government are right to

  83
  remind the House that our armed forces are of superb quality. Last week, I spoke in a debate on the United Nations in the Western European Union. My speech was not particularly popular: I pointed out that European countries—apart, perhaps, from the French, with their paras and Foreign Legion, and apart from Britain—seem remarkably eager to send medical orderlies, civil police and nursing and military observers to areas of conflict and danger while at the same time they are remarkably unwilling to send adequately trained fighting soldiers or combat aircraft into such difficult zones, perhaps because they are unable to do so. It is remarkable that when we debate the Gulf or, as we did last week, the United Nations, an enormous number of people from the Parliaments of Europe are willing to speak; yet those same Parliaments seem unable to send, or endorse the sending of, those with the skills required to secure order and stability. And this is an unstable world.
  The cold war meant stability, although it also meant the sterilisation of the United Nations. The end of the cold war has released forces in Europe that are extremely dangerous. Bosnia may represent just the first stage. Only a few weeks ago, I spoke to members of the Arab League. Their anxiety about the treatment of Muslims in Europe is arousing increasing animosity and hate and it is raising the temperature in the middle east in a way which could prove exceedingly dangerous.
  I believe that we should have an adequate capacity to defend the United Kingdom. I think that we are entirely right to tell the Government that the days of privatisation for the sake of dogma should end. I do not suggest that the Government should not look for value for money, but I believe that no service should be weakened by the application of Conservative dogma in favour of privatisation. That would be disloyal—indeed, treacherous. Above all, the Government must understand that the burdens placed on some of our service men—the denial of careers, for example, or anxiety about career prospects—are not tolerable. Their quality and dedication must be reflected properly in the decisions and policies of Her Majesty's Government.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Ray Whitney: I am' happy to endorse what the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and a number of others have said about the quality of the British service man, in which we all take great pride. I also agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of the quality of training available to the armed services, and the contribution that it makes to our national life. Like all other Opposition Members, however, he paid too little attention to the huge financial pressures placed on the Government. Those pressures must be dealt with in terms of our crucial national interest.
  Along with many other hon. Members—Conservative Members, certainly—I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), the new Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He is an important new adornment to an impressive defence team, replacing another admirable member, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton). I look forward to his winding-up speech.
  84
  As has been pointed out, this rather tardy celebration of the 1992 defence estimates is probably regrettable; however, we are engaging in this crucial debate at a very important time. We are all aware of the problems of the £50 billion public sector borrowing requirement; they make it even more important than usual for us to secure value for money from all our budgets, not least the defence budget.
  Moreover, we all understand that the new world order to which we rightly looked forward is proving very dangerous and challenging, and that the peace dividend that we expected is proving difficult to collect. We also understand that the situation in the former Yugoslavia may well repeat itself elsewhere. It is important for us as a nation—and, indeed, the international community—to recognise the need to find a new way in which to tackle the challenges.
  That is no reflection on the capacity of the European Community or the United Nations; it is simply a challenge that the world has never faced up to before. That challenge has been exacerbated by the ubiquity of the television screen, and the consequent universal awareness of the horrors now taking place in Bosnia—which, 50 years ago, could have taken place in many parts of the world without having the same political impact. A great deal of hard thinking is needed about the future of our armed forces—not just the British forces, but those of our allies. We need a clear intellectual framework, and a coherent overview of what we require our forces to do.
  I must say that I find the three targets set out in the White Paper somewhat vague and unsatisfactory. More brain power should be brought to bear. I say that knowing the difficulties, having had some personal experience as a defence analyst loaned to the Australian Government, as a Foreign Office official and as a Foreign Office Minister. I have had to make such prognoses, and I know that it is a challenge; I also know that what is planned for never materialises as a requirement.
  Nevertheless, we must ensure that the best brains available are brought to bear, and that the old charge that defence policy is Treasury-led is finally laid to rest. That is not to deny—I would be the first to say it—that Treasury consideration is the framework within which the hard thinking for which I call must take place.
  We could, of course, opt out. Some right hon. and hon. Members—especially Opposition Members—would suggest that our defence spending is too high, and not in the national interest. I suggest that it is very much in the British interest for us to continue to make a significant contribution to our security activities and those of our allies. We have an important contribution to make.
  As many hon. Members have pointed out, over the centuries—and recently—our armed forces have manifested characteristic skills, which we owe not only to ourselves but to the rest of the world. Our position as a nuclear power continues to be important, as does our position as a member of the Security Council. There is no opting out for this country. I do not believe that the people of this country would wish us to opt out.
  As we face this challenge, our contribution must inevitably, because of resource constraints, be limited. We must therefore take yet another look at the level of international collaboration to which many hon. Members, in particular my hon. Friends, have referred. New ideas are required. Existing organisations should be used. The

  85
  NATO framework, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) referred, is particulary valuable.
  The roles of the Western European Union, the Franco-German force and the rapid reaction corps are worth examining and exploring further, but the western European contribution is likely to be more effective if the NATO framework is used, not least because of the importance of the United States connection, which needs to be handled with even more care now than it was in the past, because of the changing relationship between western Europe and the United States and the changing attitudes—in some ways worrying—in the United States towards western Europe.
  Collaboration means that we should take yet another look at our European relationships. For example, we must encourage our German friends to overcome their constitutional inhibitions about using their own forces. We must ensure that we collaborate not only with them but with our French allies. I was particularly interested in a proposal by Dr. Christopher Coker in a recent edition of the "European Security Analyst" of April 1992. He said:
  "The Europeans might develop … a new formula for European security based not on burden-sharing, but the sharing of responsibilities. Such a concept of security would enable each country to measure its own contribution to a diverse mixture of international public goods such as defence expenditure, foreign aid, grants to multilateral institutions, even environmental protection. Such an accounting framework would permit countries to establish macro-political and macro-economic targets for European security."
  That approach was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), and it bears close examination.
  I want also to refer to our reserve forces. As a former regular officer, I came to appreciate their value, which has greatly increased. I was glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence referred to their contribution in his speech on 17 June. He spoke about the "crucial contribution" that the reserve forces have to make. When he announced the changes, he pledged his
  "personal commitment to the future of our reserve forces."—[Official Report. 17 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 1008.]
  I am sure that that is the answer.
  In this new, difficult world in which we live, a case can be made for a general reserve force. The unpredictability of the tasks that lie ahead of us is a strong justification for retaining out reserve forces, which cost only just over 2 per cent. of the defence budget. At a very low cost, they provide a well motivated and well trained source of manpower.
  Volunteer reservists could be used cost-effectively to bring regular units up to strength, prior to operational deployment, with little or no need to resort to plundering other regular units. Reservists are particularly strong in the infantry battalions. Infantry and armour are the forces that will, I believe, be needed increasingly in this strange new world in which we are learning to live.
  I hope that, in my right hon. and learned Friend's review of the Territorial Army, which he has promised later in the year, he will take careful account of the great contribution that the TA infantry battalions in particular have made to this country, and of their potential role in this complex world of the future.
  Service in the Territorial Army has an even greater spin-off. It ensures that many members of society become linked with the armed forces and therefore know what the
  86
  armed forces are all about. It is many years since we dispensed with compulsory military service. Relatively few members of our society therefore understand the needs and the points of view of the armed forces. The reserve forces can make a significant contribution.
  If I may dare to say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Chamber makes an important contribution to the reserve forces. Those who saw war service are few indeed. The Father of the House is the only exception who comes immediately to my mind. Hon. Members with Territorial Army and reserve forces service therefore bring another important element to our deliberations.
  I return to the crucial issue of funding. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden, I believe that there can be no question of increasing the defence budget. We must, consequently, ensure that we use the funds that are available to the maximum possible effect.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State reminded us, in an article in The Sunday Times on 18 April, that in this current financial year
  "we will still be spending £24·5 billion compared with £23·5 billion two years ago."
  Those figures have to be set against the constant cuts in manpower and weaponry. That highlights yet again the need for good housekeeping, which must again be emphasised and brought to bear upon the Ministry of Defence and all its activities.
  I know that the Ministry of Defence has heard this song for at least 30 years, but it cannot be sung too often. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend and his ministerial colleagues to go on probing and prodding to ensure that we get value for money for the expenditure of £24·5 billion.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Llew Smith: Parliament is being asked to approve a £24 billion commitment to the so-called defence of the nation. However, the Government, who want us to accept this programme, are planning cuts in public services and in invalidity and many other benefits.
  It is not good enough just to criticise the Government. There is an obligation on each and every one of us to put forward an alternative. That alternative should, I believe, be based mainly on cuts in defence expenditure. If we made those cuts, we could begin to protect our public services. If we refuse to take that road, we shall have to ask ourselves how we intend to fund those public services, which are so important to each of us. We could, for example, raise VAT and income tax. I would oppose increases in VAT, but would support increases in income tax for higher earners. I suspect, however, that my party will not fight the next election on a platform of tax increases.
  We could begin to fund public services by increases in economic growth. I suspect that there will not be growth in the next few years, partly because of the Government's incompetence in managing the economy and, linked to that, because of the recession in western Europe. I suspect that we shall not see economic growth, or the increased tax take that results from it, to fund public services.
  If we are unable or unwilling to finance public services using those methods, we must cut not programmes to help areas and people who are in greatest need but our defence programme. Why do not Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have the courage to propose that? Why cannot we link defence expenditure to that of other European countries?

  87
  Labour Front-Bench spokesmen continually tell us that we cannot oppose the Maastricht treaty because it is Labour policy to support it. If, all of a sudden, Labour policy, decided at our conference, is now of paramount importance in the minds of our Front-Bench spokesmen, I ask them to apply the same reasoning to this argument. Successive Labour conferences have decided that we should link our defence expenditure to that of other European countries.
  The 1992 NATO review shows that the average defence expenditure of European countries is 2·7 per cent. of GDP, whereas in the United Kingdom it is approximately 4 per cent. If we were to spend the same proportion of GDP as our European partners, we would save about £8,000 million. Imagine what we could begin to do with that money. Imagine the houses that we could build and the improvements that we could make in education and health services and invalidity and other state benefits, which are so important to our people. We would then begin to meet the demands and aspirations of the people whom we purport to represent. If we fail and continue to spend vast sums of money on weapons of war, the losers will be those same people whom we were elected to represent. As someone once said:
  "You cannot eat missiles and you cannot educate people with aircraft carriers."
  It saddens me to say that Labour Members—or at least some Labour Members—will not have the courage to support that demand.
  Neither will we have the courage to support the abandonment of Trident. According to the former Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the annual running cost of Trident is about £190 million, although some people would estimate it to be far higher.
  What is the purpose of such expenditure? It is supposed to be partly for refits. In the past few months, we have heard a lot of politics about the refit of Trident. Squabbles have broken out between Devonport and Rosyth yards over which is to be awarded what some people regard as a very lucrative contract. I understand Members representing those areas arguing that the contract should be placed with their own work force, but that is not the answer. We should demand the establishment of real jobs, with long-term stability and security, not shadow jobs. We should back conversion of the military nuclear industry. We should use its skills to clean up the terrible legacy of radioactive waste that has already been created by the Polaris nuclear programme, rather than adding to the problem.
  Indeed, if a future Labour Government were to implement present party policy, as set out in our last manifesto—to strengthen the non-proliferation treaty and to negotiate with the other four recognised nuclear powers for a reduction in the stocks of nuclear weapons—Trident would not have to be refitted. It would have to be cancelled or negotiated away. It is a short-sighted strategy to continue military employment on a programme that the nation is committed to abandoning as a result of our nuclear disarmament commitments under the non-proliferation treaty.
  The former Minister told the House on 18 May that he was somewhat alarmed that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) had talked
  88
  "about negotiating away our deterrent." [Official Report, 18 May 1993; Vol. 225, c.147.]
  That is what the non-proliferation treaty requires of us—to enter into negotiations in good faith, to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and to pursue nuclear disarmament. The political pressure that was exerted on, for example, North Korea when it announced in March that it was going to opt out of the non-proliferation treaty—a decision which it postponed a couple of weeks ago—shows that the elite club of nuclear weapons nations, including the United Kingdom, wants to persist with the hypocrisy of, "Do as we tell you, not as we do ourselves."
  Some nuclear doubters want a compromise on keeping nuclear weapons by calling for a commitment of no first use by the United Kingdom, but that obviously implies that we shall support their second use. Whom do we intend to blow up with our Trident missiles or Polaris submarines? Perhaps children or teachers in school, patients or medical staff in hospital, the infirm, the old, pregnant mothers or politicians who represent countries in eastern Europe, all of which we now supposedly support. All those innocent people would be devastated even if one single nuclear weapon were dropped on a nuclear or military target.
  What is the purpose of our expensive status symbols? Nuclear weapons were not deployed in the Falklands or in the Gulf and I have not heard any rumours that they will be deployed in Yugoslavia or Somalia. We should heed the advice that was given at the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—advice which people hoped would be heard the world over. They said, "Step back and learn from us." That is what we should be doing. I have no confidence that the Government will respond positively to that advice, but surely we must expect Labour Front-Bench spokesmen to do so.
  Mr. Wolfson: The hon. Gentleman argues that we should not continue to keep a nuclear deterrent because it has not been deployed in recent conflicts, but what about its possible deployment by others if we did not have that deterrent?
  Mr. Smith: If nuclear weapons are a deterrent, by definition, they must deter. They can deter only if the other side knows that we are willing to use them. Once they have been used, civilisation as we know it will come to an end. I cannot see the sense of those nuclear weapons, which is why I began by talking about nuclear weapons and their so-called defence of the nation state and the United Kingdom. I am interested in defence, not annihilation.
  That is why we must set our sights a lot higher. I shall conclude with the words of one of the greatest peace campaigners of this century, Bertrand Russell:
  "Humankind could then look forward to a future, immeasurably longer than the past, inspired by a new breadth of vision and a continuing hope perpetually fed by a continuing achievement."
  He was talking about the possibilities open to us if we should, once and for all, get rid of nuclear weapons. That is the challenge and opportunity facing us. If we refuse to accept that challenge, future generations should not, and will not, forgive us.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Rupert Allason: We are at a crossroads. Since "Options for Change" was published, the world has changed dramatically. "Options for Change" was meant to

  89
  reflect the concerns of the Government and to show that the Government had grasped what could be interpreted as the peace dividend. I believe that one essential aspect of "Options for Change" has been overlooked in the past 18 months, and that is that there must be a balance between commitment and resources. There must also be an honest and public recognition of exactly what that commitment is.
  Many people in the armed forces believe that there is a hidden agenda. They are dismayed not so much by "Options for Change" but by what has happened since. It is worrying that, depending on what criteria one uses, there are between 24 and 28 conflicts in the world. My proposition is that, far from being a safer place, the world is now more unpredictable, and global insecurity is a reality. I wish to make two specific points in that connection. The first is nuclear proliferation.
  Algeria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan are indulging in nuclear research at a dramatic rate. We are well aware that within the old eastern bloc there is not only one nuclear power but four. In the era of the old super-power confrontation we knew what the Soviet negotiating position was likely to be on any particular issue. Whether we liked the Soviets or not, we knew that they would negotiate and that, when they signed the treaty, they would, by and large, deliver. That is no longer the case. We are no longer aware even of who the personalities are in the four eastern bloc nuclear states; nor do we know the extent of the control that they exercise over the nuclear weapons on their territory or how much support individual leaders have in those countries.
  I have mentioned the countries that we know are indulging in nuclear research at a dramatic rate. I emphasise their importance because we are talking about nuclear physicists in the old eastern bloc who have spent their lives developing nuclear weapons. Today, they cannot feed their families or buy bread on their income. Accordingly, they are very susceptible to offers of lucrative contracts from Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Algeria. None of those states recommend themselves as paragons of stability or democracy. but what of the other countries that we know for certain have nuclear weapons? Israel has about 24 or 26 individual weapons. South Africa has about three devices but has agreed to dismantle them.
  We are talking about a proliferation not only of nuclear weapons but of nuclear expertise and, significantly, of the raw material that is required to put them together. Surely it is a dangerous recipe: the technology and the raw materials are available across eastern Europe—there have been several arrests recently in which important technology has been seized—and various powers are willing to employ the people who have that technology.
  I deal now with North Korea, another state which one would hardly describe as a paragon of democracy or anything else and which has opted out of nuclear inspection. That is surely a very worrying scenario. What is our response to the threat? I call it a threat because if certain countries acquire nuclear weapons—we know-how very close Saddam. Hussein came to acquiring nuclear technology and at least one weapon—we will become vulnerable to nuclear blackmail.
  Although I am a strong advocate of the retention of the nuclear deterrent, I am not entirely convinced that the threat of a nuclear strike by a Trident submarine from 6,000 miles away will have an enormous impact on a despot operating from an Islamic country, perhaps in the
  90
  north of Africa. I believe that with Trident we may be lumbered with an expensive system which we are obliged to retain. It would be sheer folly for us to rely solely on Trident.
  Islamic fundamentalism is the second topic that I should like to cover. Islamic fundamentalism will continue to be a source of instability across the globe. It is easy to forget that the largest Islamic country is also a country that has the second highest rate of population growth. Its name does not immediately spring to mind, but we should bear it in mind that, about 20 years ago, it realised that it was running out of space, exercised aggression and took over a neighbouring country. Not one country did a damned thing to stop the Indonesian invasion of East Timor. It is the country to which we last week decided to sell £500 million worth of jet aircraft trainers.
  I am all in favour of defence sales, but anyone visiting Australia will know that the security and intelligence authorities there are always extremely nervous about their neighbour to the north. There is a volatile combination of an Islamic country with an enormous population growth rate and no more room. I therefore believe that Islamic fundamentalism, whether it be in the Mediterranean or in the middle or far east, is likely to be a source of instability in the future.
  The Government's first responsibility is not the provision of child benefit to multimillionairesses such as Soraya Khashoggi or the provision of universal benefits to higher rate tax payers. The Government's first responsibility is surely defence. There will not be any money to dish out to meet all the demands on the social security and other budgets if we are not able to defend ourselves. I say "ourselves", but I am not an old Blimp suggesting that the Warsaw pact poses a credible threat to the south coast of England.
  We have important commitments throughout the world. Several parallels have been drawn, and Germany and France have been identified as having similar defence budgets to ours. However, their commitments are nothing like ours. They do not have the anxiety that we should surely have about Hong Kong. We have a continuing commitment to NATO and, of course, we have a seat on the United Nations Security Council. That means a commitment to United Nations forces around the world. Bearing in mind dependent territories and our responsibility to the nine remaining colonies, we should not necessarily be considering cutting our budget but deciding what our commitment is and then deciding the appropriate defence strategy to match it. Surely it is dotty to assume that we will always be joined by multinational forces whenever there is a conflict in the globe. The truth is that no one assisted us in the Falklands conflict, and we could not have expected any other European country to do so. In fact, Spain and Italy were utterly opposed to our action and everyone else was ambivalent. We cannot rely on Europe.
  Similarly, it is odd that, within a few days of the announcement that we were to reduce our commitment to Belize, there should be political instability on a grand scale in Guatemala—the one country that directly threatens Belize. The proposition that we can reduce our commitment to Belize because the Guatemalans have been quiescent for a while is sheer folly.
  The first responsibility of the Government is unquestionably defence. I believe that we should approve the defence estimates this evening, but only if there is a

  91
  commitment from the Government to explain to the British public what our defence commitment is around the globe and what that commitment is perceived to be in the future. I think that that anxiety is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am afraid that I do not have much faith in the ability of the Foreign Office to protect British interests. It is up to this sovereign Parliament to protect British interests, because I do not believe that anyone else will.
  Parallels have been drawn this evening between this age and 1935 and other dark eras. One lesson that can be learned from history is that no one ever learns anything from history. There are no parallels with 1935, or indeed with any other time. We are now aware that there never was a credible threat from the eastern bloc. That threat appeared to be potent, but analysis of the opened archives in the former Soviet Union make oit clear that the Soviets were never a threat to anyone but themselves, countries in the eastern bloc that could not defend themselves and, of course, Afghanistan. That does not change the fact that the armed forces that remain in the former eastern bloc have enormous strength.
  I would therefore urge the House—whether or not the Government are prepared to do so—to demand a strategic review of all our commitments around the world. I am afraid that I do not trust the civil servants to do that job for us.
  8.24 pm
  Ms Ann Coffey: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. My interest concerns the Minister's recent announcement that Kentigern house in Glasgow is the favoured option for the new integrated army personnel centre.
  The Minister will appreciate that I am not happy about that decision. Europa house—the rejected building—is in Stockport, and my constituents were bitterly disappointed by the Minister's announcement.
  On 13 January 1993, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces initiated a consultation process on the proposal to establish an integrated army personnel centre in Glasgow. That consultation followed a study by Brigadier Roberts, which concluded that the purchase of a commercial property in Glasgow at a cost of £20 million would offer the most cost-effective location.
  On 4 March, the Minister announced in the House that an alternative proposal was being looked at relating to a building in Stockport, Europa house, at a significantly lower purchase price of £4 million. He said that a number of other representations also offered alternative solutions to the original selection of Glasgow and, in the light of those, the original parameters of Brigadier Roberts' study and the options available to meet the requirements were to be reviewed. That new review was able to take into account the Department's new space guidelines, which had not been finalised when Brigadier Roberts undertook his study and recommended Glasgow, in November 1992.
  The result of the review was the announcement on 13 May that Kentigern house had been chosen for the new army personnel centre. Brigadier Roberts had of course looked at Kentigern house in his original study but had concluded that it was not the most cost-effective option as it involved building an extension to house the anticipated
  92
  extra staff. The new guidelines meant that the review could now consider more "flexibly" the use of accommodation in Kentigern house.
  The space guidelines have not yet been accepted by the Council of Civil Service Unions, as I am sure the Minister is aware; they are still the subject of negotiation. It would presumably be very difficult if they were rejected, as the option of Kentigern house is based on their acceptance.
  The introduction of the army personnel centre accommodation study that recommended Kentigern house after looking at all the options states that the formal statement of requirements reflects the recommendations of the Roberts study and that the building specification mirrors closely that which was the basis for the Roberts study search. I draw the Minister's attention to appendix C, which states that all the office accommodation is to be available under one roof. There is a probable requirement to house 1,967 staff full time, with a further 150 in designated support areas. It is proposed to house 1,910 in Kentigern house and the remaining 207 in Wellesley house. Kentigern house is one roof. Wellesley house is one roof. One plus one roof equals two roofs. That does not meet the requirement laid out in appendix C.
  I also draw the Minister's attention to appendix A, which deals with car parking requirements and states that there must be one space per 300 sq m of gross office space, with a quota of 3 per cent. of civilian staff for disabled civilian staff, as well as 15 spaces for visitors. Kentigern house has 96 car parking spaces. It is estimated that, of the 1,910 staff to be housed in Kentigern house, 237 will be Army personnel. That leaves 1,673 civilian staff. The 3 per cent. requirement will be 53 spaces. Add to that 15 spaces for visitors and we have a total of 68 spaces, leaving 28 car parking spaces for the 1,957 staff. That is ludicrous. It will not meet the requirement of one space per 300 sq m. In fact, I understand that the 1,000 staff already based in Kentigern house hold a raffle once a month for car parking spaces.
  I refer next to the costings and to the comparisons between Kentigern and Europa house. For Kentigern, it is stated that the cost of refurbishment of the building and upgrading services will be £5·79 million and will take 22·5 months—that is very precise—to complete. However, the study states:
  "Feasibility of this option is dependent on whether the whole potential Glasgow requirement—Army personnel centre and non-Army personnel centre—can be housed cost effectively in the city."
  The Roberts study stated that 75 officers' and 55 soldiers' married quarters would need to be built at a cost of £8 million for the Glasgow option. In the Stockport area—not only in Stockport itself, but in Chester and Ashton-under-Lyne—there is a minimum of 102 quarters, many of which are empty. The cost of Kentigern is £8 million plus £5·79 million for the building—a total of £13·79 million. Add to that the fact that the high cost of Glasgow housing, referred to in the Defence Council Instructions Civilian 75/92, suggests that in relocating staff in Glasgow additional housing costs allowances will have to be higher than anywhere else.
  One of the factors in favour of Kentigern was that the first tranche of staff from London could be moved to Glasgow by May 1995, whereas Europa house would be completed in November 1995. However, existing staff have to be moved out to allow refurbishment of the building—some 500 staff for 15 months, at an estimated cost of

  93
  £0·8 million, which I suggest is a gross underestimate. The cost has now increased from £13·79 million plus £0·8 million to £14·59 million. We must add to that the cost of car parking, as I assume that the Ministry of Defence will he meeting its own requirements as set out in its document.
  It is estimated that it would cost £15·98 million for the complete refurbishment of Europa house. It has 510 car parking spaces and it is under one roof. Included in that figure is the purchase price of £4 million. Nuclear Electric owns the building. It is a nationalised industry, so the purchase price is a transfer between the budget of one Government Department and another—meaningless in terms of the overall Government budget. If we subtract £4 million from the £15·98 million, we arrive at the figure of £11·98 million. Some additional housing costs may be added to that. On my calculations, Europa house is the cheaper option. There are other details to consider, such as the cost of redundancies, which would also favour the Stockport location.
  Kentigern house does not meet Ministry of Defence requirements on two counts—roofs and car parking. I suggest that the costings are highly dubious and that they have been massaged to make Kentigern house, overwhelmingly, the only possible option. The Kentigern house option was thrown out by Brigadier Roberts in his original study as being too expensive. Since his study and the new study, the specifications have not changed—with the exception of new space guidelines which have allowed a review of Kentigern house. Those new guidelines, which have not as yet been accepted by staff and would apparently create a high degree of staff cramming, make the difference in the building being acceptable. It is incredible that an option thrown out initially as being too expensive is now enthused over as the favoured option.
  In the words of the Prime Minister last week, this tale of the search for a site for an integrated army personnel centre "beggars belief". Thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money has been wasted on fairly useless consultants. My constituents believe that those figures bear no relation to reality and that it is a political fix so gross as to be worthy of an episode of "Yes, Minister".
  I urge the Minister to reconsider Europa house in the name of justice and fairness to my constituents and the constituents of my colleagues in the north-west. If that does not touch his heart, will he reconsider the matter because his alternative proposal will cost the taxpayer more? That surely cannot be acceptable to the Government—and even if it is acceptable to the Government, it is certainly not acceptable to the people.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am glad to follow the hon. Lady. I am going to enrol her in my new organisation called "MOD office-blockers anonymous". That is certainly a scandal waiting to happen. I am sorry to say that I already have an MOD building in mind, which will become vacant and could accommodate all the people she has been talking about—but that is a constituency interest of mine.
  I very much appreciate the armed forces of our country and the many civilians who support them—including the many in my constituency. I have just returned from Nigeria, where I was an international observer, watching the military regime transferring, one hopes, to a civilian
  94
  regime. That made me realise that the standards that our armed forces set, as world leaders, are ones to which we must pay tribute. We must also try to understand those people and maintain their morale in these difficult times.
  I am glad to see the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), taking note. I am sure that he has been warned by his colleagues of the terrible people of South Dorset, who are constantly accused of trying to make his life difficult. That is not true. I could go through a list of some 20 or 30 changes that have happened at Portland and at Bovington. I have looked at those changes and I have found my hon. Friend to be working well in that area. I believe that the Ministry occasionally gets things right.
  I can assure my hon. Friend that the concerns that I discuss with him are real concerns and that they reflect not a belief that we should increase our MOD budget, but a belief that we must make savings and cut out waste. I am sure that hon. Members from all parties share that view.
  I was somewhat confused when I looked at the amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and others. They were obviously flushed out by the official Labour party line as expressed in the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and others, and had to table their own amendment.
  It is preposterous that the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition refers to conventional forces being included in "further international disarmament negotiations". That suggests that simply talking to the former Soviet Union about further cuts in its armed forces, as has happened in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, would automatically trigger our ability to cut our armed forces even further. We heard about the Labour party's hidden agenda from the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith). It would mean an additional £8 billion being taken from the defence budget after the cuts that we have already made in it. That chop,-logic must be exposed for what it is.
  The other main plank of Labour's policy, about which Labour Members constantly talk, is defence industry diversification. They constantly say that we should tell companies that currently manufacture defence equipment how to convert themselves for civilian uses. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has read the detailed report produced last Session by the Select Committee on Employment entitled "Industrial Change: Retraining and Redeployment". Labour Members have certainly not read it.
  We especially targeted the defence industry and studied what happened in the United States, especially in Texas which found that there were large cuts in its defence industries. We talked to all the defence companies that had studied diversification. Time and time again, the defence companies told us that they could not convert their companies into civilian companies manufacturing consumer goods. It was not possible or sensible.
  If an area is affected by large defence reductions, we must do something to stimulate the economy generally. Such efforts must come from other Government Departments. Although the Ministry of Defence is very much appprised of our problems in Portland and in Weymouth, and of the cuts in defence expenditure and defence employment, we have not got the message fully through to all the other Departments.

  95
  I am very concerned that after months of discussions about the KONVER programme, which was designed specifically by the European Parliament to get over the problems of individual blackspots caused by cuts in defence which were outside assisted area status, we still do not have agreement within the Government on how to spend the money that is available to us under KONVER. We need to target that money. We must talk to the Department of Transport about the roads infrastructure and to the Department of Environment, which needs to realise that local authorities will have to spend a lot more money on attracting people and will have to provide the sites necessary. The Department of Employment does seem to be aware that it needs to have a lot of retraining and to have many schemes in place. That is extremely important.
  In these debates, we go into detail about many issues, not all of which are important in getting the armed forces right. We always spend an enormous amount of time talking about regiments. I am glad to say that there has been little of that today. I believe that we may well have taken a wrong turn in reinstating regiments rather than concentrating on how many more people we could have got into the new regimental structure. That would have been a better way in which to spend the money.
  We must also be careful about the balance between high technology and low technology. Yes, we need weapons systems and we must ensure that they are battle-winning, high-technology systems. However, we should not try to reinvent the wheel in every defence manufacturing posture. We must achieve partnerships with the United States and our European allies to ensure that we do not have to build every high-tech system. We must look for economies and take difficult decisions and that occasionally means that a particular manufacturer in a group of constituencies will not receive a certain order.
  Low technology is also very important. We must have the infrantryman, the ordinary sailor, marine and RAF guy available to do what is necessary when we carry out the policing roles in which we are so often involved.
  The EH101 is very important. The RAF and the Army have been very slow in getting that helicopter for medium lift. By keeping one type of helicopter, we will ensure that there are savings in spares and training. When my hon. Friend the Minister decides to order the EH101 for the other services, he should insist that there is a commonality in respect of that aircraft so that each service does not order a completely different type of EH101. If there is a commonality, there will be interoperability and spares savings.
  I want to finish, as I began, by referring to the new organisation that I have just christened called "MOD office-blockers anonymous." As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is a fresh face at the Department, I urge him to consider the way in which brand new high-tech office blocks are the name of the game within the MOD.
  I understand that my hon. Friend will be able to tap into a computer system. I am not sure whether that system is classified, but I am sure that my hon. Friend has clearance. That system will show him all the current schemes in train to build new office blocks all over the
  96
  country. I do not know whether those office blocks will be able to move on wheels or attack the enemy if we are under attack, but they seem to be the flavour of the month.
  My hon. Friend also has in his Department a complete list of the sites that his predecessors have been persuaded to close and sell for other uses which were never sold and for which we did not receive any money in the form of savings.
  When my hon. Friend tries to make savings and when the Treasury is on his back looking for more money, he should ask himself where he can find £300 million for a new office block and to move people. He should also ask himself where he will find another £300 million for a new computer system which, I heard just the other day, will probably never come to fruition. An interim system is being installed and the Sea Systems Controllerate, which is to move to the north of Bristol, will cost an arm and a leg, and I do not believe that it will be efficient. If my hon. Friend the Minister starts with that and moves on to the other office blocks about which we have heard today, I believe that he will make his name quicker in the MOD than he made it in his previous Department.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the 38 minutes remaining for this debate, six hon. Members still hope to catch my eye. I hope that they will all be able to do that; with a little co-operation, that will happen.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Mike Gapes: In the time available to me, I want to concentrate on paragraphs 133 and 134 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1992." I wish that we could have had this debate last year, and it is an absolute disgrace that we are debating today a document which is so out of date as world events have moved on so much. Unfortunately, that is the way things are organised at the moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred on Thursday to the need to achieve a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. He pointed out how the British Government's position is a threat to the continuation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the review conference of which will be held in 1995.
  The 1990 NPT review conference was a disaster and complete failure largely because of strong criticisms by several third world countries led by Mexico of the position adopted by the United States and British Governments because they were deemed to have not acted in good faith to secure real measures of nuclear disarmament as a result of their opposition to halting nuclear tests. The British Government's position today poses a long-term threat to the survival of the NPT. It also acts as a red light to disarmament and a green light to proliferators and those who wish to keep nuclear weapons in the republics that have emerged from the former Soviet Union.
  We have heard that our action to stop nuclear testing would have no effect on proliferation. I do not accept that. Action that we could take would have a serious effect if only we could have an internationally verified and enforced disarmament regime to stop nuclear testing.
  If people say, "Well, you can do nothing about North Korea," they should consider what the United Nations and the international community haye done in the past

  97
  two years to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. That proves that if the international community and the UN Security Council have the political will and are prepared to carry it through, they can act forcibly to stop countries which defy those treaties and which are prepared surreptitiously and with the connivance of leading figures in this country and, unfortunately, in our Government from building up their nuclear weapons programmes.
  The real debate about nuclear testing in this country is not being carried out here. It is being carried out in the United States. I want to refer to two press reports which have appeared in the past few days. On 12 June, The Daily Telegraph reported that:
  "British hopes of testing a redesigned nuclear warhead at a Nevada site suffered a setback yesterday when United States officials suggested President Clinton may drop his plan to resume underground testing.
  They said Mr. Clinton intended to 'take the temperature' of … Congress on the issue"
  this week. The Times stated that Britain was banking on the United States to restart nuclear weapons tests because it wanted to test a new weapons system. It did not want to go ahead with it for the reason that we are given publicly, which is to ascertain the safety of the old WE177 warhead. Instead, it wanted to introduce a replacement for TASM—the tactical air-to-surface missile—or its successor which presumably will be deployed as a sub-strategic nuclear weapon system alongside the Trident system which, according to the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), has completed its testing programme.
  I want to raise several fundamental questions. Why do we need such a sub-strategic nuclear weapon system? Why do we need to spend some £3,000 million? The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) referred to the spending of £300 million on an office block. Why do we need to spend £3,000 million on the development of future sub-strategic nuclear weapons which will operate at the same time as the Trident system? On whom will the systems be targeted?
  What is the relevance of a sub-strategic nuclear weapon system when NATO's doctrines arc moving away from that way of thinking and when we no longer have the mass tank formations of the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union which were seen five, seven, 10 and 15 years ago as the justification for such theoretical systems, when it is inconceivable that this country would initiate the use of such nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states? Indeed, our Government, by treaty and commitment, are pledged not to use nuclear weapons against countries which do not possess them and do not use them. According to remarks made by the Prime Minister last year, we are moving away from the idea of threatening the use of nuclear weapons in such circumstances.
  What are the military benefits and the reasons for that?' We have heard one justification which was, allegedly, the Islamic fundamentalist boom, but a few minutes later we were told that it had become clear that the alleged Soviet threat of the past never really existed. I wonder whether the alleged Islamic fundamentalist threat exists or whether it is a convenient device for those who wish to continue their nuclearphilia—their love of nuclear weapons--and develop nuclear weapons systems.
  This country needs a fundamental rethink about the nuclear weapons system. We have to be prepared to say that we will make our own contribution, persuade our
  98
  people that this is the right way forward and that we will join people in the United States, Russia and France who, by their own choice, have introduced a moratorium on nuclear testing. Our choice was not made by us; it was made by the United States when it stopped the use of Nevada. We will say to President Clinton and to the Congress of the United States, "We do not want you to lift your moratorium; we want you to opt, as you have said, for a complete and verifiable comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty by 1996." That should be our aspiration and our goal, and then we need a strong United Nations enforcement against countries which breach the guidelines.
  Real security in the future will be based not on national security but on international security and co-operation. That requires us to move from the narrow view that, somehow, we can do things regardless of their impact anywhere else. Arguments in our Parliament for our national nuclear weapons will be used by people in Ukraine who want to keep a nuclear weapons capability and go back on their previous commitments to rid Ukraine of nuclear weapons. It is time that we joined the international mainstream and made our own contribution to verified, negotiated and enforceable measures to stop nuclear testing and bring about nuclear disarmament.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I used to be against the televising of Parliament, but the speeches of the hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) were much better than any party political broadcast that my own party could do. If people had any doubts about voting Conservative at the next election, I would urge them to obtain the video and look at those two performances.
  To be serious, I must declare two interests. First, I am a parliamentary consultant to Thorn EMI Electronics Ltd. and, secondly, I am on the parliamentary armed forces scheme with the Royal Marines. I enjoy both roles; both teach me much—certainly much humility. The skills, application and dedication of our armed forces are second to none. Likewise, the personnel who work in our defence industries deserve the very best of the House and of the Government. They work with tremendous commitment and they have enormous skills. Many of those skills are not easily deployed outside the sector in which they work. This sector has'seen huge redundancies, and we must be aware of that.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made a speech which, like Caesar's Gaul, was divided into three parts. First, there was a section on Bosnia. We are all very aware that our armed forces are involved in the most perilous operations of a humanitarian nature which we admire, although we are deeply anxious because the military objectives do not seem to be very clearly defined. Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend also spoke about the reserve forces. Thirdly, he had a bash at the Labour party. I thought that this section of his speech was rather tilting at windmills until I read the amendment which was not selected by Madam Speaker and until I heard the two contributions to which I have alluded.
  I take as my theme the remarks of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), who spoke of centres of excellence in our armed forces. I shall briefly allude to

  99
  three such centres. First, we are a nuclear power, and that is of great importance to world security. I urge the House to consider carefully, as indeed we were enjoined to do by my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and for Wyre (Mr. Mans), the consequences of moving from an air-launched, sub-strategic nuclear deterrent system. WE177 has a relatively short life ahead of it in operational terms. It cannot be regarded as credible as a theatre nuclear deterrent beyond about the end of this decade because of the enhancement in air defences not just of major powers but of regional powers.
  It is my belief that a visible, flexible, easily deployed nuclear deterrent, such as an air-borne system with a stand-off capability—a TASM—is much more credible than a strategic submarine-launched system as a version of Trident. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State to think again about the matter. As I said in an intervention, do we really wish the French to be the only country with a truly credible sub-strategic nuclear deterrent in Europe?
  Secondly, on reserves, I applaud what Her Majesty's Government are seeking to do, but they must remember the importance of territorial loyalties and of unit affiliations. It is all very well to try to get individual people to fill posts in the front line, be it in the TA overseas or in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force in Rapier squadrons, but it is the particular units to which they belong and which can be deployed as units which count in recruiting.
  I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State to think again about retaining some ships, purpose built for the Royal Naval Reserve. I urge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) did, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force to have flying squadrons. The Americans do so very well, as do the Israelis and the Swiss, and we should do likewise.
  Thirdly, the defence industries are a great source of excellence—they have to be. The numbers in our armed forces are dwindling all the time and our reserves, sadly, are dwindling in number, too, which is not what we would wish to see at such a time of uncertainty. We must ensure that they have the best equipment possible.
  The decision of the board of Swan Hunter to go into receivership was understandable. However, the Navy cannot afford to see a yard with such a comprehensive capability, from aircraft carriers to corvettes, simply disappear. It negates the competition policy that we have been pursuing. The same can be said about the MLRS3. We need an effective intelligent anti-armour weapon in the control of the Army. We should not rely simply on air power. Aircraft could be in the wrong place, and, of course, one cannot always ensure air superiority.
  We need new at tack helicopters as well as support ones for the Royal Marines and the Army. We will need more transport aircraft soon. Although my hon. Friend from the Parachute Regiment, the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), decried the need for tanks, we still need them to hold ground and take it. If we buy more tanks, I urge Her Majesty's Government to buy more of the Challenger 2 type than simply revamping the Challenger 1.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I wrote to the Prime Minister after I read an interview in the India Digest, in which he said:
  "I would like to see no nuclear weapons in Pakistan, no nuclear weapons in India and in due course no nuclear weapons in China or anywhere else,"
  I was interested to read that statement, especially as I remember the former Prime Minister saying that she wanted nuclear weapons in Europe and the United Kingdom for ever.
  I wrote to the Prime Minister asking whether the Government's policy had changed. I received a reply from the new Minister, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)—I congratulate him on his promotion and wish him well in his job. His reply did not please me, because he said that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between the position of the two Prime Ministers, and added:
  "security does not, however, come from wishful thinking."
  Presumably, then, the Prime Minister was indulging in wishful thinking.
  The Minister said:
  "we maintain a minimum nuclear deterrent"
  for security. Obviously, "minimum" means more in the context of Trident.
  Basically, the policy means that the Government want nuclear weapons for ever in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister was being dishonest in India when he said that he does not want nuclear weapons anywhere else because that does not include the United Kingdom. If there is no inconsistency, the Government's policy is that they want nuclear weapons for ever in the United Kingdom and Europe. Nuclear weapons for ever is the heart of the Government's defence policy and that is the reason why they are scuttling the test ban. The proliferation of nuclear weapons worldwide also flows from that policy.
  On 1 October 1992, the United States began a moratorium on nuclear testing. Since then, it has been under pressure from the United Kingdom to stop the moratorium and start testing again. The consequence is that Russia, France and China would resume testing again, and small states would say that they need nuclear weapons as well. Once testing started, the pledge of the Clinton Administration for a global, comprehensive test ban by 1996 would be scuttled, and the extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty beyond 1995 would be destroyed.
  The pressure has paid off, because the United States has released a plan for nine tests, three of which would be for the United Kingdom. However, existing weapons would not be tested—new weapons would be tested. An article in the New York Times on 16 June 1993 says:
  "The British tests would be used to develop a new Trident warhead and a bomb that could be dropped from an aircraft, the Congressional experts said."
  Ministers said that they do not need to test existing systems, so a new Trident weapon and presumably the tactical air-to-surface missile would be tested.
  I ask the Minister clearly whether the Government will cancel TASM. We have heard Government Back Benchers speak in favour of it but they were most unconvincing. As I said, TASM would mean an enormous proliferation and an overkill on an enormous scale. We are talking about hydrogen bombs.

  101
  I reiterate one of the lessons of the Gulf war. Dictators such as Saddam Hussein are prepared to go not simply to the brink but over it in defiance of the west. They do not mind if nuclear weapons are used and their populations are slaughtered as a result. Such populations are not in democracies, so they cannot alter the situation. That tactical air-to-surface missile is not a reasonable weapon. It simply kills populations instead of dictators.
  My next point relates to thermal oxide reprocessing. The expansion of THORP was justified by the Prime Minister on Thursday in the context of jobs. It has already been argued that here today there should be defence diversification and that new civil jobs would be created by using the peace dividend. But are those nuclear jobs worth the risk of the world being blown up and a city such as London blown to smithereens in a plutonium bomb holocaust? That is what is at stake if THORP is used. In February 1992, I said that it would
  "produce the equivalent of about a quarter of the nuclear arsenals of both theSoviet Union and the United States at their peak by the year 2000".—[Official Report, 24 February 1992: Vol. 204. c. 674.]
  It could be used to make a bomb.
  An article in The Times on 19 November last year said:
  "The world is glutted with plutonium and a good part of it is at Sellafield … The stockpile of plutonium there from civilian nuclear plants amounts to 40 tons: by the end of the century that will have risen to at least 60 tons, theoretically enough to make 10,000 of the bombs that destroyed Nagasaki in 1945."
  On top of that, 100 to 110 tons of weapons plutonium will come from dismantling nuclear weapons.
  The Observer has published an article in which experts say that that plutonium could be used to make bombs. It could be used by terrorists to make bombs. That is an enormous proliferation. It is perverse that the Government and Conservative Back Benchers use proliferation as their main argument for keeping and increasing our nuclear weapons, when we are a main source of plutonium production and of such proliferation. Production of plutonium is lunacy. It is proliferation on a huge scale. It could lead to instability and the devastation of the world. THORP should be abandoned.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench realise that it is unacceptable that we are debating the 1992 estimates for defence in June 1993. Obviously, I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said about the 1993 White Paper. We look forward to its publication and to a relatively early debate on it.
  I strongly support the call by the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee for a rapid return to a proper schedule, so that the 1994 estimates are published in the spring of 1994 and debated at the latest by that summer. To do otherwise is to allow the Executive to develop and implement their defence plans without proper parliamentary scrutiny. It is up to all of us in the House to ensure that that does not happen. That is even more important today, because, in times of peace, defence matters are not necessarily a high political priority. They seldom have been.
  Since the first world war, there has always been a considerable number of Members of Parliament with service experience of one type or another. But, as was said earlier in the debate, that group is a rapidly dwindling
  102
  band. Those with experience of active service are few. My generation is the last to have been through national service. Those who come to the House with a background of service life as professionals or reservists are especially welcome, but in any one parliamentary intake there will not be many.
  Thus, defence interests now have a much smaller natural constituency in the House than was formerly the case. That interest comes from members of the Defence Select Committee, those who represent constituencies in which the service element is important to the local economy and other individuals, who, whether they fall into those categories or not, continue to focus clearly on the continuing importance of putting Britain's defence capability high on our agenda. If we do that only in times of crisis, we do it far too late.
  The prevalence of defence issues in Parliament plays an important role in public awareness of defence matters. As in Parliament, fewer and fewer people in the general population have had experience of service life. Although the standing of our professional forces is surely higher than that of almost any other profession—politicians probably come at the bottom and the services come at the top—it is vital that the House demonstrates the high priority it gives to defence issues and to those in the services who carry out the job for all of us, to our great safety and with our admiration.
  I make no apology for labouring that point, because it leads directly to the first substantive issue that I want to address. "Options for Change" was developed as a policy in the light of the then apparent removal of the threat from the Warsaw pact countries. The removal of that threat was used, and is used, as the central continuing argument to justify the reduction in the armed services. It was accepted by Ministers, however, that the "Options" reductions would be reviewed in the light of any changing circumstances.
  My argument is that the break-up of the Soviet Union, let alone the type of situation that arose in the Gulf and the greatly increased peacekeeping role of the UN, has created a different scenario from that which existed when "Options for Change" was published. That point was well argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) in a speech which was strategically focused. He spoke particularly about the dangers posed by nuclear proliferation and Muslim fundamentalism.
  As a realist, I accept that it is extremely unlikely that the Warsaw threat will return in its old form. The danger to our island and to our NATO allies has therefore greatly diminished. All hon. Members would agree, however, that the world remains an unstable and dangerous place. In many ways, the world is much less certain than it was when cold war confrontations followed a more predictable pattern. Then, the threat of nuclear war had its deterrent effect on brinkmanship. Its ultimate success, in acting as a catalyst for political change, was driven by the economics of the arms race. That is what caused the political approach of the Soviet Union to be radically altered.
  A fixed defence budget figure does not represent a satisfactory way forward, but that was the baseline argument used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) on Thursday. He was an uncompromising Minister on the importance of getting the public sector borrowing requirement down. He clearly saw

  103
  it as his ministerial responsibility to play a full part in achieving that. Doubtless he will continue to argue the same case from the Back Benches.
  I suggest that that argument contrasts with the original, more flexible approach, used in the argument in favour of "Options for Change". That was confirmed again today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who stated, once again, that the "Options for Change" plan was not Treasury driven. He said that the policy was based upon a genuine assessment of the changed threat and was developed by the service chiefs and Ministers. He also said that it was designed to be flexible.
  I believe that my right hon. Friend was arguing, if gently, that same point today. If I have interpreted him correctly, I firmly support his view. Obviously, budgetary constraints and national circumstances must be taken into account, but I do not believe that it is right to have a fixed figure for defence spending, whatever the threat may be.
  I deal now with a number of specific matters. A sharp cut has been proposed in the total number of reserves. I welcome the positive action to increase their training opportunities with the professional services. I am particularly concerned, however, about the future of the Royal Naval Reserve. We need to know a lot more about how those proposals are likely to work, and what the reserve centres will mean in practice. I make one small plea. I hope that the title "HMS' will not be lost from the training establishments, as it is an important focus for people's commitment to what they are doing in the RNR.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater said, we now have the diplomatic will to make the United Nations a real force for peace, something that we could not have done during the cold war. However, we still lack the means to make that diplomatic will an effective arm in action. I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposal, which I hope will be followed through, for a directly employed United Nations force. That could be attractive to many people.
  My contribution to the debate would not be complete without a brief reference to the continuing diminution of the British flagged merchant fleet. In my view, we do not have a satisfactory sea-lift capability to get our armed forces to where they may be needed. I ask Ministers again: are they satisfied that that capability exists? We first had arguments about that over 10 years ago, when our capability was 10 times larger than it is now. If it was adequate then, how can it be justified as adequate now?
  Finally, how effective is local budgeting, an initiative begun some years ago? Is money being saved by delegating authority for running their own budgets to people out on individual sites operating within the MOD? That proposal was made for Sandhurst, Dartmouth and Cranwell, but I have heard that it was not working as it should, because all the issues still had to go up the MOD tree to be decided on, and then to come all the way down again before being settled.
  Has there been progress? If not, there should have been. Other speakers have rightly focused on the need to get maximum value for money, and the MOD bureaucracy must be part of that focus, as well as the fighting arm of the services.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: Many of the contributions to the debate have focused either on technical arguments or on the heroism of the British armed forces. Vera Brittain offered a different approach, when she wrote in her diary that there was never a shortage of men willing to die heroically—the difficulty was finding one capable of living sensibly. The defence estimates lamentably fail the test of what is sensible. They offer a view of the world that is out of date and out of time. They are mutterings from the men on the Maginot line wanting to live in a world that no longer exists.
  When I look for a recognition that we have moved from threat to risk, I find at least a mention of the risk of ethnic and territorial conflict in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, about the risk from economic and political instability and, outside Europe, the risk from arms proliferation.
  The defence estimates do not recognise that there is no direct threat to the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom nor the fact that there are other threats, possibly far more serious—for example, from the chain of unstable conventional nuclear power stations down the corridor between eastern and western Europe. There is also the threat from mass population migrations, driven by fear, famine, starvation and civil war. They do not recognise the fact that, in the next decade, there will be global insecurity or wars fought over the resource scarcities of oil, water, Iand and food. Against those causes of insecurity, the White Paper does not offer a programme of protection or redress.
  Britain's defence policy should be based on simple principles. First, we should be able to defend ourselves against the threat of invasion. Beyond that, we should contribute to the building of international security systems based on what this country can do best, what it can afford and where the world is going today, rather than where it was yesterday.
  We must be willing to confront the contradictions within the defence estimates. They refer to the wish to reverse proliferation, yet many of Britain's policies compound the problems of proliferation. They cite examples of the reversal of the nuclear arms race, yet Britain is expanding its nuclear commitment. We cannot go outside the Chamber and the country and convince countries that do not have nuclear weapons that there is a case for reverse proliferation while we are increasing our nuclear capacity. It is not a credible position for Britain in the world.
  We are in fact engaging in vertical proliferation, in breach of article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty. The estimates refer to our desire for an extension of that treaty, yet we are doing our best to sabotage the prospects for that. They refer to wanting to bring to an end the threat of nuclear weapons, yet Britain and China are alone among the nuclear powers in refusing to engage in a moratorium on testing. They talk about wanting reverse proliferation, yet Britain is a major contributor to the spread of the world arms trade.
  The estimates refer to the UN register of arms, but this is merely a register of arms sales, not arms making. The estimates do not recognise that Britain commits 45 per cent. of its investment in research and development to

  105
  researching military hardware. They do not recognise that we are supporting little more than a register of commercial interests in the killing fields of the arms trade.
  I shall cut short my intended speech, because there is nothing in the estimates that offers a sensible approach to common security rather than defence. I shall simply cite what the 1991 Stockholm conference said about the real challenge of global security. It said that the agenda for the 21st century was a simple one:
  "Unless we develop an ethical basis for human survival, all our technical solutions may turn out to be ineffectual in the long run. This is so because it is essentially the undeveloped nature of our global morality that has put humankind at risk: our greed, our arrogance, our lack of vision. What value should we place on our genius if, unconstrained by the ethics of survival, it leads the human race to despoil its earthly habitation?"
  Against that measure and that agenda, the estimates fail lamentably, and do not deserve the support of the House.
  9.22 pm
  Dr. John Reid: I apologise to those hon. Members who have been waiting all evening, but have not been called. I understand their difficulties. There have been so many speeches of substance that it is impossible to deal with them all. Therefore, I shall pick two from each side of the House.
  First, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who is not in his place—[Interruption.] I am sorry, he is in his place. I do not intend to insult him: he made the best speech that I have heard him make in the House. In particular, I endorse his views about the development of the military structure in the United Nations. I do not agree with all that he said about the voluntary nature of that, but he pushed forward the frontiers in a direction that the House should seriously consider.
  Secondly, the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) spoke with tremendous depth of thought on two subjects—nuclear proliferation and the need for those in the western democratic culture to come to terms with Islam.
  Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) spoke with tremendous passion about the 26,000 veterans of the nuclear tests and about his colleague, Ken McGinley. He spoke not only with passion but with a sense of feeling that is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I make the point to the Minister that those 26,000 people were war wounded. They were wounded in the cause of British defence in the same way as someone who was shot in Bosnia or on the streets of Belfast. I hope that the Minister will take the sense of my hon. Friend's remarks and those made by some Conservative Members, and treat the issue as non-partisan. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South said, the only question is when those people will receive justice.
  Fourthly, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) spoke of the difficulties that ordinary soldiers, sailors and airmen face because of the academic discussions that we have in the House. They serve in roulement battalions and abroad, and sometimes have to leave their families on unaccompanied tours. We will benefit from being reminded that we are speaking not about facts, figures and statistics but about ordinary men and women who serve this country well.
  I pay tribute to my former jousting partner, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), who also served the country and his party well. I learnt only
  106
  tonight that the press referred to us as Little and Large, but I have not worked out who was Little and who was Large. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman enjoys a happy retirement on the Back Benches. Having spent two years trying to control a lady from Finchley, it must have been a comedown in the world to be asked to control nothing more than the Parachute Regiment.
  We regret also the passing of the former Minister for Defence Procurement, Mr. Alan Clark, who featured in some of the debate. He is probably the first Tory Minister to resign to spend more time with other people's families.
  I know that the right hon. Member for Bridgwater will not mind if I come straight to the heart of the matter on "Options for Change". Although Alan Clark was mentioned, no one quoted him directly, but I shall do so. Remember that one is talking of the academic who wrote, "Barbarossa". Writing about "Options for Change", he commented:
  "This happens the whole time. It's not just the slow balls-up"—
  the House will remember that I am quoting—
  "of the 'Options' project, it's 100 examples a week of waste, blinkers, vested interest, idleness and failure to put the country before narrow personal, regimental or sectarian considerations."
  I am sure that that was before the time of the present Secretary of State for Defence. Mr. Clark continues:
  "A long letter today from beloved Tip."
  It is not explained who Tip is, although we can speculate.
  He goes on:
  "He says that the whole of the Rhine Army is completely demoralised. There's a freeze on spares, so if vehicles break on exercise they're just towed back to Sennelager and abandoned. The great Panzer workshops that featured in Hitler's exchange with Jodl after the fall of the Remagen bridge are now a scrapyard for broken Land Rovers. The 'chaps' are good, still, and keen. They want to get out into the Empire, sort out the 'trouble spots'. But he says some of the new recruits are almost illiterate."
  He then writes one of the finest lines ever from a Tory ex-Minister:
  "It's all so depressing. Especially when you think we've had a Tory Government for the last ten years."
  That is a condemnation of Tory education and of Tory party defence policy.
  Mr. Whitney indicated dissent.
  Dr. Reid: Would the hon. Gentleman like me to read more? We have a demand for an encore. Would the hon. Gentleman like me to read more now?
  Mr. Whitney: How about reading from Crossman?
  Dr. Reid: I do not have anything by Crossman in front of me, but, as we are involved in literature, I will read something more from Mr. Clark:
  "I think what saddens me most is the so near and yet so far experience at MoD. I have written the Defence Review".
  The right hon. Member for Bridgwater told us that there was no defence review and that, if there was, he wrote it. According to his second in command, that is not true. He states:
  "I have written the Defence Review. It has, to all intents and purposes, been accepted by Number 10. But no one is getting on with it. It's all being screwed by this absurd 'Options' exercise, which muffles everything."
  Those are not my words; they are the words of one of the defence team. I suppose that we should have a minute's silence for dear departed friends—the old Tory defence team.

  107
  I have not been an Opposition spokesman for long, but since I took up this post we have lost a Secretary of State for Defence, a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, a Minister of State for Defence Procurement and—only last week or the week before—a Minister of State for the Armed Forces. We now have a fresh team. I suppose that I should congratulate my opposite number, the new Minister of State for the Armed Forces: he is a very good choice. I understand that he comes from a long line of thespians: he seems to have all the qualifications for membership of the Tory defence team.
  Hon. Members would expect me to respond to the points made by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who launched an attack on the Labour party for having the audacity to suggest that we might have an agreement on conventional arms. He pointed out that that was mentioned in our amendment. I am not sure how long the Minister has been in his post; somebody told me that he had been there for 15 months. I looked him up in "Parliamentary Profiles", which tells us—under "Traits"—
  "Tall; dark; handsome; natty; Old Etonian charm; ruthless, sardonic wit".
  The one thing it does not say is "knows anything about defence".
  Let me try to educate the Minister. Conventional arms agreements have been on-going under Conservative Governments for some 20 years. The last example was known as CFE—conventional forces in Europe. When the Minister attacks, in principle, the idea that reductions in conventional forces are possible, he criticises not the Opposition but his own party. I am sorry if, in his 15 months at the Ministry, no one has told the Minister that we are negotiating conventional force reductions; but I should be obliged if, after those 20 years of agreements, he did not attack the Opposition for including Britain in their amendment.
  I shall say no more about the Minister's opening speech: I think that that is the best way in which to treat it. Let me say three things.
  Two or three years ago, we said that the Government had made a mistake about the infantry—that they would have to put soldiers back again. They said that we were wrong; now they have done it.
  Two or three years ago, we said that the Government should give the Territorial Army an operational role, integrating it with the regular forces. They said that we were wrong; now they have done it.
  Three years ago, we said that it was nonsensical to spend £3,000 million on a new sub-strategic nuclear weapon called TASM—the tactical air-to-surface missile. They said that we were wrong, but we predict tonight that they will cancel it, because there is no military or strategic need for it, and there is certainly no financial way in which it can be secured. If we have TASM, we cannot have the infantry. The threats that we now face do not require yet another nuclear weapon; they require British soldiers on the ground.
  In his 1992 "Statement on the Defence Estimates", the Secretary of State boasted:
  "In the work on Options for Change"—
  hon. Members will note that his view was different from that of Alan Clark—
  108
  "and subsequently, we have carried out a fundamental reassessment of the potential for conflict"
  within and outside Europe, and how it should be reflected in defence strategy, policy and the structure of the armed forces. I take it that that was a joke; I take it that it was written with irony and sarcasm. If there is one thing that the Government have not produced, it is a fundamental reassessment and a strategic view of where we should be going.
  The hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) warned us not to underestimate the forthcoming White Paper. In a non-partisan spirit, may I say to him that if the Government intend to publish a White Paper that is based on a strategic analysis and opens up to the public and to Parliament the basis on which we are trying to match resources to commitments, the Opposition will welcome it and will give it credit. We do not underestimate the fact that it is a difficult task. If, even belatedly, the Secretary of State for Defence comes to the Dispatch Box and brings with him a rational, strategic analysis of our defence needs and how those commitments are to be matched to our resources, the Labour party will welcome it.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: One is always delighted when a sinner repents. Is the hon. Gentleman serious when he tells the House that his party has had a consistent, coherent defence policy over the past three or four years?
  Dr. Reid: I have. [Interruption.] I am not sure that all Conservative Members have always followed a consistent defence policy. The hon. Gentleman should not try to make out that the only people in the world who have shown inconsistency are those who sit on the Opposition side of the House. There are those on the Government side who have been just as inconsistent as others.
  None of us underestimates the problems. In particular, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater lived, as he told us, through a period of tremendous change—away from the nuclear threat and capability of the Soviet Union to the new type of risks that we face. Perhaps they could have been foreseen. It is easy to say that in retrospect. I think that it was the German philosopher, Hegel, who said that the owl of Minerva spreads its wings only at the coming of the dusk. It is easy, as I say, to say these things in retrospect. I do not claim that the Labour party has a monopoly of wisdom on defence, but I challenge the arrogant assertion of some Conservative Members that they have a monopoly of wisdom when it comes either to patriotism or to an analysis of defence. They have not.
  Mr. Aitken: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the benefit of his wisdom?
  Dr. Reid: I am giving the Minister the benefit of my wisdom. If he wishes to intervene, all that he has to do is to come to the Dispatch Box. If, however, someone who has already spent 15 months in the Ministry of Defence does not even know that we were involved in the CFE reductions, he is in no position to try to educate other people.
  In an attempt to be constructive, let Me make two or three suggestions to those who sit on the Treasury Bench. As I said earlier, we did it on the infantry; we did it on the analysis of the threat; we did it on TASM. Let me, therefore, put two or three points, which I hope will be constructive, to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces who is to make his defence debut tonight.

  109
  I refer to the increasing compulsion of people to think that the United Nations can solve all problems. That is based on two assumptions: first, that for every problem there is a solution and, secondly—the most dangerous assumption—that for every problem there is a military solution. Both assumptions are wrong. The House has not yet come to grips with that fact.
  The strategic defence question is ultimately one of foreign affairs policy, because defence is the daughter of foreign affairs. Strategy is merely the use and distribution of military force towards the end of policy. The first and overriding matter, therefore, is clarification of our political—more often than not, foreign affairs—aims and objectives as regards any particular case, within the context of our general aims and objectives.
  Within that context there are a number of issues that we should all bear in mind. The first is legality. Is the proposed military action compatible with, justified by or conflicting with international law? International legality is a necessary, but not a sufficient, justification for military action.
  The second issue is consensuality. Is the action proposed compatible with, and justified by, United Nations resolutions and the maintenance of a political consensus at the United Nations? In the event of Britain's taking action alone in defence of her own specific interests, this question would be relevant to the United Nations or other potential allies.
  The third issue is proportionality. Is the proposed military action proportionate to the threat posed or the aims and objectives envisaged?
  The fourth issue is strategy. Put simply, does the military action proposed in any given case—Somalia, Bosnia or anywhere else—stand a reasonable chance of achieving the policy aims desired?
  The fifth issue is practicality. Is the military means proposed practical given the history, political complexity, terrain, population, distribution and forces liable to oppose the action at any place or at any time?
  Unless we come to terms with those questions and unless we think through our strategic position oil the United Nations, we are in grave danger of imposing an even greater burden on our service men and women that is imposed on them at the moment. Whatever the differences between the two sides of the House, surely we should all agree that our main responsibility must be to ensure that we do not place demands on them that are not matched by the resources that we make available to them.
  That, above all, is the accusation that we level at the Government tonight. We shall not vote against the Government's defence estimates. We will not lay ourselves open to any accusation that we shall deprive our service men and women of the resources that they should have, but we will vote for our reasoned amendment because we cannot support a Government strategy where no strategy exists.
  9.41 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): It is a great honour to be winding up this important and wide-ranging debate. It is also a great honour to have been given the responsibilities that come with this position. I have long been aware of the professionalism and dedication of the men and women of
  110
  our armed forces, not least from my time in Northern Ireland. I look forward to continuing my association with them.
  I was most fortunate to have spent two and a half years at Stormont and to have discovered what I regard as the real Northern Ireland—the friendliest and most hospitable people in the world in one of the most beautiful corners of the globe. I wish them all well and assure them that, in leaving, I shall remain an honorary ambassador for the Province.
  I feel particularly honoured to be following in the footsteps of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), who was Minister of State for the Armed Forces during a period of unprecedented change. When he first assumed office, Honecker, Ceaucescu, Husak, Straub and Jaruzelski were still in power across the eastern bloc. The Warsaw pact still posed a massive threat to the security of the United Kingdom and its allies. At the heart of the Warsaw pact, the Soviet Union still adhered, albeit with ever lessening conviction, to the tenets of Marxism and Leninism.
  We now live in a world with a different complexion and the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact belong to history. The Berlin wall is down and Germany is reunited. The former Soviet troops have left the territory of their erstwhile Warsaw pact allies, and countries of the former Soviet Union, central and eastern Europe and the Baltic states are seeking to entrench the habits of democracy, which were denied to them for half a century. In short, the cold war is over.
  I do not want to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell was single-handedly responsible for that victory, but he certainly was one of those who had difficult decisions to make about the way in which our defence policy and force structures needed to evolve to reflect the new strategic setting. He deserves the thanks of the House for the dedication and unfailing good humour that he brought to a job that few others could have carried out with such panache in such turbulent times. I have admired him for many years, but having spent the past three weeks learning how massive his job was I admire him all the more. He is a great man in many respects and his shoes will be very hard to fill. Indeed, at a mere 6ft 4 in, I feel a shrimp beside him in stature.
  With the end of the cold war, the benchmark against which we assessed our defence requirements disappeared before our eyes.
  The certainty of the cold war, in the shape of a monolithic, ideologically hostile adversary, gave way to uncertainty, and the rationale for the force structures which have served NATO so well for so long were no longer appropriate. In spite of the change for the better, represented by the demise of the communist threat, the future of Europe became unpredictable. No one could be certain about the repercussions of the collapse of central power in the Soviet Union. Festering pockets of ethnic tension broke out across central and eastern Europe, not least in the Caucasus and Yugoslavia. In the wider world, the Gulf was soon to provide evidence of the dangers of petty dictators giving practical expression to their aggressive intent.
  I am aware that a number of commentators, in the House and elsewhere, question whether there is a logical and coherent link between defence policy and the size and shape of our armed forces. Some even assert that the size

  111
  and shape of our armed forces are determined wholly by continual Treasury demands for reductions in the defence budget. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) made clear last Thursday, it would be unrealistic to ignore the question of affordability and, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement said today, that is the dilemma facing defence planners. However, assertions that changes in the armed forces are imposed arbitrarily are based on misunderstandings, sometimes deliberate.
  Manpower requirements are kept under review in the light of a number of factors. A key factor is, of course, operational commitments and any changes in those commitments which are currently unforeseen. Other factors include management initiatives to streamline support functions to ensure that they are carried out most cost effectively so that resources can be concentrated on the front line. Such initiatives include civilianisation and contractorisation. As for the front line itself, new technologies will in some cases require less manpower.
  There have been about 40 contributions to the debate. One of the more recent was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), who spoke about overstretch. We have always acknowledged that restructuring would lead to increased demands on service personnel because units amalgamating, relocating and re-roling are temporarily unavailable for emergency tours. The interval between emergency tours is currently 19 months. Following withdrawal from Belize, however, the average interval for infantry will rise to 20 months in 1994–95 and to 29 months in 1995–96 on the basis of our current commitments. Two battalions will be withdrawn from Berlin in 1994, so there will be an increase in the units available for such tours. The prospect may look dark at the moment, but it will get better very much sooner than some people expect.
  The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), in his usual knockabout performance, asked for reassurances about the West Indies guard ship. I can reassure him that, although one of its primary functions is to support the Belize garrison, it is at the same time able to make a useful contribution, for example, to the prevention of drug smuggling and to hurricane aid. As with all defence activities, we keep our commitments under review and our forces are deployed in supporting those which we have undertaken. No change is planned at present.
  The Statement on the Defence Estimates contains an essay entitled "Defence Planning in a Changing World". The 1993 Statement on the Defence Estimates, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State told the House last Thursday would be published early next month, will provide an account of the assumptions underpinning the "Options for Change" review, together with a full assessment of the changes which have taken place since then and their impact on our defence policy. As a newcomer to defence, I can say that the "Options for Change" assumptions and, in particular, its identification of the fundamental need to plan for uncertainty have stood the test of time remarkably well.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend told the House last April, he commissioned some months ago a detailed analysis of the way in which our defence assets are and
  112
  need to be employed to meet our various commitments around the world. The links between policy and the overall tasks that the armed forces are called upon to perform and force structures must be made explicit. The analysis will also examine the demands that different tasks make on resources.
  The results of that analysis will also be published in the 1993 White Paper. I refute the suggestion of both the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) that there has been no attempt to match the shape of our forces to threats and risks facing our security and our obligation to the world community and that we are not looking properly at our commitments and resources.
  The 1993 statement will show for the mid-1990s how major force elements—such as destroyers, frigates, infantry battalions and combat aircraft—are attributed to policy areas within each of the defence roles, the degree to which forces can be earmarked for more than one task, and how those combine to provide an overall force structure. It will also provide broad order estimated costs of the force elements allocated to a number of policy areas, and set out a number of changes that we plan to make to our force structures and capabilities to reflect changes in the strategic environment.
  I believe that the White Paper is a tremendous document, although, of course, the House will have to determine what it thinks of it in time. I believe that there is no need for a defence review as advocated by those on the Opposition Front Bench and others.
  I shall answer some of the points that were raised in debate on Thursday and today. First, let me provide a word of comfort for my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin). I call him "gallant" because I am sure that an honorary colonel deserves that epithet—perhaps it is an honorary "gallant." He asked about honorary colonels and whether he would remain one for long. Honorary colonels are appointed to each major Territorial Army unit and also to certain sub-units which are descendants of significant former regiments. They fulfil a similar function to the regular Army's system of colonels-in-chief and colonels of the regiment. They provide a source of advice for commanding officers and fulfil extremely useful functions—not just ceremonial—such as the presentation of awards. More significantly, they seek to use their influence on behalf of their unit with Ministers, politicians and others. The system works well and we have no plans to change the arrangements.
  My hon. and gallant Friend also raised the subject of TAVRAs. The territorial, auxiliary and volunteer reserve associations do sterling work in support of the volunteer reserve and cadet forces, although they no longer need be given the statutory duty to provide horses for the reserve forces and their useful function will be reviewed. On many of the other issues, it might be better if I were to write to the hon. Members concerned.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I am concerned that we are dealing with trivia when we should be dealing with more important matters. Will the Minister comment on the statement made by the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson)—a former MiniSter—in the recent science and technology debate? He said that this country had overtaxed itself beyond the strength of the economy for four decades for military purposes and that that had

  113
  caused a serious distortion in this country's science and technological resources to the detriment of civilian uses. Will the Minister address the question of defence diversification, which is alluded to in the Opposition's proposals?
  Mr. Hanley: If the hon. Gentleman had not wasted some of the House's time with that question, we might have gone on to some of the "less trivial" matters. The matters that I have raised may very well be trivial to the hon. Gentleman, but they are not trivial to those who raised them.
  The hon. Member for South Shields asked about UN troops in the safe areas and whether they were there to protect non-combatants. They are in Bosnia under the authority of UN Security Council resolution 836, which extends their mandate to enable them
  "to deter attacks against the safe areas, to monitor the ceasefire, to promote the withdrawal of military or paramilitary units other than those of the Government of the republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and to occupy some key points on the ground, in addition to participating in the delivery of humanitarian relief."
  The resolution authorises all necessary measures, including the use of air power, to support the UN protection force in the performance of its mandate. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we attach the utmost importance to the safety of our forces in Bosnia. We have therefore made appropriate preparations to deploy additional ground and air assets, should they be required, for the protection of the troops.
  The hon. Member for South Shields also asked about the return to the United Kingdom of the 105 mm light artillery which was deployed to the Adriatic in January aboard the RFA Argus. To cut the argument short due to lack of time today, I will say only that the RFA Argus is now back in the United Kingdom with the artillery crews. If necessary, the artillery and the crews can be returned to the theatre by air at short notice.
  Dr. David Clark: Can the Minister explain to the House why we brought home the RFA Argus, with all the light artillery on it, when the Secretary of State told us two months ago that it would be essential if we had to evacuate our troops from Bosnia? We do not need Sea Harriers—we need cover 24 hours a day. Why did the Secretary of State bring the RFA Argus home?
  Mr. Hanley: I have explained that point to the hon. Gentleman. The decision was taken in the light of changing circumstances—notably the deployment of the aircraft now enforcing the no-fly zone, an enhancement of the capabilities of the Sea Harrier, the provision of accommodation better able to provide protection, and the arrival of additional men and equipment, to which I have referred. We can deploy them as quickly as we need, certainly within 48 hours, so there is no need to worry on that score.
  On the important issue of nuclear testing, the House knows that since 1961 all our nuclear weapons tests have been conducted underground at the United States test site in Nevada. Last October, President Bush signed into law the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act which included certain limitations on nuclear weapons testing in the United States. At the summit in Vancouver in April, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin agreed that negotiations towards a test ban should begin at an early
  114
  date, that there should be a moratorium over the next three years and that there would be a maximum of 15 tests, of which three would be British.
  The United Kingdom has long supported the ultimate goal of a negotiated and verifiable comprehensive test ban, recognising the potential support for a non-proliferation effort that progress towards that objective could provide. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the House must recognise that a comprehensive test ban would not of itself prevent the production of a relatively crude nuclear weapon without recourse to testing, as has been shown in the recent examples of Iraq and South Africa. We must continue to have the means to maintain the safety of our nuclear weapons at the highest levels of assurance. Over the years, testing has played a central part in that process. However, it is not the only element. Other techniques, such as computer modelling and simulation, play an important and expanding role.
  Various Opposition Members have suggested that the Government and especially my Department should interfere in the commercial judgment of defence suppliers by forcing them into other sectors of manufacturing. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley provided a wonderful example. He said that it was disgraceful that the Government were selling arms around the world. Within a few seconds, he then said that it was disgraceful that jobs were being lost in the arms and defence industries. That comment was ridiculous. It may make sense for some of the arms suppliers to diversify, but it is not our place to tell companies how best they can be profitable and competitive. Our interest is in seeing a profitable and competitive defence industry. It sounds fine to call for diversification, but it is not easy to see what role there is for Government in the area. No doubt the hon. Gentleman wants to create as many quangos as possible. However, we believe that we have a defence industry of which we can be proud.
  Although the threat to our shores has been dramatically reduced, the world is still a very uncertain and occasionally a dangerous place. Times have changed and we must change with them. We must be ready to deal effectively with the unexpected. I am honoured to have this post. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell said, it is one of the best jobs in Government and the Ministry of Defence is one of the best teams with which to work. In my first few weeks, I have got to know a dazzling array of serving officers, men and women of all ranks, and some of the brightest and most able civil servants I have ever met. What has already etched itself on my mind is their professionalism, their sheer ability, their remarkably high morale and their great sense of humour. I intend to be a champion for the armed forces and I hope to gain their trust. There will be hard decisions to make, but I know that we have a team at the Ministry of Defence who will fight for and with our armed forces.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 277.

  Division No. 301]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Ashton, Joe

  Ainger, Nick

  Austin-Walker, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Allen, Graham

  Barron, Kevin

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Battle, John

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  115

  Bell, Stuart

  Hardy, Peter

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Benton, Joe

  Heppell, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Hinchliffe, David

  Betts, Clive

  Hoey, Kate

  Blunkett, David

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Boateng, Paul

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Boyes, Roland

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Bradley, Keith

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hoyle, Doug

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

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

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Burden, Richard

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Byers, Stephen

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hutton, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Illsley, Eric

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ingram, Adam

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Jamieson, David

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cann, Jamie

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Clapham, Michael

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Clelland, David

  Jowell, Tessa

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Coffey, Ann

  Keen, Alan

  Cohen, Harry

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Connarty, Michael

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Corbett, Robin

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cousins, Jim

  Litherland, Robert

  Cryer, Bob

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dafis, Cynog

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dalyell, Tam

  McAllion, John

  Darling, Alistair

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Davidson, Ian

  McCartney, Ian

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  McFall, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McKelvey, William

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

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

  McLeish, Henry

  Denham, John

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dewar, Donald

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dixon, Don

  Mahon, Alice

  Dobson, Frank

  Mandelson, Peter

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dowd, Jim

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Martlew, Eric

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Meacher, Michael

  Enright, Derek

  Meale, Alan

  Etherington, Bill

  Michael, Alun

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Milburn, Alan

  Fisher, Mark

  Miller, Andrew

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Foulkes, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Fraser, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morley, Elliot

  Galloway, George

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Gapes, Mike

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  George, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mullin, Chris

  Gordon, Mildred

  Murphy, Paul

  Gould, Bryan

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Graham, Thomas

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Olner, William

  Grocott, Bruce

  O'Neill, Martin

  Gunnell, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hain, Peter

  Parry, Robert

  Hall, Mike

  Patchett, Terry

  Hanson, David

  Pendry, Tom

  116

  Pickthall, Colin

  Soley, Clive

  Pike, Peter L.

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pope, Greg

  Stevenson, George

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Straw, Jack

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prescott, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Purchase, Ken

  Tipping, Paddy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Turner, Dennis

  Randall, Stuart

  Tyler, Paul

  Raynsford, Nick

  Vaz, Keith

  Redmond, Martin

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Reid, Dr John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Richardson, Jo

  Wareing, Robert N

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Watson, Mike

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Winnick, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wise, Audrey

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Worthington, Tony

  Short, Clare

  Wray, Jimmy

  Simpson, Alan

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

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

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. John Spellar.

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Alexander, Richard

  Coe, Sebastian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Congdon, David

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Conway, Derek

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Ancram, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cormack, Patrick

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Couchman, James

  Ashby, David

  Cran, James

  Aspinwall, Jack

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

  Atkins, Robert

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Day, Stephen

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Devlin, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dicks, Terry

  Bates, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Batiste, Spencer

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dover, Den

  Bendall, Vivian

  Duncan, Alan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dunn, Bob

  Body, Sir Richard

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Booth, Hartley

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boswell, Tim

  Eggar, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Elletson, Harold

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bowis, John

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evennett, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bright, Graham

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Forman, Nigel

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Forth, Eric

  Burns, Simon

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Burt, Alistair

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Butcher, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Butler, Peter

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  French, Douglas

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fry, Peter

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gale, Roger

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gallie, Phil

  Clappison, James

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Garnier, Edward

  117

  Gill, Christopher

  Needham, Richard

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Nelson, Anthony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gorst, John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Norris, Steve

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hague, William

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Page, Richard

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Paice, James

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hannam, Sir John

  Pawsey, James

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hawksley, Warren

  Pickles, Eric

  Hayes, Jerry

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hendry, Charles

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hicks, Robert

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Horam, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Richards, Rod

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

  Riddick, Graham

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Howell, Sir Ralph (North

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Norfolk)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jack, Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Sackville, Tom

  Jessel, Toby

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Key, Robert

  Shersby, Michael

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Sims, Roger

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Knapman, Roger

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Knox, Sir David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Leigh, Edward

  Sproat, Iain

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lidington, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stephen, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Allan

  MacKay, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Maclean, David

  Sumberg, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sweeney, Walter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sykes, John

  Madel, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Marland, Paul

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moate, Sir Roger

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

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Tracey, Richard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tredinnick, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trend, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  118

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Willetts, David

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Wilshire, David

  Walden, George

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Waller, Gary

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wells, Bowen

  Wood, Timothy

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Wilkinson, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 35.

  Division No. 302]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Day, Stephen

  Alexander, Richard

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Devlin, Tim

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Dicks, Terry

  Amess, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Ancram, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dover, Den

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Ashby, David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dunn, Bob

  Atkins, Robert

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Eggar, Tim

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Elletson, Harold

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evennett, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Body, Sir Richard

  Forman, Nigel

  Booth, Hartley

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Boswell, Tim

  Forth, Eric

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bowis, John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  French, Douglas

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fry, Peter

  Brazier. Julian

  Gale, Roger

  Bright, Graham

  Gallie, Phil

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Garnier, Edward

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gill, Christopher

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Burns, Simon

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Burt, Alistair

  Gorst, John

  Butcher, John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Butler, Peter

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hague, William

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Clappison, James

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hannam, Sir John

  Congdon, David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Conway, Derek

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hendry, Charles

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hicks, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Cran, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

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

  Horam, John

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  119

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

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

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (North

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Norfolk)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Needham, Richard

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Jack, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Jessel, Toby

  Norris, Steve

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Page, Richard

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Paice, James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Patnick, Irvine

  Key, Robert

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Pawsey, James

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Pickles, Eric

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Knapman, Roger

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Knox, Sir David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Richards, Rod

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Riddick, Graham

  Leigh, Edward

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Lidington, David

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Lightbown, David

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Lord, Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sackville, Tom

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Maclean, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Madel, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Malone, Gerald

  Shersby, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Sims, Roger

  Marland, Paul

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Merchant, Piers

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Soames, Nicholas

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  120

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Tredinnick, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Trend, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Tyler, Paul

  Sproat, Iain

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Walden, George

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waller, Gary

  Steen, Anthony

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stephen, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Stern, Michael

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Stewart, Allan

  Whitney, Ray

  Streeter, Gary

  Whittingdale, John

  Sumberg, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sykes, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thomason, Roy

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Nicholas Baker.

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

  Tracey, Richard

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Livingstone, Ken

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Burden, Richard

  Loyden, Eddie

  Canavan, Dennis

  McAllion, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Mahon, Alice

  Cohen, Harry

  Mullin, Chris

  Connarty, Michael

  Parry, Robert

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Rooney, Terry

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Simpson, Alan

  Davidson, Ian

  Skinner, Dennis

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

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Watson, Mike

  Gerrard, Neil

  Wise, Audrey

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Wray, Jimmy

  Gordon, Mildred

  Graham, Thomas

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1992 contained in Cm. 1981.

  Armed Forces (Discipline)
  10.26 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I beg to move,
  That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 26 May 1993, be approved.
  The purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, which together provide the statutory basis for discipline in the three services. The House will be aware that it is a long-established practice for service discipline to be fully reviewed every five years by means of the consideration of an Armed Forces Bill; and for the disciplinary code as then enacted to be reviewed annually in the intervening years by an Order in Council, which is itself approved by resolution of each House. The House will also be aware that an, Armed Forces Bill was considered and duly enacted in 1991. That Act also endorsed the process of annual continuation thereafter by Order in Council. Therefore, I am asking the House tonight to give its annual renewal to the discipline Acts by approving the order.
  I should now like to bring the House up to date with the work going forward pursuant to some of the main recommendations of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, on which my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement addressed the House a year ago.
  The Select Committee recommended that the Ministry of Defence should examine the terms of enlistment for under 18-year-olds to make it easier for them to leave, if they wished to do so. A thorough review of this issue has been undertaken. There is no evidence of wid.epread dissatisfaction among under 18-year-olds about their terms of service and the advice that they receive on their rights to claim discharge. Any extension of a minor's right to leave would cause real manning difficulties for the services. Nevertheless, the services have reviewed their position. The Navy already had provision to allow discretion to discharge under-18-year-olds who are unable to settle to service life. The other two services have adopted a similar provision.
  Those arrangements are in addition to the statutory rights of discharge. Recruiting staff are meticulous in ensuring that recruits and their parents or guardians fully understand the commitment being entered into; and, of course, recruits under 18 require their parents' or guardians' written consent to enlist. They receive a notice paper setting out their terms of enlistment and the earliest date on which they can leave. In addition, the leaflet "Your Rights and Responsibilities", which is given to all new recruits, has been amended to include a note on the right to claim discharge. The leaflet was reissued last autumn.
  The Select Committee also suggested that there should be a presumption that under-18s should not be sent on active service overseas unless there was an overriding requirement for their skills or the threat to national security that was sufficient to warrant the conscription of minors. The services' deployment of minors is broadly consistent with the Committee's suggestion. However, we must remember that under-18s are deployed as members of formed units. They have trained and worked together and each makes an important contribution to the efficiency
  122
  and effectiveness of his or her entire unit. To withdraw them at a crucial time could adversely affect the operational effectiveness of the unit.
  On the question of ethnic monitoring, in May 1992 my predecessor announced the decision to introduce in-service monitoring. That will involve the distribution of ethnic origin questionnaires to all serving personnel and the analysis of the completed questionnaires. It is intended to begin the survey later this year.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister might not be able to answer my question, but does he perchance know the rank of the most senior black officer serving in the British armed forces?
  Mr. Hanley: No, but I look forward to meeting him or her—[Interruption.] I am giving an honest answer. I do not know, but I shall find out as soon as I get back to the Ministry of Defence. It is a good point to raise because it is distressing that more people from Afro-Caribbean and Indian backgrounds do not join the forces. We intend to continue the ethnic monitoring of applications to the armed forces. It is disappointing that more people from ethnic minorities—who still represent only about 1 per cent. of the total armed forces—do not apply. I hope that the measures we take to encourage people from the ethnic minorities will be effective.
  We remain committed to a range of measures aimed at encouraging entry from ethnic minority groups. They include the increased use of black recruiters—role models who I hope will instil additional confidence; better representation of ethnic minority service personnel in recruiting literature; special training for recruiters; the production of brochures in ethnic. minority languages to target parents; and the development of contacts with ethnic minority community leaders. I hope that those measures will help.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister knows that I have time for his views on this matter and that I am not being flippant in asking questions about it. We must go further than what he has said. It is not just a question of trying to encourage more people from ethnic minorities into the armed forces. We must try to ensure that they stay there by eliminating any form of racism within them.
  Mr. Hanley: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he did not think that I gave him a flippant reply. I gave him an honest reply. I hope that I have shown that we take the matter seriously. We have set out a whole range of initiatives that I hope will help to deal with the problem.
  The armed forces are fully integrated organisations and no discrimination is tolerated. Any complaint of racial abuse or discrimination will be thoroughly investigated and, if substantiated, appropriate action will be taken against those found to be involved. The Select Committee recommended that the MOD should consider how best to identify incidents of racial harassment in the armed forces and to keep records accordingly. The Army and the RAF now maintain separate records of complaints involving a racial element and work is continuing in the Royal Navy to identify a suitable method of recording such incidents.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I remind the Minister that the chief of the American armed forces is Colin Powell, who is a black officer. We have nothing like him in this country. Will the Minister ensure that a promotional fast

  123
  stream is available to ethnic minorities? In the previous debate, the Minister referred to his excellent civil servants in the Ministry of Defence. Will he make sure that members of the ethnic minorities hold high positions in the civil service also, within his Ministry?
  Mr. Hanley: I will most definitely do that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that there are members of the ethnic minorities within the armed forces. It is still a low figure, but I hope that the initiatives that I described tonight will help to redress that situation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are representatives of almost each and every ethnic minority within the Ministry of Defence. I stress that we are against any discrimination, which is not tolerated in either the forces or the Ministry. I assure the Select Committee that progress has been made with its recommendation.
  Another particularly nasty problem is bullying. A very serious view is taken of bullying, and it is generally made clear throughout the services that bullying and ill treatment will not be permitted. Any allegation or complaint of ill treatment is properly investigated, and, if substantiated, disciplinary action will be taken against the perpetrators. Every effort will be made to eradicate any unacceptable behaviour of that kind.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Minister seems to be saying that a clear complaint must be made at every level. Is he satisfied that the opportunities for ordinary members of the forces of both sexes to make formal complaints is such that they will not be dissuaded from doing so by being encouraged to drop such accusations before they are recorded?
  Mr. Hanley: I understand the hon. Lady's point. It is important to keep the procedures constantly under review, and to make sure that individuals do not feel threatened against making complaints. The procedures are regularly reviewed.
  Another issue dealt with in the Select Committee's report was homosexuality in the armed forces. The Committee acknowledged that the armed forces should not be required to accept homosexuals, but recommended that homosexual activity of a kind that is legal in civilian law should no longer constitute an offence under service law.
  That recommendation was accepted, and that change in the law means that a service man who engages in homosexual activity that is legal in civilian law will not be prosecuted under service law but will be administratively discharged. However, that change will not prevent the prosecution under service law of a service man who has committed an otherwise legal homosexual act where the grounds for prosecution were, for example, that the act was to the prejudice of good order and discipline or that it caused military efficiency to be undermined.
  The necessary amendment to the law will be made as soon as the legislative programme allows.
  Mr. Tony Banks: That was said last year.
  Mr. Hanley: Yes, that was said last year—but any delay in amending the appropriate legislation does not affect our agreement to the Select Committee's recommendation. Accordingly, action has been taken to follow that
  124
  recommendation administratively until such time as the law is changed. We will not act upon it until the law is changed.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe(Mid-Kent): I am reassured by my hon. Friend's remarks, but the evidence of recent months is to the contrary. It appears that members of the armed services who, for example, have a homosexual relationship well away from any Army establishment are nevertheless in grave danger of being drummed out of the forces. That is clearly contrary to the spirit in which the original undertaking was given.
  Mr. Hanley: We have adhered to the Select Committee's recommendation. We have stated that we will change the law in the light of that recommendation, and I am confirming that tonight.
  The services continue to believe strongly that the special conditions of service life preclude acceptance of homosexuals and homosexual behaviour. Service personnel, both on and off duty, unavoidably live in close quarters with their colleagues, sometimes under severe stress. Such conditions, and the need for absolute trust and confidence within and between all ranks, require the potentially disruptive influence of homosexual relationships and practices to be excluded.
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: It was clear to me that the Select Committee intended that no one should have a criminal record because he had been discharged for committing a homosexual act. However, there is still no doubt that anyone indulging in such an act, whether inside or outside a military camp, will be discharged for so doing.
  Mr. Hanley: I agree with my right hon. Friend; I am grateful for his intervention.
  The Committee recommended that a timetable be given for the closure of the Royal Navy detention quarters and the redeployment of resources to the military corrective training centre. An investment appraisal which examined the possible closure of RNDQs and the transfer of their function to the MCTC has been completed. It demonstrates that significant saving would result from transfer, but closure of the RNDQs still depends on the availability of facilities to accept all naval personnel currently sentenced to detention. No firm timetable has been announced yet.
  The Committee also recommended that service courts should ensure that sentencing is equitable between the sexes. Sentencing guidance has been amended, and other relevant regulations are being amended where appropriate.
  Finally, the Committee recommended that the Government provide parliamentary time within the next five years for legislation to consolidate service law. I am pleased to say that work is well in hand with the Law Commission, and that it should be completed within the time scale.
  I pay tribute to the professionalism and dedication of our armed services. Whether in support of NATO or in other tasks, they have an essential part to play in safeguarding our interests and freedoms. The high quality of our armed forces is due in no small part to their surprisingly good morale. In a military environment, a fair and equitable system of discipline is essential to help to preserve that morale, and to ensure that the high level of efficiency and effectiveness that characterise the three

  125
  services is maintained. That is what the service discipline Acts seek to maintain, and I therefore invite the House to approve the order.
  10.42 pm
  Dr. John Reid: Perhaps it is easier to describe exactly what we are discussing without being patronising. Every five years, we have what is called a quinquennial review of the Army discipline Acts: we had one last year. In each of the four intervening years we debate them and present our views, but we do not normally table amendments.
  Opposition Members will not vote against the Acts; if we did so and there was a possibility that we would win, there would be no discipline or morale in the armed forces. Tonight, we are having an exchange of views rather than anything else. Let me exchange a few views with my new opposite number, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
  The first concerns capital punishment. When the Armed Forces Bill was debated in 1991, the only issue on which the House divided was a new clause tabled in Committe. It was not a Select Committee, as the Minister said; it was a hybrid Committee—both a Select Committee and a Standing Committee. The only issue on which the Committee divided was whether we should have capital punishment. The Committee decided, by means of a new clause, to remove the death penalty for the five remaining capital offence in service law—as opposed to general civilian law. They are serious misconduct in action, obstructing operations, mutiny or incitement, failure to suppress a mutiny and assisting the enemy.
  Although we have been assured that the death penalty does not apply in peacetime, and although we know that it has not been used for a purely military offence since 1946, the Opposition took the view that its retention for these specific offences was iniquitous and unjust. I said in Committee that, if the House wished to retain capital punishment as an ultimate sanction for the most heinous offences, the category of treason, as defined in civilian law, would be more than adequate: that there was no need to specify five offences.
  The Opposition believe now, as we believed then, that it is an insult to the dedicated professionals who serve in our armed forces to argue that they need this additional threat hanging over their heads to ensure their disciplined conduct. Most. of our NATO allies regard such measures as unnecessary. I believe that our service personnel are more than equal to the best of our allies in NATO.
  Let me give you an example, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If, tomorrow night, there were an attack by, say, the Provisional IRA on British service men, and one of the terrorists shot a British service man, he could not be hanged. He would not suffer the death penalty. If, however, during that attack one of our young soldiers panicked for three or four minutes and ran away, he could, under service law, be hanged.
  Ministers will of course tell us that that would not happen, and that it has not happened since 1946. If it is not going to happen—if that young soldier would not have to be shot like a clog rather than hanged—why is it necessary to retain it in military law? Why do we face the paradox of a terrorist who cannot be executed for attacking British soldiers while a British soldier can be executed because he
  126
  panicked for two minutes, ran away and showed cowardice? That is the first issue we raised last year, and I ask the Minister to think about it again.
  The second issue, which the Minister hinself raised, is the question of homosexuality. It is a popular question, because the President of the United States has raised it as regards the US armed forces. As I understood the interpretation of the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell of what was agreed in Committee, it was correct. It was an honest and concise statement. What the Committee agreed last year was a compromise: that we would decriminalise homosexual activity in the armed forces. I thought that we had also decriminalised homosexuality.
  There is a distinction. The problem that the official Opposition face—I think that certain others do as well—is that in the British armed forces, so far as I can understand it, it is not homosexual practice but homosexuality itself that is the offence. Someone can be dismissed from the British armed forces for homosexuality, even if he does not practise it.
  When I asked the general who commands the personnel side of the British armed forces whether it was possible to be a homosexual but not a practising homosexual, he said no. When I asked him what would happen if any member of the armed forces turned up tomorrow and said, "I've suddenly discovered I'm a homosexual, so can I please leave the Army?", I was told that they would not accept his word.
  We are left in a peculiar position. What sort of evidence would they want? If homosexuality rather than the practice of homosexuality is the ground for someone being removed from the British Army, and if the armed forces hierarchy will not accept the word of the supposed homosexual, what evidence, pray, can we produce? Photographs? Friends? These are the issues that I do not believe the Government have thought through.
  This is a major issue and it was considered during the passage of the Armed Forces Bill about two years ago. The Committee proposed to decriminalise homosexual acts that are legal in civilian law and to ensure that they should no longer be an offence in service law. That proposal commanded cross-party support, so let us not play politics with the issue. Every member of the Committee, across the party divide, supported that.
  In his announcement last year, however, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said that the appropriate amendment to the Sexual Offences Act 1967 would be brought before the House as soon as possible. I appreciate that the legislative programme has been very full in the past 12 months, but I hope that the Minister will assure us tonight that the relevant changes will be introduced soon.
  I should be interested to know what changes will be made to the Ministry of Defence's guidelines on the treatment of service personnel accused of homosexual conduct. A copy of the current Defence Council instruction was recently passed to me for perusal, and I can only describe it as totally out of line with the spirit of the agreement that was made in Committee, on which the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell and I sat.
  Quite apart from the use of offensive and anachronistic terminology to describe consenting homosexual conduct—hoary language such as "unnatural behaviour" and "sexual deviancy"—the instruction outlines procedures such as intrusive medical examinations and the laying of

  127
  charges against those who refuse to undergo such examinations which would be appropriate only in relation to activities that are still criminal.
  The agreement reached in Committee was to attempt to decriminalise homosexuality. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the instruction will be changed to reflect the Committee's view that homosexual behaviour that is legal in civilian law will not be regarded as criminal in service life.
  I was very pleased and surprised to have the opportunity the other evening to sit on the Front Bench as a Member of the Labour party congratulated the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) on extending trade union rights. I never thought that I would hear that. The hon. Member for Stirling, with some reservations and qualifications—
  Mr. George Foulkes: It was an aberration.
  Dr. Reid: Perhaps, as my hon. Friend says, it was an aberration.
  The hon. Member for Stirling extended certain rights to the armed forces, which we welcome. He extended, if I remember correctly, the right to a contract of employment, to maternity leave and several other extensions of democracy. We congratulate the Government on having taken those measures, even if they were introduced by the hon. Member for Stirling.
  The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, which the House considered last week, will extend many welcome employment rights to service personnel. But it remains Labour's view that the interests and rights of those who volunteer to join the armed forces would be better served if they were allowed formal rights of representation through some form of staff federation.
  Let me make it clear, lest we be accused of demanding a trade union for the Army, that we have never asked for a trade union for the Army. We have asked, however, for some form of staff federation along the lines allowed, tolerated and, indeed, welcomed for the police—the Police Federation. It would benefit not only members of the armed forces but members of the hierarchy who sometimes have no idea what squaddies think.
  No one is suggesting a formal trade union structure. No one is suggesting that they should have the right to take
  128
  formal industrial action or to strike, but a body similar to the Police Federation would offer a number of benefits to not only squaddies but the hierarchy.
  Finally, I turn to ethnic monitoring. We welcome the Government's recognition, however belated, of the fact that an equal opportunities policy depends on the availability of accurate information on fir ethnic composition of our armed forces at each level. I am sure that the Minister will wish to reflect on some of his comments, which I think were off-hand and which should not be deployed against him—they were about blacks, lest he forget.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us whether the figures will be presented in this year's Statement on the Defence Estimates which, I understand, is due in a fortnight—we shall probably debate it next September. Will there be a breakdown of the figures according to regiment, or at least division, and particularly with reference to the Brigade of Guards? If equal opportunities are to be fully extended, it is essential that they exist throughout the armed forces, including the Brigade of Guards.
  Equality is indivisible, and we do not want to end up in a situation in which the opportunities available to those from the ethnic minorities exist at different levels. We need to be assured that, in monitoring the implementation of the equal opportunities policy in the armed forces generally, we do not fail to identify and deal with any continuing pockets of discrimination, no matter how important those pockets might consider themselves in the British Army.
  My final point relates to women. Recent press reports have suggested that the Ministry of Defence review of the role of women in the armed forces is on the way, and that a change in Army regulations has been made to allow women to serve on the front line by driving armoured personnel carriers in, for example, Northern Ireland. Will the Minister say whether the reports are accurate, and tell us what other changes are under consideration on the role of women?
  The apparent openness of the Government in considering the options is to be welcomed, and I am sure that the House would appreciate being kept informed on all five points.
  10.56 pm
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: It was good to hear the Minister reiterating the Government's intention, as announced in this debate last year, to introduce legislation that will decriminalise homosexual activity in the armed forces, but it was disappointing to hear that it is not to happen yet. I assure him that I and other members of the Conservative Campaign for Homosexual Equality, several of whom are sitting right behind him, will keep at him until it happens. I know that we have the support of Members from all parties, and I look forward to such legislation being introduced as soon as possible.
  Leading on from that, the guidance which is still extant and which has already been mentioned does not conform with the spirit of the Government's statement last year; nor is it helpful in the current climate. If the Minister were to read the detailed guidance, as I have, he would share my shock that, in 1993, material is still being handed out which describes rules of behaviour for investigating officers when a disciplinary offence is alleged to have occurred which are so out of date as to be ludicrous and which would make an offence far worse, if indeed an offence had occurred. I shall not speak for long., but I invite the Minister to read the guidance. I do not wish to upset the House by reading aloud some of the details of the examinations that are suggested, which are disgusting and out of date.
  The guidance is based on the notion that there is something wrong with homosexuals. That is the philosophy and attitude which we must challenge. I shall read into the record just one anodyne piece from the Royal naval instructions RN IC2. Paragraph 9 begins:
  "Officers and senior ratings must be on the alert for any indication of homosexual behaviour among Naval personnel. This applies particularly to those who are known to have unstable backgrounds".
  That is how it starts, but it goes further. The implication is that people who are gay or lesbian have unstable backgrounds and must be suffering from a mental illness or psychiatric problem and that, if they are dealt with properly, the problem will go away. That attitude must change.
  I am particularly bothered about what happens if the approach recommended in the guidelines is adopted, as I believe it is in some of the services, where an offence has been committed. There is no doubt that offences can be committed, for example under duress or when consent has not been given. As far as I am concerned, no matter whether somebody is gay or lesbian or heterosexual, if consent is not given, it is a serious offence. In those circumstances, disciplinary action must be taken for the good of the services and the individuals concerned. But I feel absolutely certain that if the sort of examinations outlined in the papers are undertaken—if people are locked up and maltreated and if this sort of cruelty is perpetrated on young people—it can only make things worse. I have it in mind that we have young soldiers—both men and women—of 17 and 18. If they are faced with such allegations and treatment, I am not in the least surprised if they find themselves unable to continue to be soldiers. If I had a son who was subjected to such appalling nonsense, I should be extremely angry.
  Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend might like to know that when one of my constituents was forced to leave the services, she received her dismissal notice on a form that
  130
  was still written only for men, without anyone's even having bothered to cross through the "he" and write "she". That is the kind of thoroughly insensitive man management or woman management that needs to be looked at, and is a small indication of the problem.
  Mrs. Currie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that there is an awful lot of idiots around in the armed forces, the House and everywhere else. We are trying to take on board the fact that there may well be sexual offences involving members of the armed forces, or members of the armed forces and people with whom they come into contact, which may be inimical to good discipline or to the protection of those concerned. The drafting of the guidance should take that on board in a sophisticated, sensitive and careful fashion. It should not just refer to men or to homosexuals. It ought to refer to all people who can volunteer to serve and defend this nation and whom we ought, on these occasions, to protect.
  11.2 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) explained, this is an occasion for an exchange of views. We hold such debates annually. I suppose that, in some senses, it is a throwback to the historical desire of Parliament to ensure that the standing army did not become a feature of the Executive. Those days have past, but I do not think that it is any less significant that we should have the chance every 12 months to reflect the views that some of us feel very strongly about the nature of service discipline.
  I am particularly disappointed about the position of those under the age of 18. When tbat issue was raised by the Select Committee on Defence, it became clear that, although Ministers had, indeed, reviewed the policy, they had not changed it. I do not think that, in times of peace, the policy is likely to be an embarrassment, but any of us thinking back to the Gulf war will remember that there was a substantial upsurge in public opinion against the idea that those who—to put it in tabloid terms, because those were the terms in which it was expressed—were unable to vote for their country none the less might have found themselves dying for their country.
  I believe that it is the duty of Parliament and of those who make the law to protect people from themselves. It was perfectly clear from some of the anecdotal evidence that emerged around the time of the Gulf war that young men aged 17 did not want to be parted from their mates: they did not want to be anywhere else other than at the very centre of the action. There were undoubtedly occasions on which public opinion found it very difficult to accept that it was right and proper that people of that age should be exposed to such severe risks.
  I accept that there may be instances, although I suspect that they are pretty few and far between, when the presence of a 17-year-old or group of 17-year-olds is absolutely essential for the operational effort that is being carried out. But I also believe that we have a duty to protect people of that age. Even if in times of peace the Government did not find themselves the subject of adverse public opinion, they would do well to realise that, if we are to extend the nature of operations on behalf of the United Nations—a topic that we have discussed extensively during the defence estimates debate—such situations are likely to occur more often in future. It will, of course, always be unacceptable to us if any of our forces are killed.

  131
  However, I put the matter bluntly: Ministers will not like going to RAF Lyneham to receive body bags. They will like it least of all if the bodies coming back are those of people under the age of 18.
  I have always taken the view that the death penalty is entirely inappropriate'. I reached that conclusion as much from my professional practice in the High Court in Scotland in cases in which I prosecuted people who would, as a result of my efforts, or, more correctly, as a result of the jury's verdict, have been liable to be hanged as from cases I defended in which, perhaps in spite of my efforts or, some might say, because of my efforts, people were found guilty and would have been liable to be hanged. I am firmly of the view that the death penalty would not operate as a deterrent.
  We should think about the circumstances in which the death penalty is offered in military discipline. It can be offered only in the five categories to which reference has been made because of its deterrent effect. If one is a panicking 17-year-old throwing away one's rifle because one simply cannot take what one is facing, I very much doubt whether one will stop for a moment and think, "Are the terms of the Army discipline regulations such that, because of what I am about to do, I may face the death penalty?" I simply do not believe that the death penalty will operate as a deterrent in those circumstances. The Government could demonstrate a measure of sensitivity by removing that penalty from the statute book.
  I welcome what has been said about ethnic monitoring, but I believe that it has taken rather a long time coming. I cannot help but put this point. General Colin Powell was born in Jamaica. His parents emigrated to the United States. He is now the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and is perhaps the single most powerful military figure in the whole world. We must ask ourselves how long it would have taken him to reach a similar position in the British system, to which he might as readily have come as someone born in Jamaica. I immediately concede that that is a slightly fanciful question. However, within the question there lurks a substantial reality, which is that in our armed forces so far we have not found a way to ensure that the talents and the abilities of those of all ethnic backgrounds who wish to enrol are properly exploited.
  Mrs. Currie: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman consider that it would be impossible for a member of an ethnic minority to become Secretary of State for Defence?
  Mr. Campbell: A Watsonian member of the Scottish Bar no longer justifies the description of a member of an ethnic minority. The Watsonian point is rather lost on those who are not keen students of the Muriel Spark form of education practised in what we used to call the Athens of the north.
  The point is serious. In some respects, it carries over into the issue of racism and bullying. There is quite powerful anecdotal evidence that those who are most subject to bullying are those whose skins happen to be black. Such incidents are wholly unacceptable in the armed forces of the Crown.
  I believe that, just as officers are entitled to take responsibility for the achievements of those whom they command, they should also be responsible for what is badly done among or to those for whom they have
  132
  responsibility. When there has been bullying, one should perhaps look in the first instance at the nature of the command and at the nature of the officers who have been responsible for the unit.
  Like others, I want to consider the question of homosexuality. Those who campaign in that regard do not want any special consideration for themselves. They simply wish to be treated on precisely the same footing as those whose sexuality is heterosexual. In armed forces in which women will increasingly play a prominent role, the possibility of harassment or of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline in the form of sexual harassment or something of that kind will be present.
  We will have to rely on the nature of the discipline, morale and self-control of those whom we place in such circumstances. Those who argue for equality before the law in respect of homosexuals are simply arguing to be allowed to enjoy the same rights as other people whose sexuality happens to be different.
  I welcome the fact that the Government decided—and this was announced during the corresponding debate last year—to seek to ensure that, within the services, the position with regard to criminal behaviour would be the same as that in civilian life. However, it still remains a ground for administrative discharge if a person admits to being homosexual. If a person attends an interview and applies to join one of the services and admits to being homosexual, that is a ground for refusing that application.
  This is 1993. People's attitudes are entirely different. However, it sometimes seems that those in senior positions in the armed forces are unwilling to accept or understand how the climate of opinion has changed outside the services. I genuinely believe that this is an issue upon which the Government should be able to make what for senior commanders might be seen to be a radical departure but what the public would see as nothing more than a recognition of what the public see, experience and understand in civilian life.
  The fact that these rather curious procedures are set out in a document as forming the basis upon which investigations should be carried out should be abhorrent to all hon. Members. If one is looking for evidence, apart from the invasive procedure and procedures such as tapping telephones and bringing people in and subjecting them to such pressure that eventually obtains a confession, and so long as the possibility of discharge remains, the risk of excessive zeal on the part of military policemen or similar is enhanced to an unacceptable degree.
  Mr. Rowe: Is not the question one of self-control? Any soldier or member of the armed services who is sufficiently self-disciplined to exercise self-control is an asset, or is likely to be an asset, to the armed services. There is every bit as great a likelihood of undermining discipline by promiscuous heterosexual activity—and I know of no code of conduct for examining people for promiscuous heterosexual activity—as there is of any other danger. What is missing in the armed services' view of homosexuality is any concept that a number of homosexuals are notoriously well-disciplined and self-controlled. If they choose to exercise their own sexual proclivities well away from any military activity, that is their business. It is quite wrong to make it a military offence.
  Mr. Campbell: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. The issue—the Minister raised it also—is whether the conduct is prejudicial to good order and discipline. The mere fact of being homosexual in the armed forces does not justify that conclusion. As the hon. Gentleman properly says, heterosexual promiscuity might be extremely damaging, especially if, for example, efforts are made to take advantage of rank, close proximity, or such matters.
  In the end, it is a matter of self control, but fundamentally it is a matter of equality before the law. Before the law of the armed services, heterosexuals and homosexuals should enjoy that equality. I hope that the Government will accept that, if not tonight, then on some future early occasion.
  11.14 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I agreed with very little that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, although I always listen to his speeches with interest. However, I am grateful to him for explaining very clearly the difference between the criminal offence which the Government are committed to abolishing and the administrative process which will remain.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) asked why, in 1993, we should remain opposed to having homosexual members of the armed forces. It is absolutely right that the Government should stand firm on that point. There is nothing disgraceful about an administrative discharge, but I firmly believe that it is in the armed forces' interests that homosexuals should not serve in their ranks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us."] I am about to do so, if Opposition Members would like to wait for a moment.
  It is very easy indeed to say that trends in civilian life should he instantly mirrored in the armed forces. In another connection tonight, we heard much mention of the difficulties of a totally different category of people who would be horrified to have any comparison made with the difficulties that ethnic people have had in this country and in other countries in rising to senior positions. It is very interesting that Colin Powell stated publicly how revolted he was at the very idea of any comparison at all being drawn between the position of black people in the American armed forces and that of homosexuals in the armed forces. He believes and has made it clear in the strongest possible terms that it would be profoundly wrong to have homosexuals in the American armed forces, for reasons which translate directly in this country. I shall mention only two.
  The first reason is that in the armed forces there are large numbers of young people over whom their superiors have powers which are not mirrored in any walk of civilian life. Sometimes those powers extend to life and death, whether or not we abolish the death penalty. A sergeant, a captain, a colonel or a general has power to make a decision which might result in people under his command being killed and others being in safety. Are we really saying that if a platoon commander has among the soldiers serving under him someone with whom he is having a homosexual relationship and he has to choose between putting one section in a dangerous forward position and another section in a rear position, and he sends the section
  134
  which has his homosexual boyfriend in it to the safer of the two positions, the people in the other section are not going to comment on it?
  Mrs. Currie: Nobody is suggesting that there are no possible circumstances in which there may be offences that are damaging to Army discipline. The circumstance that my hon. Friend describes is exactly one of those It might as well happen in a mixed company, and we are to have those in future as well. Is my hon. Friend saying that we should not have heterosexuals in the armed forces, either?
  Mr. Brazier: On the second point, I have always made it clear that I am profoundly opposed to having women serving in combat units, among many other reasons, because of the divisions that it brings in families in the service world. We have seen examples of that already with, for example, the incident that occurred on a Royal Navy ship only a year after a firm Government pledge that we would not have women on combat ships.
  As for my hon. Friend's first point, she said that in such circumstances an offence would have occurred. Would she like to tell the House what the offence would have been?
  Mrs. Currie: With due respect, my hon. Friend should show what offences he thinks would occur. There are many circumstances in which both duress and undue pressure may occur and individual relationships—it could easily be a relationship of a gambling debt or any sort of mistake—may destroy Army discipline. That should be the offence and there should be many grounds for it. It should not be restricted or enhanced if it involves homosexuality.
  Mr. Brazier: My hon. Friend appears to have wholly missed my point, which is that there cannot be a sexual relationship between two members of a unit, especially if one is serving directly under the other, without it being prejudicial to the fighting capacity of the unit. There is no question whether a specific offence has occurred. When people's lives are in danger, there must not be an appearance of unfairness, and it is impossible to avoid that.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brazier: I shall give way in a moment.
  That is why people such as Colin Powell in America and those at all levels of the armed forces in the United Kingdom are overwhelmingly opposed to homosexuals serving in the armed forces and a substantial proportion of people in the armed forces are opposed to women being in certain categories of combat unit—for example, serving on combat ships or in infantry units.
  Mr. Tony Banks: What would happen if the commanding officer had a second cousin or some other relative in his brigade or whatever? Would the hon. Gentleman say that if the officer had any feelings about anyone his professional judgment would be clouded? The argument can be reduced to the absurd and suspect that the hon. Gentleman is well on the way to doing that.
  Mr. Brazier: There is no comparison at all with someone who has a second cousin in his unit. Two members of a unit having a sexual relationship, especially when one is serving under the other, is prejudicial to a unit in action. I simply claim as testimony the voices of many people who have served in action and who have written to the newspapers on this issue over the years. I cannot

  135
  remember the last time a person who, having served in a dangerous position in the armed forces, wrote to a newspaper and took the position that we should have homosexuals in the armed forces.
  I shall move on because I do not wish to detain the House for long. Having homosexuals in the armed forces is not simply prejudicial to the fighting capability of units. When a large number of young people are involved in a unit, the armed forces have a duty to ensure that they are protected from unfair and unreasonable influences. An officer or NCO with control of a 17 or 18-year-old in a unit has a disproportionate amount of power.
  I shall conclude on a point of particular interest to me because, although I have never met the man, a large number of people whom I know have done so. There is an officer—it would not be fair to give his name as he is still alive—who served in the last war in the same regiment as that in which I served. During that war, he was decorated no fewer than four times for gallantry. He was not only a brave officer, but an extremely imaginative one. His concept of operations contributed a great deal towards Bill Slim's victories against the Japanese.
  Immediately after the war, as a result of an extremely shabby investigation which would have made my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) go apoplectic, he was discovered to be homosexual—he was having a relationship with a young boy—and was thrown out of the Army. Because of his distinguished record, he was not cashiered—he was simply quietly given the opportunity to resign, whereas almost any other officer in the same circumstances would have been cashiered. Of the people with whom I have discussed this man's case—I know a number of people who served with him—I have yet to meet one who did not, after saying how sad they were that the Army lost his services, nevertheless continue to take the view that it would be disastrous to have homosexuals in uniform in the British Army.
  11.24 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I should like to know how many gay soldiers laid down their lives during the last war. No one knew that they were gay. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) ought to bear that in mind when he quotes that story as an argument to support his views, which I find wholly unacceptable and unpersuasive.
  The Minister referred to ethnic monitoring. I believe that it is right that we should have ethnic monitoring in the armed forces. It is good to see that the Government have come round to that way of thinking. But unless one can know what ranks are reached by those of Afro-Caribbean and Asian origin, one cannot work out what on earth ethnic monitoring is all about. The measure of success is whether such people rise through the ranks year by year. That would show that the policies were working.
  There should be ethnic monitoring of soldiers not only on the way into the armed forces but on leaving the armed forces. We still hear of officers and rankers leaving the armed services because they feel oppressed by racial harassment. A considerable amount of debriefing is also necessary so that the procedures can be further improved.
  The Minister mentioned that one of the great deterrents that prevents those of Afro Caribbean and Asian origin
  136
  from joining and staying in the armed services is racism within the services. It happens in the police too. It is vital that statements are made at the highest level by those in control that under no circumstances will racism, racial abuse or racial intolerance be tolerated in the armed forces. We are pleased that the new Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has made clear his position in respect of racial harassment and intolerance within the Metropolitan police. We want to see that echoed in the armed forces. Racial intolerance is the real deterrent to more of the Afro Caribbean and Asian communities volunteering to serve in the armed forces.
  I remember the recommendation made by the Select Committee in May 1991 and the welcome decision by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement last year to accept the recommendation but to introduce legislation only when the timetable allowed. We must ask for a specific date. It could be interpreted as dragging of feet if we heard one year after another that, as soon as the timetable allowed, legislation would be introduced. The Sexual Offences Act 1967 will need to be amended.
  It remains Ministry of Defence policy neither to recruit nor to retain any person who admits to being homosexual, lesbian or gay. It is a ground for instant dismissal. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) said that that was absurd. The special investigation bureau routinely investigates allegations of homosexuality. Suspects are interrogated and asked to name names. Their rooms are searched. Their letters and diaries are read. Any leads are followed up.
  As a result of what can only be described as witch hunts, about 75 people a year are administratively discharged. They lose their careers. They find it difficult to find new employment. Indeed, they lose their pension rights. I understand that Robert Ely, the man who gave evidence to the Select Committee which made that recommendation, has lost considerable amounts in pension payments. It is intolerable for someone who assisted the House to lose pension payments as a result of what happened subsequently.
  In 1991, the Prime Minister announced that, in view of changing social attitudes, homosexuality would no longer be a bar to security clearances for members of the civil service. Given the circumstances, that policy should also be extended to the armed services.
  The hon. Member for Derby, South—
  Mrs. Currie: Derbyshire, South.
  Mr. Banks: I apologise. I would not like to truncate the hon. Lady or her constituency. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) made a characteristically strong speech with which I entirely agreed. She mentioned the instructions to the Defence Council. They are absurd and it is worth reading them into the record. They are, however, distasteful, so I shall quote just some of them.
  Experienced medics are told that men suspected of being passive partners in a gay sex act can be spotted by their "feminine gestures", clothes and make up. No doubt they go around saying, "Give us a kiss, sailor." It is absurd that such guidelines are issued as a means of identifying people. The instructions on the medical examination state:
  "For evidence whether the man may have played the passive role:

  (a) Note the general appearance. Look for feminine gestures, nature of clothing and use of cosmetics etc.

  137

  (b) Examine the anus externally for:

  Appearance of bruising or inflammation.
  Presence of redundance or thickening of the skin. Evidence of irritation, inflammation or presence of thread worms.

  Recent tears, lacerations, fissures and piles, old scars due to previous ulceration or any other physical signs associated with conditions causing dilation or, relaxation of the anal sphincter.

  (c) Examine the anus for size and elasticity (it is useful to measure the size of the opening by some standard measure such as the number of fingers). Note any discomfort or otherwise during the examination. A speculum may be used."

  That is what follows when someone suspects that a member of the armed services may be homosexual. It is wholly repugnant that anyone should be subjected to such an examination.
  Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman did what I could not bring myself to do, and he has demonstrated to the House why. Does he agree that if such an examination were carried out in civilian life it would almost certainly constitute an offence in itself?
  Mr. Banks: I agree that an assault on the person would be committed by such an examination. Conservative Members may feel that it is wrong for homosexuals to serve in the armed forces, but surely they would accept that to commit such an assault on a person, on the ground of his being suspected of having homosexual tendencies, is wholly unacceptable in the British armed forces of 1993.
  Mr. Cohen: Does my hon. Friend also appreciate that if a member of the armed forces refuses to undergo such an examination, a further disciplinary charge can be brought against him?
  Mr. Banks: According to the instructions, that can, apparently, happen. Whatever the decision reached, the military career of that individual is lost.
  We should bear in mind that we are talking about people who want to serve in the armed forces. They want to serve Queen and country. Some of us may find that concept strange at times, but that is what they want to do. It is appalling that those people should be indicted on the grounds of their sexual orientation.
  Other countries have a far more civilised approach to this matter. I would not mind if we were asking the House to step into the unknown and to do something that is not done anywhere else. In the majority of the armed services of NATO countries, however, being homosexual is not an offence, as it is in the British armed forces.
  Ireland and the United States are in the process of changing their laws to allow lesbians and gays to serve in their armed forces. Australia ended its ban on homosexuals serving in its armed forces in November 1992; Canada did the same in October 1992. The armed forces of Austria and Belgium are open to lesbians and gay men. Denmark has allowed lesbians and gay men to serve in its armed forces since 1979. The armed forces of Finland, France and Germany are all open to lesbians and gays—in Germany, homosexuals have been allowed in the armed forces for the past 10 years.
  The Netherlands allows members of its armed forces of the opposite and same sex to engage in sexual relationships together so long as they are off base and off duty. I saw an interesting television programme about a Dutch lieutenant-colonel who was openly gay—one does not have to hide anything in the Netherlands. Members of his
  138
  regiment were asked what they thought of that man and they were entirely supportive of him. They recognised him as a professional officer, who put his profession first, before his sexual orientation.
  Norway has no ban, and has instructed doctors in the service to do all that they can to free homosexuals from discrimination. Spain ended its ban in 1984, and Switzerland has opened all its services to lesbians and gays. Ireland has just started a review and has undertaken to allow entry. New Zealand has ceased to enforce its ban since December 1992, and the United States is due formally to lift its ban on 15 July this year. That is the evidence. All the Governments of those countries are as concerned about the defence of their countries as the British Government are about the defence of this country. They are all just as interested in morale and discipline in their armed forces as we are. If they can do it, so should we.
  11.35 pm
  Mr. Roger Evans: I am driven to speak by my hon. Friend the Minister raising in a serious debate a matter that I believe will cause great disquiet in the Conservative party and the country and among our voters, on an issue that was not in the Conservative manifesto, and that most of us did not raise in the general election campaign. If it is a question of awarding the Hillary Clinton prize for political correctness, it does not go to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) but to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), for suggesting that mutiny can be adequately dealt with by community service orders. That is what I take to be the logic of his ludicrous and absurd position.
  What I have to say to my hon. Friend the Minister is rather more serious. He opened the debate as though this were some relatively minor administrative procedure, upon which a number of interesting matters might be raised by himself and other Members of this honourable House. That it utterly mistaken. The message and the great British achievement of constitutional government rests upon two matters arising out of our Glorious Revolution in 1688. The first is the rule of law, and that Ministers obey the law. The second is that the service discipline measures have to be renewed on an annual basis. That is the fundamental to which we owe our constitutional liberty. President Aylwin of Chile goes abroad and General Pinochet marches some soldiers through Santiago, and there is a whisper of a coup d'etat, which has to be denied. We have never had that threat from our armed services because of the seriousness and importance of this annual debate. That is why the debate is important, and why a number of issues raised tonight are, in that context, relatively trivial.
  My hon. Friend the Minister may or may not have said something that is at least as fundamental. I seek clarification—this is the only point of substance that I make in this speech to him—on one point. Unless and until the law of the land is changed by statute, I trust that he will give an assurance that the present law will be enforced among the armed services. Some of his words suggested that it might be administratively convenient not to do so, or that a comfortable agreement between both sides of the Select Committee might suggest a changing climate of opinion. Unless and until an Act of Parliament

  139
  has been passed, the law is the law of the land and the rule of the law is paramount, and my hon. Friend is bound by it. I trust that he will give a clear assurance to that effect.
  11.37 pm
  Mr. Mike Watson: We had been having a temperate debate until the contribution of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans). He seemed to have been driven by hatred against people whom he sees as being unnatural in some way.
  The position as outlined by the Minister is clear. The Opposition feel that the Government have not gone far enough. I want the Minister to say that the proposal to change the law—a necessary move that has been outlined by those who have spoken—will be carried through, and that there will be an appropriate commitment in the Queen's Speech when Parliament resumes later this year.
  The Minister stressed the need to outlaw discrimination and went into some detail on the steps taken on ethnic monitoring, but he was rather weak about ways to tackle the discrimination against homosexuals and lesbians in the armed forces. It is not good enough. He did not show anything like the urgency that is necessary, and that should be in evidence following the remarks of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. A year has passed since he made those remarks, and we are entitled to expect some firm instructions.
  The Defence Council instructions have been referred to already. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) referred to them but declined to comment in detail, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) went into detail. I want to refer to some aspects of those instructions so that they appear on the record. The people of this country should have some knowledge of what is involved. The instructions, which the Ministry of Defence has confirmed are still operative, are based on the premise that the law has not been changed and that there is no intention to do so. Indeed, the instruction that sets out the rules for investigating a homosexual is clearly based on the assumption that the criminal law is still operative.
  I want to highlight two or three incredible aspects of those instructions. First, I want to deal with what is termed "unnatural behaviour". What is unnatural behaviour? How can it be defined? I do not know what the Minister does in the privacy of his bedroom or who he does it with. I do not know whether it is natural. I suspect that it is different from what I do in similar circumstances. That does not mean that he is natural and I am unnatural, or vice versa. For heaven's sake, what is unnatural behaviour?
  Mr. Tony Banks: Voting Tory.
  Mr. Watson: Unfortunately, that is not quite unnatural enough.
  The instructions state that there are
  "important differences in law in respect of unnatural behaviour other than homosexuality."
  Cases are not necessarily offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1967, yet they can still constitute a reason for discharge from the armed forces. "Transvestism" and "other forms of sexual deviancy" are listed.
  The instructions refer to why homosexual practices may occur:
  140
  "In many cases excessive alcohol, emotional upsets or family problems play a part in leading to involvement in homosexual practices, especially by those who are not true homosexuals."
  How can the Minister define what is a true homosexual? How can Army officers, even medical officers, define that? It is an absolute nonsense, yet that is how such practices are investigated.
  The instructions talk of treating those who are accused of indulging in homosexual activity as deviant, not just in their actions but mentally. They state:
  "Initially a Naval Psychiatrist should only be consulted at the discretion of the examining Medical Officer, and his task then would be mainly to establish whether there is associated mental illness and a need for psychiatric treatment."
  The assumption is that we are dealing with lunatics, not people indulging in activities to which their sexual orientation leads them and which may or may not be unnatural, depending on who is judging them.
  I do not need to refer to the medical examinations as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West has done so. I merely want to repeat that the instructions state that if the order to undergo a medical examination is not abided by, force should not be used. However, a further disciplinary charge can be brought against that individual. That is unwarranted coercion. If there is an examination, that could be considered to amount to an assault.
  Where is the evidence that lesbians or gay men present any security risk, as is suggested in the instructions? Will the Minister outline those risks? It is important to know because it is not clear why a risk for an individual who happens to be homosexual is not a risk for an individual who happens to be heterosexual. The Minister referred to a potentially disruptive influence. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South eloquently explained that heterosexuals have difficulties, differences and jealousies. It is increasingly common for members of the opposite sexes to come into contact in the armed forces. Why should not that be a source of concern and a potential security risk? People who are not homosexual or lesbian fall out; there is animosity and therefore potential difficulties in the way that they carry out their duties as members of the armed forces. All sorts of subjective judgments are being made. The Minister should not make them and he should not allow the armed forces to do so.
  Mention has been made of the situation in the United States of America, and General Colin Powell was quoted. I am not aware of any research undertaken in the United Kingdom, but Pentagon reports published in 1088 and 1989 found that
  "Studies of homosexual veterans make clear that having a same gender or an opposite gender orientation is unrelated to job performance in the same way as being left or right handed."
  That finding, the result of American army research, was published by the United States defence personnel security research and education centre in 1988. Why should contrary evidence be found in respect of this country's armed forces?
  There is a heavy onus on the Ministry of Defence to justify the treatment that it continues to mete out to homosexuals. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). It is important to decriminalise homosexual acts that are not illegal in civilian law. It is intolerable that such a distinction should be made. A year ago, we were given an assurance by another Minister, and the Minister said tonight that a change to the law will be introduced. Why not this year?

  141
  Goodness knows how we would have filled the parliamentary programme had it not been for the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. We are already operating only two or three days a week, and there is no reason to believe that the parliamentary programme will be any heavier after the summer recess. I invite the Minister to make a commitment now that this year's Queen's Speech will include the necessary proposals to ensure that the law for the armed forces is brought into line with civilian law. That commitment should be acted upon.
  11.46 pm
  Dr. Reid: Tonight, the House has been debating the Army discipline Acts—[Interruption.] With the permission of the House—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman means, with the leave of the House.
  Dr. Reid: With the leave of the House. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am neither a Tory, rich, nor a Queen's Counsel. I understand that such people know about such things better than me.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: I can see an hon. and learned Member who is rich and a Queen's Counsel.
  Dr. Reid: II seems that I have touched a button.
  The House has debated also the discipline Acts that apply to the Navy and the Royal Air Force. While we have been discussing how to impose discipline on our service men and women, we all know that—as my father used to say—there is only one form of discipline, which is self-discipline. We are greatly privileged to have armed forces that exercise self-discipline, sometimes in the most difficult situations—Bosnia was mentioned earlier—but debating discipline in our armed forces is not to suggest that they need that form of discipline.
  11.47 pm
  Mr. Hanley:: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will begin by reminding right hon. and hon. Members that women in the armed forces have always undertaken a wide variety of duties. Over the past three to four years, we have announced decisions further to widen their employment opportunities and to recruit many more of them. Over the past five years, the number of women in the services has increased from 16,000 to 19,000.
  Right hon. and hon. Members may have read newspaper reports of the tasks for which women in the armed forces are now qualified. They can train as air crew in all three services. The Royal Navy has two women training as observers, the Army has three trained female pilots, and the RAF has two trained female pilots and a further 28 in training, plus nine trained navigators and 14 women undergoing navigator training. Considerable progress is being made.
  I could list many other examples of progress in respect of women in the armed forces. It is extremely important that they should be given the opportunity to prove their worth. There is no doubt that they are of high quality and have dedication as great as that of their male counterparts.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) mentioned capital punishment. As he knows, the death penalty is retained as a non-mandatory sentence for the five offences that he listed, all of which are positive acts of
  142
  treachery involving the enemy; but the policy is that such sentences should never be carried out in peace time. Incidents such as those to which the hon. Gentleman referred would not result in capital punishment.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) mentioned recruits under 18. Thirty-five per cent. of all recruits are under 18. If those under 18 could not be deployed with their units overseas on active service, many would become disappointed and disillusioned. Many have trained with specific colleagues and want to be with those colleagues; such action could lead to retention problems, and it might be impossible to redeploy men in the work for which they had trained. It would be a great waste of expensive training, and would lead to the deterioration not only of their morale but of their skills. That, too, could lead to retention problems.
  To restrict recruitment to those aged 18 and over would create severe manning difficulties for the services. It would also cause great disappointment to young people under,18 who wish to enter the services. If 16 and 17-year-olds could not join the services, many would be likely to take up other employment, and would be permanently lost to the services.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman may welcome the information that our service men serving on the streets in Northern Ireland must be at least 18—as, indeed, are service women—except those in barracks, who must be at least seventeen and a half.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Let me put the record straight. I am not arguing against the recruitment of those under 18; I am merely asking whether it is wise, in the light of past public opinion—particularly in relation to the Gulf war—to allow those under 18 to serve in theatres in which their lives are at risk.
  Mr. Hanley: I have expressed our view, and the record will stand.
  I am not sure what the hon. Member for Motherwell, North meant when he mentioned my comments about ethnic minorities. They were all positive, and I believe that they will be welcomed by those whom they affect. Either the hon. Gentleman was not listening, or he missed the point of what I was saying. I am happy to set it out again—or perhaps he will read Hansard tomorrow. If he does so, I think he will agree that what I said was entirely positive. Those who know me are aware that I would never say anything that the ethnic minorities would find upsetting.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East suggested that ethnic minority personnel suffered from bullying more than their white colleagues. I have no evidence of that, but, as I said in my speech, we regard any form of racial 'discrimination as utterly unacceptable.
  Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) can scarcely have been designed to encourage ethnic minorities to join the armed forces—which is what he set out to do?
  Mr. Hanley: I note my hon. Friend's comment. Let me return to the subject of ethnic monitoring.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, North asked whether we would publish a breakdown of the ethnic origins of serving personnel by unit and regiment, including the Brigade of Guards. I can confirm that all

  143
  corps, regiments and branches of the services will be included in the ethnic origins survey of serving personnel. We plan to publish an analysis of the ethnic origins of serving personnel by services, and between officers and other ranks, and we fully intend the ethnic origins of serving personnel to be listed in terms of both rank and gender. The results of the ethnic monitoring of recruits will be published in "Defence Statistics", the publication that has replaced Vol. 2 of the statement of defence estimates. We are absolutely committed to publishing a breakdown, to make sure that we have figures for the House to consider and for it then to judge progress over the years.
  As for trade unions, the Select Committee which considered the Armed Forces Bill in 1991 recommended that we should clarify the role that service personnel are permitted to play in trade union activities, for the position is vague. We have decided to issue new instructions, explaining that service personnel may become members of trade unions and professional bodies in order to enhance their trade skills and professional knowledge and as an aid to resettlement into civilian life, if necessary. They may not take part in any activity of a political nature, or in industrial action organised by a trade union or professional body. I hope, however, that the House agrees that that represents some progress.
  The larger part of the debate on the order covered the subject of homosexuality. Various hon. Members raised the question of the so-called guidance. That was written in 1987. Hon. Members quoted from that publication. It is not current. It has become time expired. It has not been in force since the beginning of 1992, but new guidelines are being reviewed and new ones will be published, after careful consideration.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) said how disgraceful it was that the law was being broken and that nothing was said about this issue in the manifesto. No one doubts that the law exists, and that it cannot be changed except by the House, but my hon. Friend must be aware that the prosecuting authorities have discretion over whether to prosecute. That is the practice to which we adhere.
  Mr. Roger Evans: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hanky: No, I shall not give way, because—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1993, which was laid before the House on 26th May, be approved.

  Armed Forces (Discipline)

    ESTIMATES
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 131 (Liaison Committee).
    That this House agrees with the Report [15th June] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
    Question agreed to.

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

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
      FISHING VESSELS (SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS)
      That the Fishing Vessels (Safety Improvements) (Grants) Scheme 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1325), dated 20th May, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st May, be approved.

      HOUSING ACTION TRUSTS
      That the draft Tower Hamlets 'Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.
      That the draft Castle Vale Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
      Question agreed to.

    TRANSPORT
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Paul Channon be added to the Transport Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  PETITION

    Channel Tunnel Rail Link
    11.51 pm
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: It is both my duty and my privilege to, present a petition on behalf of Councillors Millane and Aberdein, residents of Thurrock and other people in Essex—the petition contains more than 3,000 signatures—against the proposed Channel tunnel rail link to London. The petition
    Sheweth that the proposed route for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link to London announced by the Secretary of State for Transport, in Parliament on 22nd March 1993, will significantly damage and blight the lives and property of residents in a large area of the Borough of Thurrock, as well as creating noise pollution, detracting from the visual amenity, whilst destroying jobs and industry.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that the Honourable House shall seek to persuade the Secretary of State that before determining the precise line of the Channel Tunnel rail link route and the introduction of a Bill in Parliament, shall commission an independent public enquiry charged with examining the advantages and disadvantages of ALL the alternative route options, including those entering London South of the River Thames.
    And your petitioners, as in duty will ever pray, &c.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Water Privatisation
    11.58 pm
    Mr. Gordon McMaster: This petition contains some 33,000 signatures from people throughout the length and breadth of Scotland. It shows their complete dissatisfaction with and total opposition to the Government's proposals to privatise the water and sewerage services in Scotland. It supplements a petition containing about 85,000 names which has already been delivered to the Scottish Office. People throughout Scotland were willing to queue up to have the opportunity to sign this petition.
    Now that I have described the petition, I shall read it.
    The petition
    Sheweth
    That the privatisation of water and sewerage services in England and Wales has led to higher charges and increased numbers of disconnections of domestic water supplies. That water is an important natural asset, vital to the maintenance of public health.
    That the provision of water and sewerage services must be affordable to all and that this is best ensured if those services remain in public ownership.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House does not pass legislation to remove water and sewerage services in Scotland from public ownership.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Middle East Hostages
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  11 59 pm
  Mr. John Marshall rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman commences, I understand from a note that was left for me that he proposes to give way to three other hon. Members. It is a tradition that 'an Adjournment debate is, on the whole, for a single Member. Occasionally, a colleague or somebody who has a specific interest is allowed to intervene. It is not a general debate and therefore, on the whole, the Chair does not welcome the hon. Member giving way to more than one colleague.
  Mr. Marshall: I hope that we can conduct this debate in a fruitful way. The subject is the future of hostages in the middle east and the peace process. One could talk about a large number of specific cases. The first one that I refer to the House is that of Zakaria Baumel, whose fate has been shrouded in mystery since 1982.
  I speak with some feeling about this case, because his parents first came to see me in 1985, at which time they did not know what had happened to their son—and they still do not. They know that he was captured on 11 June 1982 and that the next day he was paraded around Damascus and displayed to locals. Since then, there has been a complete news blackout—no letter, no photograph, nothing. His father has gone to the United Nations, to Tunis, to London, but is still no wiser about the fate of his son, who disappeared more than 11 years ago. If he is alive, he should be reunited with his family, and if he is dead his body should be returned for a decent burial. At the very least, his parents have a right to know what has happened to their son.
  The second case is that of Joseph Fink whose parents come from Manchester, and whom I met in the House. He again was captured in 1986, after which things were shrouded in a veil of mystery and silence. His parents never heard anything from him—not a letter, not a photograph. Until 1991, no one knew what had happened, and then irrefutable evidence was given through the good offices of the United Nations that young Joseph Fink had died in captivity. Eighteen months later, he is still denied a proper burial, and for the past seven years his parents have experienced a living hell. For years, their lives alternated between feelings of hope and despair. Now, they know that they will never see their son again, but surely they have the right to give him a decent burial.
  The third case is that of Ron Arad, which has troubled many hon. Members. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) are both abroad on Select Committee business, otherwise they would have been here and would have tried to speak briefly in the debate. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who is sitting on the Government Front Bench, has been active in private, although in public he has been subject to the Trappist vows of the Whips Office. I should like to thank him for the concern that he has expressed about the case. I know that all my colleagues in Barnet have received many letters and have responded sympathetically to them. I hope that the

  147
  united voice of a number of colleagues in the House may help to renuite Ron Arad with his loving and anxious family.
  Certain facts are beyond dispute. The first is that Ron Arad was captured in October 1986, nearly seven years ago. The second is that he has been alive in captivity because his family received photographs of him alive in 1987. Since then, he has been covered in a veil of silence. Nothing official has been heard for six years, although it is believed that he is still alive.
  One must ask his captors some questions. Why have they broken the Geneva convention'? Ron Arad is a prisoner of war. He should be treated accordingly and given the rights of a prisoner of war. Why have his captors held him incommunicado? Why have they prevented visits from the Red Cross? Why have they not allowed him to write to his relatives or to receive letters from them? They are clearly a group of very heartless men. His mother, Batya, is a widow. Why, in the evening of her life, do they deprive her of the company of her eldest son? Instead of enjoying his companionship, she has scoured the world seeking to mobilise international public opinion to secure his release.
  Ron Arad's daughter was one year old when he was captured. Yesterday it was father's day in the United Kingdom. For Yuval Arad, "father" is the name of an absentee parent. It means someone of whom others talk but whom she does not know. For seven of her eight years, father has been somewhere in the middle east. What sort of people deprive a young child of the companionship and love of her father?
  Life is extremely difficult for Ron Arad's wife. For most of her married life, he has been in captivity. She has heard nothing since 1987; not a letter, not a card, not a photograph, not a word. She has had to bring up her daughter on her own, not knowing whether her husband is dead or alive, not knowing where he might be held, not knowing who might be holding him. All that she knows is that, if he is alive, he is being held in pretty insalubrious conditions.
  Why do Ron Arad's captors refuse the Red Cross access to him? Is it because they are ashamed of the conditions in which they are holding him? Why do they deprive his loved ones of news about his fate? Why do they deprive his elderly mother of her son? Why do they deprive an eight-year-old girl of the love, companionship and friendship of her father? Why do they deprive Tami of her husband's presence? Ron Arad has been a prisoner for longer than anyone in the second world war. Why should he be treated worse than the prisoners of war in Korea?
  Concern is not limited to hon. Members. When Ron Arad's brothers visited London recently, Baroness Thatcher met them both and expressed her grave concern about the way he has been treated. The European Parliament has also passed a resolution condemning the treatment of Ron Arad. Amnesty International has also shown a deep interest in this case, and officers of the United Nations have expressed concern. Interest in the case is purely humanitarian.
  The exact location of Ron Arad's captivity is not known, but it is known that the Iranian people have a substantial influence over his captors. That is why I welcome the meeting that took place between my right
  148
  hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Iranian chargé d'affaires. The captors of Ron Arad have the opportunity to right a grievous wrong, but also to put in train the peace process in the middle east.
  Hopes of peace in the middle east are greater than at any time since Camp David. The Israeli Government are committed to peace and compromise. The American Government have offered to underwrite a settlement over Golan by placing United States troops there.
  Peace in the middle east will come in the form of a series of building blocks which generate mutual trust.
  The Israelis have shown that they are willing to compromise and to concede territory. It is not unreasonable for them to ask others to make a similar compromise. Each individual concession may be small in itself but together they create the climate of opinion in which there can be mutual trust instead of mutual suspicion—and without that trust, we will never get peace in the middle east.
  Having been re-elected by the Iranian people, President Rafsanjani has an unparalleled opportunity to help peace in the middle east by using his substantial influence over the captors of Ron Arad, and to end his living nightmare. The Iranians have a chance to reunite him with his family and, in doing so, to help to secure peace in the middle east.
  When we ask ourselves why John McCarthy and Terry Waite are living in freedom today, one of the answers that we must give is that Israel helped to unravel the log jam in the middle east by releasing 100 prisoners in 1991, through the mediation of Jacques Picco, who was then assistant United Nations Secretary-General. The release of the prisoners at the start of that exchange led to the freedom of John McCarthy and Terry Waite.
  There was clearly an unwritten understanding that, if Israel released prisoners, she would receive some of her hostages back. What did she receive? Merely the remains of one Druze soldier. She was told that two of her hostages were dead, but their parents were denied the right to receive their bodies back. No word was given of the fate of Baumel, Feldman and Katz. Most galling of all, Ron Arad, who is certainly alive, was maintained in captivity. The west rejoiced at the freedom of Terry Waite and John McCarthy. We in the west should recognise that we have a debt of honour to the people of Israel and should campaign to ensure that Ron Arad enjoys his freedom.
  Israel showed remarkable self-restraint when the Scud missiles were thundering down on her towns in 1991. She showed remarkable trust when she released prisoners in 1991. She should surely be rewarded in 1993.
  This debate is about hostages in the middle east, and it would be negligent of the House not to refer to the plight of Michael Wainwright, Paul Ride and Simon Dunn, who are all imprisoned in Iraq. They all strayed into Iraq unwittingly. The border between Iraq and Kuwait is not exactly the clearest border on the international map. All of them were innocents abroad, and I ask the regime in Iraq to think of the hardship that is being imposed on their families by their continued incarceration in that country.
  If Iraq is concerned about her reputation in the world, she will speedily ensure that those innocent men, who did not deliberately set out to go into Iraq illegally, are freed and allowed to rejoin their families. If Iraq wants to return to the international family, she should release those prisoners immediately.
  12.13 am
  Sir John Wheeler: You have already advised the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is not normally the custom for further speeches to be made in an Adjournment debate. I therefore rise at the bidding of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), because of the circumstances of the debate, and perhaps to enable me to say a word on behalf of the other hon. Members present this evening in support of what my hon. Friend has said.
  My hon. Friend has addressed the House in a way that illustrates his love of humanity and concern for people who are unjustly held in custody in appalling circumstances—whether as a result of military action or as a result of seizure because they have strayed across the border between Kuwait and Iraq.
  What matters to the House tonight is that hon. Members should demonstrate their concern about those injustices and show their sympathy to people in Israel and elsewhere, including the United Kingdom, for the well-being of those unfortunate people. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will shortly reply. I hope that he can take the voice and view of the House tonight as part of his case to the United Nations when he urges the Secretary-General's office to redouble its splendid effort to help to recover these hostages and prisoners.
  We know that the United Nations has a considerable track record in this regard and I know that the House hopes that Mr. Picco's successor, Mr. Sevan, will continue to use all his best endeavours to obtain the release of Ron Arad and of the others to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South has referred so well in this debate. We owe my hon. Friend a great debt of gratitude for obtaining the debate and for bringing the plight of these unfortunate people to the attention of the House and of my hon. Friend the Minister.
  12.15 am
  Mr. David Sumberg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make a brief intervention to support his eloquent plea on behalf of the family of Joseph Spink, who comes from Manchester, and on behalf of the campaign for the freedom of the Israeli, Ron Arad. I had the great privilege of meeting Ron Arad's family when they visited the House a few weeks ago. I and other hon. Members assured the family then that we would do all in our power to prevail on our Government to persuade his captors to release him. This debate is part fulfilment of that promise.
  I speak tonight not only on behalf of Ron Arad, but on behalf of many of my constituents who are actively involved in the campaign to secure his freedom. That campaign is strongly supported by the Manchester Jewish Press, which is based in my constituency and which has been tireless in its efforts to remind us of Ron Arad's plight. I pay tribute to all those dedicated campaigners.
  A few years ago, when many of us were battling away for the release from the former Soviet Union of those who wished to make a new life in the west and in Israel, we used to refer to the would-be emigrants as prisoners of conscience. Today, Ron Arad is a prisoner of conscience. He believes, arid we believe, that he should have been freed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said, when the other western hostages, Terry Waite, John
  150
  McCarthy and all the rest of them, came home. He was part of that deal. The fact that he remains in prison is a matter for the conscience of the west.
  The time has come for Ron Arad to return home, and the time has come, too, for western Governments, including our own, to fight for his release. The time has come for the world to observe in the case of Ron Arad the biblical injunction to undo the heavy burden and to let the oppressed go free.
  12.18 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I am glad to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who has raised the subject of the future of the hostages in the middle east and the peace process. He, our right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and our hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) are all familiar with the problems of the middle east and they have always successfully articulated the hopes and frustrations of their constituents about that troubled area.
  I am also pleased to see in the Chamber this evening my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes). All my hon. Friends, including those who have not spoken tonight, have throughout their parliamentary careers been constant in their endeavours by letters, by questions, by debate where possible and by representations to Ministers to bring understanding to the problems that we are debating tonight.
  I want to make a few preliminary remarks about the peace process generally. The parties returned last week to Washington for what is likely to be a crucial round of negotiations. While it is true that the last round produced no major breakthrough, we should not dismiss the importance of the fact that the parties are continuing their discussions.
  There has been real progress in the discussions between Israel and Jordan and in those between Israel and the Lebanon. The differences between the negotiating positions of Israel and Syria have narrowed to one central issue of definition of the terms of the Israeli withdrawal from the Golan and the terms of the peace which Israel could then expect. Much waits on progress' in the Israeli-Palestinian track.
  There have been some public exchanges on the extent of the difficulties, but the positive point is this: for the first time, the two sides are engaged in detailed discussion of substance, for example on the transfer of powers to Palestinian authorities during the interim period. This in itself is very helpful. Indeed, there are signs that the differences are narrowing.
  If sometimes the progress in the Washington talks looks slow, we should remember how much has been achieved in this respect since Madrid. The whole process since then has undoubtedly broken down some of the barriers of misunderstanding.
  The new round in Washington is crucial because speed is essential. There is, I believe, a window of opportunity at present, but it may not remain open for very much longer. There are those in the region who oppose the process and are out to damage it. The longer the process fails to

  151
  produce concrete progress for all to see, the greater is the potential for disillusion, and the greater the opportunities for mischief.
  There is already some disillusion about the situation in the occupied territories. Much as we welcome the evident will of the Israeli Government to pursue the negotiating process, there is too little evidence of a matching determination to lighten the burdens of occupation.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is on record as having criticised some of the excesses of the Israeli defence forces in the occupied territories. The economic situation there is dire, and is deteriorating further in the wake of the restrictions placed on movements across the green line.
  The social and economic effects of cutting off the west bank from Jerusalem are particularly serious. On the other side, the continued acts of violence against Israelis, both in the occupied territories and in Israel, have served only to damage the prospects for peace. Some at least of those acts are perpetrated by those who are actively trying to destroy the process.
  It is essential that Palestinians recognise that Israel has legitimate security requirements, which must be met and which are increasingly acknowledged and accepted across the world. The Israeli people will accept the need for comprises only if they are convinced that these will maintain or enhance their security. In that context, I understand why my hon. Friends have raised their questions in this debate.
  I want now to refer to the hostages in the middle east. Throughout the hostage saga, the United Kingdom Government have maintained that all those held outside the due process of law should be released. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South has reminded us, Israel released 100 detainees during the negotiations and that led to the release of the western hostages. It is very much to be regretted that that has not been reciprocated.
  The practice of hostage-taking cannot be condoned under any circumstances. Our views on that have been made clear to all concerned. The United Nations Secretary-General remains committed to pursuing those cases that remain unresolved, and Her Majesty's Government will provide any assistance that they can.
  The case of Ron Arad continues to cause the gravest concern. We have great sympathy for his family and the families of all those detained. We have raised the matter with the Iranian authorities, but our ability to achieve results by that route is limited.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South mentioned the United Nations Secretary-General. The best hope for a solution lies with the efforts of his representative, Benon Sevan; whose predecessor was instrumental in securing the release of British hostages held in the Lebanon. He has shown what can be achieved through quiet but firm diplomacy. In that context, the Israeli Government have said that they will release Sheikh Obeid and others if Ron Arad is released. We would like to see all those men freed.
  152
  Mention has been made of Private Yossi Fink, who was captured with a colleague while on patrol in southern Lebanon in 1986. In September 1991, the Israelis received information confirming his death. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has written to his parents a letter of sympathy. Israeli efforts to recover his body continue. There has been no news about Sergeant Zakaria Baumel, who was a member of a tank crew of three reported missing after a battle with Syrian forces during the Israeli invasion of the Lebanon in 1982.
  My hon. Friend mentioned three other innocents—Mr. Simon Dunn, Mr. Michael Wainwright and Mr. Paul Ride—on whose behalf I am personally deeply concerned as the Minister responsible. We have raised our concern at the highest possible level and in the strongest possible terms about those three cases, including with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and through a number of Governments with links to the Baghdad regime. European Community Foreign Ministers have issued a statement condemning the continued detention of those men and publicly calling for their release.
  In the peace process, as I said earlier, there is a need for speed. I confess to being anxious that further disintegration of the situation on the ground or some outrage could do serious damage to the process. We all look to both sides now to engage in discussion of the details of the transfer of powers in the occupied territories to the Palestinians during the interim period.
  There will need to be compromises at the interim stage, and there cannot be agreements which fully meet the hopes and aspirations of both sides, but to an outsider there seems no reason at all why agreements at this stage should involve either side prejudicing basic principles. No one is being asked to do that.
  The problem, of course, for both sides is that it is difficult to agree a timetable without any guarantees of the eventual outcome of the negotiations on the final settlement—whether the Palestinians will achieve self-determination, whether the Israelis will achieve full peace and security. There is no risk-free course for either side, but there are enormous risks if the process fails. It is very clear indeed that a breakdown of the process would risk destabilising the entire region. It would be seen as the failure of moderation. It would create opportunities for extremists. It would be likely to perpetuate the burden of occupation, the suffering of the Palestinians, and the pressures on Israeli society.
  I do not pretend that the British Government have a central role in the peace process—they are not in the lead—but we welcomed the American initiative under President Bush. We are in no doubt at all that the Clinton Administration are very serious in their determination to see the process through. Along with our European partners, we will continue to help as best we can. Difficult decisions will have to be taken by all sides, and the parties will need all the support and encouragement that they can get to help them to take those decisions. We stand ready to do whatever we can in that process.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve midnight.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sunday Trading
  Dame Angela Rumbold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the tribunal of Sunday trading legislation policy proposed by the Keep Sunday Special campaign and Retailers for Shop Act Reform with the Government's policy on reducing bureaucracy and burdens on business; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We shall publish in the next few weeks a draft Sunday trading Bill, together with a covering text explaining the options for reform. Hon. Members will no doubt weigh the effect of each of the options on businesses before choosing from among them.

  Greyhound Racing
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of the quarter per cent. betting duty reduction announced in the Budget in 1992 has been received by the British Greyhound Racing Trust Fund for the 1992–93 financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the British Greyhound Racing Trust fund has, to date, received voluntary payments from the betting industry totalling £1,058,504 for the financial year 1992–93.

  Terrorists
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of IRA terrorist bombings in Great Britain in each year since 1985; and what is his estimate for 1993 up to 31 May.

  Mr. Howard
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of(a) men and (b) women at present serving prison sentences in England and Wales for terrorist offences.

  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 D. Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated June 1993.
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of (a) men and (b) women at present serving prison sentences in England and Wales for terrorist offences.
  Readily available information on the number of prisoners serving sentences in England and Wales whose offences were related to terrorism is limited to those classified as Category A.
  2
  There were 37 such men and 2 such women on 14 June 1993.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of killings by IRA terrorists in Great Britain in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Howard
  Since 1 January 1985, 26 people have been killed in Great Britain as a result of terrorist activity attributed to the Provisional IRA. The numbers of people killed in each year are as follows:

  Number of people killed by the Provisional IRA

  Year

  Number

  1985

  0

  1986

  0

  1987

  0

  1988

  1

  1989

  11

  1990

  3

  1991

  3

  1992

  5

  19931

  3

  1 To date.

  Appeals
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had of possible reforms to the appeal system.

  Mr. Maclean
  Various aspects of the appeal system fall within the remit of the Royal Commission on criminal justice, to which my predecessor gave evidence. We shall consider whether any changes may be needed in the light of the commission's report.

  Tobacco Sales (Children)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there were in the last year for which figures are available for selling tobacco products to under-age children.

  Mr. Maclean
  In 1991, in England and Wales there were 101 prosecutions for the offence of selling tobacco to juveniles.

  1992 data will not be available until the autumn.

  Police Batons
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will agree to institute an extended pilot project on the use of the expandable side-handled baton.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On 16 June, my right hon. and learned Friend agreed to a scientific evaluation of the expandable side-handled baton. Decisions about trialling this piece of equipment will be taken following the evaluation.

  Crown Court Cases
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the number and (b) the proportion of triable-either-way cases committed to the Crown court in 1979, 1983 and in each year from 1987 to 1992.
  3
  Mr. Maclean
  The numbers and proportions of persons aged 17 and over committed to the Crown court for triable-either-way offences for 1979 and 1983 and 1987–1991 are given below. Data for 1992 are unavailable until the autumn.

  Persons aged 17 and over committed for trial at the Crown court for triable-either-way offences in England and Wales

  Committed for trial

  Year

  Number (thousands)

  Percentage

  1979

  55·3

  15

  1983

  79·6

  18

  1987

  93·5

  23

  1988

  93·1

  22

  1989

  80·4

  21

  1990

  80·4

  20

  1991

  81·3

  19

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Citizens Charter
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give details of the initiatives taken under the citizens charter programme to develop user consultation, representation and participation in public services.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The citizens charter calls on all public services to consult their customers on a regular and systematic basis. Survey programmes are being carried out across the public sector, and many organisations recognise and consult groups who represent their customers. There are numerous initiatives nationally and locally. These include:Charter Mark Scheme: organisations that apply must demonstrate that they consult customers on a regular and systematic basis and take their views into account when service standards arc set or revised. Thirty-six awards were made in 1992.
  Inland Revenue: has conducted a major survey of taxpayers to find out views on their service and are also surveying employers. Inland Revenue is considering how to improve services in response to these results.
  Customs and Excise: work is in hand on two national surveys of travellers and VAT traders. Results of a qualitative survey of travellers carried out last year were used when redrafting the travellers charter.
  London Underground: customers are surveyed on a four-weekly basis on over 20 performances indicators, including the five key targets set out in the customer charter.
  Police: the results of a survey of public satisfaction with police services were published in December 1992. A number of police services also use local customer satisfaction surveys or questionnaires.
  National Health Service: the patients charter encourages all health authorities to seek the views of local people on local services in a variety of ways. In Scotland, an independent survey of NHS users was undertaken to measure progress towards the achievement of charter commitments and identity problems and priorities for further action. In Wales, health authorities regularly carry out consumer research through patient satisfaction surveys, focus groups and local consultations.
  Education: all school governing bodies arc required to have elected parental governors. Since 1986, school governors are required to produce an annual report for parents and hold annual parents' meetings where parents can pass resolutions concerning the school. The parents charter has extended these rights to require schools to provide parents with annual reports on children, including exam and test results.
  4
  Benefits Agency: carries out an annual independent customer survey to ask customers what they think of services, and publishes the results; holds regular meetings with customer representative groups; and has received nearly 600 written submissions on its discussion paper "One Stop" about service delivery.
  Employment Service: conducts an independent national customer satisfaction survey, and has piloted local surveys.
  Under the Council Tenants Charter, tenants have the following rights to: be consulted on changes to the management of their homes; annual information on how the council has managed its housing stock; attend meetings of the housing committee and to see the records of its meetings; transfer to a new landlord, and increased opportunities to get involved in the management of estates, for example, through tenant management co-operatives. The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill includes a right to manage for council tenants.
  United Kingdom Passport Agency: surveys customers by post and in person to find out their views and satisfaction levels. A consultative panel of users is planned for the future.
  Land Registry: users' customer views obtained from a programme of: meetings with user groups, surveys of regular customers, open days, visits and exhibitions to review targets to reflect customers' needs and wishes.

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1992 and indicate, in each case, whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision, or whether the service was contracted out.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The market tests completed since November 1992 by the Office of Public Service and Science, including its agencies, HMSO and the Central Office of Information and the outcome of these tests are as follows:

  Activity tested (and area)

  Outcome

  Bristol distribution centre (HMSO)

  Retained in-house

  Distribution of College 1993–94 prospectus (Civil Service College)

  Contracted out

  Elements of payroll development (Chessington computer centre)

  Contracted out

  Manchester forms centre (HMSO)

  Retained in-house

  Reprographic unit Basildon (HMSO)

  Part contracted out.

  part retained in-house

  Reprographic unit Manchester (HMSO)

  Retained in-house

  Security guarding (Recruitment and Assessment Services)

  Retained in-house

  Stationery store (COI)

  Service abandoned

  Telephonist service for Downing street (OPSS)

  Contracted out

  Typing services at publications centre (HMSO)

  Contracted out

ENVIRONMENT

  Warren Spring Laboratory
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the impact on his budgets for research into air quality, marine pollution, and waste management of the recent announcements relating to Warren Spring Laboratory.

  Mr. Gummer
  The transitional costs of the merger of WSL with the Atomic Energy Authority to form the National Environment Technology Centre will not fall on
  5
  my budgets in these areas of research. In the longer term, the Government believe that the merged organisation will be able to offer better value for money to all its customers.

  Housing (Elderly People)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what procedures he has introduced to ensure that the housing needs of elderly people are fully met by local social services departments.

  Mr. Baldry
  Circular 10/92 "Housing and Community Care", issued jointly by my Department and the Department of Health on 24 September last year, advises social services and housing authorities of their roles under community care. Social service authorities have a statutory duty to assess an individual's needs for community care services and are advised to co-operate with housing authorities where appropriate, in making that assessment.

  Air Pollution (Standing Conference)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to continue meetings of the investigation of the air pollution standing conference following the closure of Warren Spring Laboratory.

  Mr. Yeo
  I intend to continue meetings of the investigation of air pollution standing conference.

  Benlate
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce measures to ban the pesticide Benlate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP), the independent statutory committee which advises Ministers on the approval of pesticides, has examined data relating to benomyl—the active ingredient in the product Benlate—on two occasions in the past 15 months. On both occasions, the ACP advised that there was no need for concern over its continued use in the United Kingdom. A ban would, therefore, not be appropriate.

  House Renovation Grant
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make changes to the private house renovation grant system; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  I have placed in the Library copies of a consultation paper published today discussing the performance and effectiveness of present private house renewal programmes, including the renovation grant system, and outlining a variety of options for change. These include both changes that might be made in the short term, by adjustments to secondary legislation, and those that could be introduced longer term, subject to primary legislation.

  The Government are keen that there should be a full public dialogue on how policies in this area should develop and, accordingly, the consultation paper has been given wide distribution with three months for comment.

  I am also publishing today a preliminary report from the 1991 English house condition survey providing
  6
  information on the number of unfit dwellings in the English housing stock. Between 1986, the date of the last survey, and 1991 there has been a welcome decline in the number of unfit dwellings whether measured against the fitness standard in force in 1986 or against the new, higher standard introduced under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Under the old standard, 3·9 per cent. of dwellings—0·753 million—were unfit in 1991 compared with 4·8 per cent.—0·909 million—in 1986; under the new standard, 7·4 per cent. of dwellings—1·456 million—were unfit in 1991 compared with 8·8 per cent.—1·643 million—in 1986.

  The report also reveals that most progress has been made in those sectors of the stock which have the highest proportions of unfit dwellings, namely pre-1991 housing and the private rented sector. It further shows that, under the new standard, over half of all unfit dwellings fail to meet only one requirement in the standard. Many of these may be remedied relatively easily.

  We also plan to publish during the consultation period the first main report from the survey, which will give fuller information about the condition of the stock and household characteristics.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish key performance targets for the Building Research Establishment.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Building Research Establishment is working to the following provisional key targets for 1993–94 in its strategic plan:

  £96,000 net contribution to the Exchequer.

  Income to cover full economic costs of a trading basis.

  Non-Exchequer component to be 10·9 per cent. of total net research commissions.

  An improvement of 5 per cent. in the unit cost ratio of research output on the target for 1992–93.

  The strategic plan is subject to further discussion with my Department. If, as a result, there are any changes to these targets, revised targets will be published.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir Rhodes Boyson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the total amount of revenue expenditure by local authorities in(a) England, (b) Greater London and (c) the south-east, excluding Greater London, for each year from 1982–83 to 1992–93, estimated.

  Mr. Curry
  The latest information is:

  Local authority revenue expenditure1

  £ million

  Year

  England

  2Greater London

  South East (excluding Greater London)

  1982–83

  19,737

  4,111

  3,541

  1983–84

  20,809

  4,677

  3,691

  1984–85

  21,312

  5,000

  3,768

  1985–86

  21,661

  4,676

  3,933

  1986–87

  23,760

  5,128

  4,201

  1987–88

  25,686

  5,408

  4,582

  1988–89

  27,667

  5,553

  5,162

  1989–90

  29,404

  5,969

  5,395

  1990–91

  32,493

  6,371

  6,041

  31991–92

  36,416

  6,956

  6,999

  31992–93

  38,945

  7,392

  7,628

  7
  1Total expenditure figures are given for 1982–83 to 1989–90. Net revenue expenditure figures are given for 1990–91 to 1992–93. Although both are net of spending met by specific and supplementary grants, direct comparisons cannot be made as figures derive from two different financial systems.

  2Includes Metropolitan police, which covers small areas outside Greater London.

  3Revised estimates.

  Capital expenditure by local authorities in England

  £ million

  Net expenditure

  Gross expenditure

  Year

  Total England

  Greater London

  South East (excluding GL)

  Total England

  Greater London

  South East (excluding GL)

  1986–87

  3,033

  522

  285

  5,846

  1,362

  1,147

  1987–88

  2,488

  470

  120

  6,224

  1,433

  1,265

  1988–89

  1,964

  145

  106

  7,206

  1,592

  1,648

  1989–90

  4,837

  1,215

  910

  9,822

  2,593

  2,103

  1990–91

  3,755

  695

  691

  6,924

  1,473

  1,542

  1991–92

  4,316

  776

  882

  6,571

  1,306

  1,401

  1992–931

  4,977

  665

  1,030

  6,921

  1,267

  1,449

  1 Local authority forecast.

  Source: Local authority capital outturn and capital payments returns.

  (a) Outturn (provisional).

  (b) Estimate.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate has been made of the amount of transitional relief each authority will pay in 1993–94; and if he will express this figure as(a) a percentage of total provision for transitional relief and (b) an amount per council tax payer.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 18 June 1993]: I am arranging for the available information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1992 and indicate, in each case, whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision, or whether the service was contracted out.

  Mr. Baldry
  Only one of the projects in the Department's market-testing programme which involves exposing in-house functions to competition has yet reached the stage where a contract or service level agreement has been awarded. The market testing of a research project commissioned by the Department from the Building Research Establishment has resulted in the award of a contract to an outside bidder.

  New Age Travellers
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total estimated cost of establishing a site of 15 pitches for new age travellers at Gipsy lane, Burnett, Avon.

  Mr. Baldry
  The cost of providing an authorised site for gipsies, as defined in section 16 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, has been estimated by Avon county council as £795,500.
  8
  Sir Rhodes Boyson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the total amount of(a) net and (b) gross capital expenditure by local authorities in (i) England, (ii) Greater London and (iii) the south-east, excluding Greater London, for each year from 1982–83 to 1992–93, estimated.

  Mr. Curry
  The available information is as follows:

  Liverpool Housing Action Trust
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what factors were taken into account in determining which tenders were acceptable for shortlisting for the housing management contracts for the Liverpool HAT; what(a) guidelines and (b) procedures were used for evaluating the tenders; and if he will publish them;

  (2) what information will be given to those organisations or individuals who submitted tenders for management contracts for Liverpool HAT which were rejected as to why they were not acceptable;

  (3) if he will list those organisations or individuals which have been shortlisted for the management contracts for Liverpool HAT, indicating which are black-based associations.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 18 June 1993]: Responsibility for awarding the contracts rests with the Liverpool housing action trust. The HAT board is evaluating tenders received in accordance with standard public procurement procedures and against the criteria in the information pack sent to prospective tenderers and in the tender document. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Any future discussion between the HAT and tenderers on tenders not selected for shortlisting is a matter for the HAT board.

  I shall write to the hon. Member with the names of those shortlisted organisations which agree to the release of their names. Information was not sought in the tender process on the ethnic backgrounds of tenderers.

EDUCATION

  Access Funds, Liverpool University
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from Liverpool university about access funds; and if he will make a statement.
  9
  Mr. Boswell
  One, from the assistant registrar of Liverpool university. I announced on 14 June that a total of £23·8 million will be available for access funds in England for the 1993–94 academic year. This represents an increase of over £2 million—nearly 10 per cent.—over 1992–93. We believe that if properly targeted to genuinely needy students, this should be sufficient for the purpose of supplementing an already generous student support package of grants and loans.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) county primary schools and (b) voluntary-aided primary schools have applied for and been granted grant-maintained status; and what percentage these are of all schools in these categories.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Primary schools operating/approved for self-governing governing status

  As a percentage of all schools in the category

  TOTAL

  139

  0·7

  of which county or former county

  96

  0·8

  voluntary or former voluntary

  43

  0·7

  of which VA1 or former VA and SA2 or former SA

  23

  0·6

  VC3or former VC

  20

  0·7

  1 Voluntary aided.

  2 Special agreement.

  3 Voluntary controlled.

  School Governors
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will bring forward proposals to clarify the legal liabilities of individual governors of(a) local education authority maintained schools, (b) voluntary-aided schools and (c) grant-maintained schools; and what plans he has to underwrite the legal liabilities of school governors.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education Bill currently before Parliament provides for the incorporation of governing bodies of LEA-maintained schools. This will ensure that governors do not incur any personal liability for decisions taken in good faith. Subject to Royal Assent, the Department will be issuing guidance on incorporation later this year. A separate fact sheet on legal liabilities is available on request to governing bodies of self-governing—grant-maintained—schools.

  It is for local education authorities and governing bodies to cover legal liabilities with their own insurers.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the lowest, highest and average sum of money paid for an assisted place in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Forth
  In 1991–92, the lowest fee charged by a school participating in the scheme was £2,025. However,10
  assisted places are subject to a means-tested contribution from parents. Hence the lowest cost to the Exchequer is nil where the parental contribution exceeds the fees charged. The highest cost to the Exchequer would be a pupil at the school charging the highest fee—£8,595—accepted under the scheme, who for reasons of low parental means was entitled to full fee remission. The average cost to the Exchequer for an assisted place was £3,100. These figures relate to England only.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children received assisted places at schools in 1990, 1991, 1992 and the current year to date.

  Mr. Forth
  There were 26,740 children on assisted places in the academic year 1990–91, 27,641 in academic year 1991–92 and an estimated 28,670 assisted pupils in the current academic year 1992–93. These figures relate to pupils in England only.

  First-choice Schools
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of parents secured the school of their first choice for their children in(a) 1979 and (b) the last year for which figures are available (i) nationally and (ii) for each local education authority, and for (1) primary and (2) secondary schools.

  Mr Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he intends to extend the national curriculum and tests to the private education sector.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to extend the national curriculum and the associated testing and assessment arrangements to schools in the independent sector. It is for independent schools themselves to decide whether to implement the national curriculum. Some have already decided to do so. As the arrangements become better established, I expect many more to follow.

  Religious and Physical Education
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the principal religions in Great Britain for the purposes of section 8(3) of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is not for my right hon. Friend, but for each local agreed syllabus conference, to determine the religions to be included in its syllabus for religious education in the light of the requirements of the law.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has to provide local authorities with appropriate guidelines on providing a youth service; and if he will make a statement on the policy and the priority to be attached to a youth service by local authorities.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department's circular 1/93 of 5 January 1993, "The Further and Higher Education Act
  11
  1992", made it clear that local education authorities have a duty to secure the provision of adequate facilities for further education, including the youth service. The duty is placed on LEAs, and it is primarily for them to decide on their policies and the priority to be given to their local youth services in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the expenditure on the youth service for(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c) 1992–93; and what is his forecast for expenditure in 1993–94.

  Mr. Boswell
  Expenditure by LEAs in England on the youth service in 1990–91 was £241·7 million (cash). For 1991–92, the provisional total is £248·8 million (cash). This total includes provisional figures for six LEAs and excludes one outstanding LEA return. Outturn figures are not yet available for 1992–93, and forecasts are not made for future years' expenditure on the youth service.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students in each of the universities and institutions of higher education in England and Wales are registered disabled; and what proportion they represent of the student population in(a) Wales, (b) England and (c) Wales and England combined.

  Mr. Boswell
  Disability is not currently recorded on the statistical records of higher education students.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. Asil Nadir
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answers to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on 8 June,Official Report, column 138, when and where the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), met Mr. Asil Nadir during the 10 days prior to Mr. Nadir travelling to northern Cyprus.

  The Prime Minister
  That is a matter for my hon. Friend.

  Registration Campaigns
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister what the budgets are or were for the operation of the most recent registration campaigns for(a) the sale of British Telecom shares, (b) overseas voters and (c) electoral registration by United Kingdom residents.

  The Prime Minister
  Details of the costs of the BT3 share offer will be reported to Parliament in due course, following completion of the sale. These will include, and separately identify, the costs of marketing and the share information office. The sum of £672,000 was spent in the 1992–93 financial year in Great Britain on advertising to encourage people to register to vote. Advertising in support of electoral registration is not carried out in Northern Ireland. A publicity campaign to make British citizens living abroad aware of their new voting rights wasd carried out in 1990 only, at a cost of £705,000.
  12

  Teaching Company Scheme
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of the teaching company scheme budget is being transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: None.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total official revenue that will accrue to the Exchequer in a full year of the imposition of VAT at the rate of 5 per cent. on(a) domestic fuel and power and (b) categories one, three, six, seven, eight, 10, 11, 12 and 13 contained in annex H of directive 92/77/EEC.

  Sir John Cope
  Estimates of the effect on VAT revenue that would occur in a full year from a 5 per cent. rate are as follows:

  £ million

  (a) Domestic fuel and power—yield

  740

  (b) Annex H selected items—cost

  -450

  These estimates are for 1992–93 and, unlike those published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", make no allowance for behavioural change.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his best estimate of the number of recipients of invalidity benefit who would have an increased tax bill if invalidity benefit was taxed as income; and what would be the average increase;

  (2) what is his best estimate of the number of recipients of invalidity benefit who would pay tax whose only income was invalidity benefit if that benefit was taxed as income; and what the average tax bill would be for that group;

  (3) what is his best estimate of the yield to the Treasury in a full year of taxing invalidity benefit as income.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Approximate estimates are that the yield at 1993–94 levels, from making invalidity benefit taxable would be about £500 million.

  The estimated number of recipients who would have an income tax liability and the average increase in tax is shown in the table:

  Number of taxpayers with invalidity benefit liable to tax

  Average increase in tax with invalidity benefit liable to tax (£ a year)

  All recipients of invalidity benefit

  1900,000

  550

  Invalidity benefit recipients with no other income

  200,000

  100

  1 Of which some 250,000 already have an income tax liability.

  13

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his best estimate of the yield to the Treasury in a full year of treating child benefit as income for income tax purposes

  Mr. Dorrell
  At 1993–94 levels the revenue yield would be about £600 million, assuming that the benefit was taxed as the mother's—or lone father's—income.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate what the saving would be of taxing child benefit as part of the woman's income in 1993–94 and 1994–95;

  (2) if he will estimate what the saving would be of taxing child benefit as part of the man's income in 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 17 June 1993]: The revenue yield at 1993–94 levels would be about £1·3 billion if child benefit was taxed as the father's—or lone mother's—income and about £0·6 billion if taxed as mother's—or lone father's—income.

  Estimates for 1994–95 will depend on the levels of child benefit and on tax rates and allowances for that year.

  Government Employees (Holidays)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many privilege holidays in addition to bank holidays are enjoyed by employees in central Government.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Civil servants receive 21½ days' holidays, in addition to the eight public and bank holidays in the calendar year. These holidays are fixed by tradition and taken as follows: a half-day on Maundy Thursday afternoon, a day for the Queen's birthday and an additional day at Christmas.

  Workplace Nurseries
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further representations he has received on tax relief for workplace nurseries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received a number of representations on this subject, as we have on many other tax reliefs. They have ranged from suggestions to give tax relief for all child care to representations that there should be no change.

  Privatisation Revenue
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates privatisation revenue will be in 1993–94.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In his autumn statement of 12 November 1992, the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont), announced that the privatisation proceeds for 1993–94 are estimated to be £5·5 billion.

  Income Tax
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the estimated full-year costs or savings of changing income tax by(a) raising the upper
  14
  limit of the 20p band to £2,750, (b) raising the 25p rate by 1 p, (c) introducing a 35p in the pound rate for taxable income from £23,700 to £28,700, (d) raising the 40p in the pound rate to 45p on taxable income over £35,000 and (e) introducing a 50p in the pound rate on taxable income over £45,000.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Latest estimates of the cost or savings of each measure compared with the regime announced in the March 1993 Budget are as follows:

  Direct revenue yield ( + ) or cost ( - ) in full year at 1993–94 income levels

  £ million

  (a) Increasing width of the lower rate band to £2,750

  -240

  (b) Raising the basic rate of tax by 1 per cent.

  1,500

  (c) Charging 35 per cent, tax rate on taxable income between £23,700 and £28,700

  -330

  (d) Charging 45 per cent, tax rate on taxable income in excess of £35,000

  1,000

  (e) Charging 50 per cent, tax rate on taxable income in excess of £45,000

  1,500

  The estimates do not allow for any behavioural effect that might result from such changes to the tax system and do not include capital gains tax.

  Forward: Civil Service Catering
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the future of Forward: Civil Service Catering.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. Friend the former Chancellor told the House on 27 March 1991,Official Report, columns 410–11, that he had decided that the Civil Service Catering Organisation—as it was then known—should be reorganised with the aim of transferring it into the private sector.

  Since the announcement, substantial changes have been made, including renaming the organisation as Forward: Civil Service Catering, and I believe it is now ready for privatisation. Financial advisers have been appointed to assist in this process. Parliamentary approval to this new service will be sought in a supplementary estimate for Her Majesty's Treasury vote—class XVII, vote 1. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure of up to £400,000 on preliminary expenses will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Forward is profitable and has shown its ability to win business in a fully competitive situation. Privatisation will open the way for it to compete for business outside the public sector.

  On privatisation, Forward staff would transfer on their existing terms and conditions in accordance with the Transfer of Undertakings (Employment Protections) Regulations 1981.

  There will be full consultation with the trade unions involved.

  Pensioners (Income Tax)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the number of pensioners above income support level who do not pay income tax.
  15
  Mr. Dorrell
  About 4·5 million at 1993–94 levels.

  Sterling
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 613, what estimates his Department has made of the effect of the depreciation of sterling against the ecu since September 1992 in terms of the level of sterling receipts; and if he will list those receipts, by European Community programme.

  Sir John Cope
  The level of sterling receipts which the United Kingdom will receive as a result of the depreciation of sterling against the ecu since September 1992 cannot be estimated with any precision. It depends on various uncertainties, including continuing exchange rate changes, the timing of receipts from the Community and the availability of projects providing value for money.

  Lottery Duty
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the direct effect on revenue in the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 of introduction of the clauses in chapter II of part I of the Finance (No. 2) Bill had they come into effect from 6 April.

  Sir John Cope
  The revenue yield depends on the turnover of the national lottery, which is difficult to estimate. Annual turnover in the region of £1·5 billion would provide a duty yield of £180 million. This would be broadly offset by reductions in the yield of other taxes including those on other forms of gambling.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the gross domestic product per capita for(a) Hong Kong and (b) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nelson
  Figures for Hong Kong are published in the United Nations "Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific".

  Figures for the United Kingdom are published in table 8 of "Economic Trends". Copies of both publications are available from the Library of the House.

  Excise Duty
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the operation of the new rules governing the calculation of excise duty on beer.

  Sir John Cope
  The first indications from official and trade sources are that the new beer duty system, which was introduced on 1 June, is working well. Customs is continuing to liaise closely with the trade to ensure that the new arrangements are implemented as smoothly as possible. At a late stage, the Brewers Society has claimed that the new rate is not likely to prove fiscally neutral and Customs is studying its submissions. In the meanwhile, we have no reason to alter the estimate that the change involves a shortfall of duty to the Exchequer, for 1993–94 only, of about £200 million.
  16

NORTHERN IRELAND

  "Unfinished Business"
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amount of funding was given by the Community Relations Council to the film "Unfinished Business".

  Mr. Ancram
  £6,000.

  Library Services (Charges)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what representations he has received in connection with the proposed introduction of charges for library services;

  (2) what steps he will take to review article 45 from the Library Services (Northern Ireland) Order in relation to the charges for library services.

  Mr. Ancram
  Following publication, for consultation purposes, of the draft Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, nine responses were received about article 45, together with a letter from the hon. Gentleman. For the most part, these representations sought to ensure that the basic library lending service would remain free of charge and I am happy to give that assurance.

  I have no plans to review article 45 at present.

  Cattle (Tuberculosis)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current situation regarding additional or alternative cattle tuberculosis tests in Northern Ireland; and what steps he has taken to secure derogation powers under EC directives to use such tests.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Department of Agriculture is currently seeking to develop a blood test suitable to detect bovine tuberculosis. A pilot trial was carried out in 1990–91 with encouraging results and a larger scale field trial is now under way.

  This trial will be completed later this year and until the results of the trial have been fully analysed it will not be possible to seek EC agreement to the use of a blood test to detect TB.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cattle were slaughtered in each of the last five years as reactors to tuberculosis testing; and if he will show how many of these were subsequently shown to actually have tuberculosis.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Number of reactor cattle slaughtered

  Number of cattle confirmed to have tuberculosis1

  1988

  1,470

  731

  1989

  2,493

  1,337

  1990

  3,124

  1,409

  1991

  4,108

  1,586

  1992

  4,601

  1,653

  1 Post-mortem findings and/or laboratory examination.

  While all the slaughtered cattle were given a post-mortem examination, only visible lesions indicating

  17
  an advanced stage of TB can be detected in this way. The presence of TB is more readily detected in live animals by the tuberculin test.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what significance is given to badgers as a factor in the epidemiology of cattle tuberculosis in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  Badgers are not believed to be a significant source of TB infection in cattle in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Samuel Devenney
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now re-open inquiries into the death of Mr. Samuel Devenney, following information forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Falkirk. West.

  Mr. Mates
  This is a matter for the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, to whom I have passed the correspondence received from the hon. Member.

  Phosphorus Flares
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many phosphorus flares or incendiary devices have been washed up on the Northern Ireland coastline in the past year; and what action he has taken to identify the source of these phosphorus flares and to prevent more being deposited on Northern Ireland beaches.

  Mr. Mates
  [holding answer 14 June 1993]: I am advised that up to 7 June 1993, a total of 205 phosphorus flares had been washed up on the Northern Ireland coastline. A contract has been let to a waste disposal company for the collection and disposal of any of these flares which are identified and notified to the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland). It is believed that the majority of the flares are from private vessels and merchant shipping which have been washed or thrown overboard; in addition, a proportion may have been illegally dumped.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  World Service
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number of listeners to the World Service expressed per kilowatt of transmitter power.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The latest information indicates that some 4,895 people listen to World Service direct broadcasts for every kilowatt of power transmitted. This figure does not include listeners to World Service programmes transmitted by other broadcasters under rebroadcasting arrangements.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many FCO staff working for the communications engineering department at transmitter sites in the United Kingdom and overseas have been transferred to the World Service; and what was the impact on the grant in aid of the transfer of CED transmitter sites and Ascension island services.
  18
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No FCO staff were transferred to the World Service, but four engineering and two industrial staff employed by the FCO were transferred to BBC Transmission, a separate body. The impact on the grant in aid of these and other transfers was cost neutral since, where necessary, funds to cover the costs of the additional responsibilities were transferred from the FCO to the World Service grant in aid. The total amount transferred was £6·43 million.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the World Service increase in budget since 1980 has been spent on upgrading and replacing old transmitters.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The amount spent by the World Service on such projects under the 1981–1991 audibility improvement programme was £96·4 million—at outturn costs. Between 1980–81 and 1991–92 the annual total World Service grants in aid rose from £55 million to £159·6 million.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on hours broadcast per employee in the World Service.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The latest information available indicates that the World Service achieved 15·3 hours of broadcasting output per employee in 1992–93.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on audience figures for World Service broadcasting in(a) China, (b) eastern Europe, (c) Africa and (d) the rest of the world.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The latest audience figures for World Service broadcasts for these areas are as follows:

  (a) Eastern Europe, excluding countries of the former Soviet Union: 4· million

  (b) Africa (South of Sahara): 26 million

  (c) Rest of the world: 93· million, of which 50· million are in the sub-continent and 12 million in the middle east and north Africa.

  No data are available for mainland China.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which language services it is presently planned to cease broadcasting from the World Service.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are no plans at present for the World Service to discontinue any language services.

  Turkey
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Kurdish information centre regarding the subject of human rights in Turkey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office recently received a copy of a circular letter from the "Kurdistan Information Centre", a London-based organisation. The letter listed Kurdish Workers Party (PK K) conditions for an extension of its March ceasefire in Turkey.

  We regret the PKK's decision to end its unilaterally declared ceasefire and the subsequent escalation of

  19
  violence in Turkey's southeast. We frequently make clear to the Turkish Government the importance we attach to combating terrorism within a legal framework and with full respect for human rights.

  East Timor
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indonesian Government on the implementation of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution calling for the United Nations special rapporteur on torture and extrajudicial executions and the United Nations working groups on arbitary detention and on enforced and involuntary disappearances to be allowed to conduct investigations in East Timor.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have urged the Indonesians—most recently during the visit to Indonesia in April by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs—to co-operate with the United Nations in implementing the resolution.

  Seal Culls (Russia)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence or information his Department has received on the number of baby seals culled in the Arklane region of Russia for(a) the current year to date, (b) 1992 and (c) 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15 January,Official Report, column 822.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to secure for Gibraltar a place on the European Committee of the Regions.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Final decisions on the allocation of seats on the European Committee of the Regions have yet to be taken. Nomination of representatives will be made in good time before the coming into force of the Maastricht treaty.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EC Assistance, London
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he supports the proposal for European Community assistance for inner London.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Negotiations on the Commission's proposed amendments to the current regulations of the European structural funds, including the eligibility criteria and method of selection of objective 2 areas, are unlikely to be agreed before the end of July. Only when revised regulations have been agreed by the Council of Ministers can consideration be given to the designation of particular areas for assistance in the subsequent period.

  Fuel Cell Research
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total amount invested in fuel cell research by his Department for 1993–94; and what are 20
  the totals invested in such research (i) in the European Community, and (ii) for all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development members.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department's expected expenditure of about £0·8 million this year on advance fuel cell research provides a focus for United Kingdom activity and assists companies to participate in European programmes. Under the last EC Joule round, about £10 million of public funding was allocated to 17 projects on fuel cells recommended for support of which 10 involved at least one United Kingdom participant.

  The total research expenditure—industry and government—on fuel cell research is estimated to be about £50 million a year for the EEC and about £100 million a year for all OECD countries.

  National Welsh Omnibus Services Ltd.
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 21 April,Official Report, column 118, if he will make a statement on the progress of consideration by the Insolvency Service of the national Welsh bus company.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The report on the conduct of the directors of National Welsh Omnibus Services Ltd. is still under consideration. The Secretary of State has until 2 January 1994 to bring proceedings should it be decided that it is in the public interest to do so.

  Warren Spring Laboratory
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the economic and public expenditure effects, and effects on research expertise in environmental technology in Britain, of closing Warren Spring Laboratory.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's pursuant reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on 10 June 1993,Official Report, column 303. My right hon. Friend made a long-term assessment of all these matters and concluded that they favoured the creation of the National Environmental Technology Centre as announced on 10 June.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he gave to PA consultancy group's position as a business rival to Warren Spring Laboratory at the time PA consultancy group was appointed to review the future of Warren Spring Laboratory.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The PA consultancy group was selected after a process of competitive tendering and with the knowledge that it is a company with an international reputation which could be relied upon to act with complete integrity.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff, and what present Warren Spring Laboratory functions, he proposes to transfer to Harwell.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 June 1993]: My aims with regard to both the staff and the business activities of the Warren Spring Laboratory were given in my right hon. Friend's pursuant reply to my hon. Friend

  21
  the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on 10 June 1993, Official Report, column 303. The precise details and numbers are still being decided.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade ( 1 ) what plans he has for the revenue received from Glaxo for the sale of the former site of Warren Spring Laboratory in Stevenage;

  (2) if he will make a statement on (a) the sum paid by Glaxo for the Warren Spring Laboratory site in Stevenage and (b) if the revenue will be used to secure the future of the laboratory's expertise and staff.

  Mr. McLouglin
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's pursuant reply to my hon. Friend the Member for 13Iaby (Mr. Robathan), on 10 June 1993,Official Report, column 303.

  Eastern and Central Europe
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 485, ( 1 ) if he will list those institutions currently receiving funding or other assistance from his Department for work undertaken in eastern and central Europe; if he will specify the nature of the assistance involved; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the assistance programmes available to British institutions involved in work in eastern and central Europe;

  (3) what assistance his Department is currently providing to the British engineering sector involved in work in eastern and central Europe; if he will specify the nature of the assistance involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department provides a comprehensive range of services to assist the very many United Kingdom companies and other bodies which are interested in the region, including support for outward missions—sometimes led ministerially—and participation in overseas trade fairs as well as the provision of general and specific information about the markets and the opportunities in them. Information about export and consultancy projects under bilateral, EC and multilateral-funded assistance programmes is also available and my Department encourages United Kingdom bodies to exploit such opportunities.

  The major reorganisation of the DTI's export services which was recently announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will enhance the service provided by the Department.

  A detailed list of all DTI assistance for exporters is included in the latest British Overseas Trade Board annual report 1992–93. A copy of the report has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  A large number of British engineering companies are already active in central and eastern Europe and avail themselves of the services already mentioned.

  Information on the number of individual British institutions which receive funding or assistance from the Department is not available, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Electricity
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's latest estimate of total electricity generating capacity for the year 2000.
  22
  Mr. Eggar
  The Department does not prepare estimates of future generating capacity. The National Grid Company is required by its licence to prepare each year a statement known as the seven-year statement. The most recent statement includes an assessment of electricity demand up to the year 2000 and several scenarios of generation capacity.

  Softwood Imports
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of current United Kingdom imports of timber is of softwoods.

  Mr. Needham
  In 1992, 76·5 per cent. of United Kingdom imports of timber were softwoods.

  Saudia Arabia
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the total value of United Kingdom exports to Saudi Arabia for each year from 1980, broken down into civil and defence-related exports.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on United Kingdom visible trade is published in "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it has been the consistent policy of successive Governments not to disclose particulars of defence trade with other countries. It is therefore not possible to provide a breakdown into civil and defence-related exports.

  Bilateral Trade Agreements
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what monitoring his Department is doing into the extent of bilateral trade agreements by individual EC member states with the United States of America; if he will make it his policy to enter into such agreements separately from the European Commission negotiating rounds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  There is an annual decision by the Council of the European Community listing previous bilateral agreements between individual member states and third countries which remain in operation to the extent that their provisions do not conflict with Community law. The European Commission is responsible for negotiating the Community's trade agreements—in consultation with the member states, which approve the outcome—since such matters fall within the Community's common commercial policy. The United Kingdom cannot deviate from Community law in this respect.

  Beer Orders
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish his Department's response to the fourth report of the Agriculture Select Committee of the current Session on the "Effects of the Beer Orders on the Brewing Industry and Consumers", HC 402; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department is considering this report carefully and intends to respond to the Agriculture Select Committee within the usual two-month period, that is, by 20 July. It will be for the Committee to decide whether to make that response public.
  23

  Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the ability of the Atomic Energy Authority at Harwell to provide a full environmental intergrated research service covering physical, biological, chemical and engineering subjects.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 June 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's pursuant reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on 10 June 1993, Official Report, column 303. I expect the new National Environmental Technology Centre to provide such services.

  Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd.
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange for the publication of an interim report of his Department's investigation of the pub leasing policies and practices of Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. as soon as possible, and thereafter consider initiating a full and public inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 June 1993]: My right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade and I have received a number of representations about Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. pub leasing arrangements. My Department has been looking into the specific points raised and I expect replies to be sent shortly.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, columns 161–62, what investigations he has initiated into the Inntrepreneur scheme operated by Grand Metropolitan Enterprises within the brewery industry; upon what basis these investigations were begun; who is being consulted; to whom evidence can be submitted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 June 1993]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I have received a number of representations about Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. pub leasing arrangements. My Department has been looking into the specific points raised and I expect replies to be sent shortly.

  Libyan Technicians
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department is taking to ensure that United Kingdom companies do not breach the UN embargo on Libya by training Libyan technicians to maintain airframes, engines and avionics which have significant military as well as civil potential.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 17 June 1993]: The Libya (United Nations Sanctions) Order—"the order"—1992, which came into effect from 15 April, prohibits the provision of any technical advice, assistance or training related to the supply, delivery, manufacture, maintenance or use of any goods specified in part A of Schedule 1 to the order to any persons connected with Libya except under the authority of a licence granted by the Secretary of State.

  Any applications to undertake training courses or seminars for Libyan nationals whether within the United Kingdom or elsewhere are considered on a case by case basis. It is not our practice to disclose details of licence applications.
  24

  Departmental Company Reports
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department expects to publish their report on the Atlantic and B and C companies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 June 1993]: Inspectors were appointed on 15 June 1990 under section 432 of the Companies Act 1985 to investigate and report on the affairs of Atlantic Computers plc and Atlantic Computer Systems, plc, both major companies in the British and Commonwealth group. The inspectors are in the final stages of their investigation but have not yet submitted their report; I will consider publication when it is received.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further plans there are to provide aid for the people of the Western Sahara.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no plans to provide bilateral aid for the people of the Western Sahara, but continue to contribute finance and personnel to the United Nations mission responsible for organisation and conduct of the referendum which we hope will take place this year.

  Vietnam
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on aid to Vietnam.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have committed some £8 million in aid to Vietnam since our programme resumed in 1990. It is focused on reintegration of the returning migrants and support for economic reform. We are sending a mission to Vietnam next month to discuss an expansion of technical co-operation.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what limitations have been placed on humanitarian aid to Bosnia following the Washington agreement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The joint action programme agreed in Washington on 22 May 1993 has placed no limitations on humanitarian aid to Bosnia.

  Forestry
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the forestry implications of aid projects.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received representations on the forestry aspects of the aid programme from Members of Parliament, agencies and individuals.

  Environmentally Sustainable Projects
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that its aid projects are environmentally sustainable.
  25
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  All Overseas Development Administration projects are subject to environmental assessment according to the guidelines and procedures described in the Overseas Development Administration's "Manual of Environmental Appraisal".

  AIDS (Africa)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional resources he plans to make available to combat the spread of AIDS in Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  To date, over £16 million has been spent in support of programmes in Africa to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS. We have committed a further £2 million this year and we are ready to do more. Other initiatives are being considered.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what United Kingdom assistance has been given to the construction of Abuja, Nigeria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No United Kingdom assistance has been given to the construction of Abuja.

  Indonesia and Tanzania
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the amount of aid granted to(a) Indonesia and (b) Tanzania in each of the last 10 years; and what proportion was used to finance the purchase of British goods.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  United Kingdom gross bilateral aid to Tanzania and Indonesia from 1983 to the end of the financial year 1991–92 was as follows:

  £'000

  Tanzania

  Indonesia

  1983

  30,384

  12,358

  1984

  33,033

  28,292

  1985

  17,967

  33,649

  1986

  12,715

  8,898

  1987

  28,789

  12,223

  1987–88

  33,617

  14,660

  1988–89

  31,956

  17,366

  1989–90

  20,060

  21,616

  1990–91

  41,403

  24,600

  1991–92

  32,454

  34,425

  The basis on which these figures are recorded was changed from calendar to financial years with effect from 1992; the previous four financial years have been included above for ease of comparison.

  Statistics on the proportion used to finance the purchase of British goods and services are not available on a country basis.

  Soviet Union (Contamination)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent initiatives have been taken by the overseas development administration to assist countries of the former Soviet Union in cleaning up environmental contamination.
  26
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The know-how fund has financed two projects in Ukraine; the first to study environmental clean up priorities in the Kiev region post Chernobyl; and the second to provide equipment and training to help measure radioactivity levels in food products in the Kiev region.

  In May 1993, we financed a study visit to Britain by Russians involved in radioactive waste management. The know-how fund hopes to begin several further environmental projects in Russia in the coming months.

  Sudan
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom's contribution to the international relief effort in south Sudan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Britain has committed almost £21 million in humanitarian assistance to southern Sudan since the international relief effort, Operation Lifeline Sudan was established in 1989. More than £2 million of this has been committed this year.

  A senior ODA official is participating in an EC troika visit to the area from 18 to 23 June to assess the situation and consider how further help can best be provided.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1992 and indicate, in each case, whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision, or whether the service was contracted out.

  Mr. Sproat
  Since November 1992, my Department has contracted out a range of new central services, including mailroom services, minor maintenance, office cleaning, reprographics, security, central typing and secretarial cover. The Department has also contracted out the provision of computer equipment and new associated services.

  Subject to a tendering exercise, the Historic Royal Palaces agency will contract out unskilled ground maintenance work at Hampton Court palace. The manning of vehicle entrances, ticket checking and security control room at the Tower of London has been contracted out and staff redeployed.

  The other agency, the Royal Parks, is currently market testing building works services and estates management and an announcement on the outcome will be made shortly.

  Non-terrestrial Broadcasting
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the ownership regulations on non-terrestrial broadcasting.

  Mr. Brooke
  The subject has been raised at meetings with broadcasters and in letters this year from two hon. Members and from members of the public.
  27

  Television Licence Fee
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are his plans for setting future increases in the television licence fee.

  Mr. Brooke
  In January 1991, following a study by Price Waterhouse, the Home Secretary announced a five-year television licence fee strategy: the licence fee increase for April 1991 would be set at retail prices index (RPI) minus 3 per cent., followed by increases at RPI for the next four years. In addition, the Government gave an undertaking to reassess the position before the increase due in April 1994.

  Today I have appointed Touche Ross to assess the BBC's progress in achieving the efficiency and revenue gains identified by Price Waterhouse in 1990; to advise me on the scope for any further gains; and to advise whether RPI linkage is appropriate for the licence fee increases in the next three years until the renewal of the charter.

  The longer-term future of the television licence fee will be considered as part of the review of the BBC's royal charter.

HEALTH

  Birth Statistics
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of live births per year in each of the last five years; and what percentage of live births required special care in a neo-natal unit in each of those years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Live births in England 1988–92.

  Year

  Live births

  1988

  654,363

  1989

  649,357

  1990

  666,920

  1991

  660,806

  1992

  651,784

  Approximately 6 to 10 per cent. of new-born babies require care exceeding normal routine care at some stage.

  Consultants
  Ms Primaraolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the numbers of(a) consultants in neonatology and (b) neo-natal intensive care beds in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the tables.

  Consultant neonatologists are not identified separately in the Department's census of medical staff, but are included under paediatrics.

  Consultants employed during the past 5 years England (whole-time equivalent) 30 September 1987 to 1991.

  Year

  Paediatrics

  1987

  571·5

  1988

  597·2

  1989

  678·8

  1990

  699·1

  1991

  723·0

  28

  Neo-natal cots in regionally designated intensive care wards and non-maternity wards.

  Year

  Cots

  1987–88

  3,567

  1988–89

  3,512

  1989–90

  3,451

  1990–91

  3,374

  1991–92

  3,424

  Note:—Figures include cots used for various levels of care; from the most intensive level for seriously ill babies to special care—which is needed for babies who need attention exceeding normal routine care.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 18 March,Official Report, column 347, what is the mean age at which doctors achieve consultant status in England.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The mean age of consultants appointed during the year ending 30 September 1991 in England was 39.

  Intensive Care Cots
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are her Department's recommendations on the number of nurses needed per cot, and the number of neo-natal intensive care cots required nationally.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for local decision, taking account of professional guidelines and particular local circumstances.

  Nurses
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the evidence for the statement in a Department of Health press release (H93/707) of 20 April that the turnover rate among nurses has dropped substantially.

  Mr. Sackville
  Better pay and better conditions have resulted in a more stable workforce, which in turn enhances quality of care. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement that there is recent encouraging evidence which shows that the turnover rate amongst nurses has dropped substantially, to less than 10 per cent. overall and to as low as 3 per cent. in some areas, was based on information exchanged during the normal course of meetings and discussions with regional health authorities.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish details of the numbers of qualified, unqualified and learner nursing staff who joined the NHS in 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the tables.

  1991

  1992

  Qualified

  120,230

  116,540

  Unqualified

  15,390

  Not collected

  Notes:

  1 Year ending 31 March 1991 excludes 27 data suppliers—regional health authority headquarters, district health authorities and the London ambulance service who either did not supply data or whose data were unusable. Data for 1992 excludes three regions where complete information was not available.
  29
  239 per cent. (1991) of all unqualified joiners and 27 per cent. (1991) of all qualified joiners were recorded as "source of recruitment not known". 19 per cent. (1992) of all joiners were recorded as "Others".

  Source of data: KM45 return 1991 and 1990. KM48 1992.

  Pre-registration nursing Initial entries and re-entries, years ending 31 March

  Level 1

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Traditional

  10,618

  7,623

  P20001

  4,834

  9,241

  1 Project 2000 learners are regarded as supernumerary and are not included in work force numbers.

  Source: English National Board annual reports 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish details of the total number and whole-time

  Qualified Nursing and Midwifery Staff joining NHS; Years ending 31 March

  1990

  1991

  1992

  (a) Newly qualified student nurses with employed status

  Not separately identifiable

  Not separately identifiable

  6,610 (not possible to separate (a) and (b))

  (b) Newly qualifying project 2000 students

  Not separately identifiable

  Not separately identifiable

  See (a)

  (c) Registered nurses entering the NHS after a period of unemployment

  Not separately identifiable

  Not separately identifiable

  2,050

  (d) Joined NHS units directly after being employed by another NHS unit

  21,600

  18,490

  Not separately identifiable

  (e) Joined NHS units directly after being employed in nursing

  6,790

  5,350

  Not separately identifiable. This would come under the categories of other

  Notes:

  1. For year ending 31 March 1990 information was not available from 11 data suppliers—regional health authority headquarters, district health authorities and the London ambulance service. Information for 1991 excludes 27 data suppliers who either did not supply data or whose data were unusable. Data for 1992 exclude three regions where complete information was not available.

  2. 32 per cent. (1990) and 39 per cent. (1991) of all joiners were recorded as sources not known. 19 per cent. (1992) of all joiners were recorded as "others". Data for 1992 exclude three regional health authorities where full recording was not possible.

  Source of data: KM45 return 1991 and 1990. KM48 1992.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish details of the average gross weekly earnings

  Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors estimated average weekly gross earnings of full time staff

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Grade

  Total1

  Basic pay

  Allowances

  Total1

  Basic pay

  Allowance

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Clinical Grade A

  169·3

  137·0

  32·3

  186·0

  151·3

  34·7

  Clinical Grade B

  194·4

  155·3

  39·1

  203·8

  163·4

  40·4

  Clinical Grade C

  230·0

  198·4

  31·6

  256·4

  220·1

  36·3

  Clinical Grade D

  234·8

  201·1

  33·7

  250·3

  215·0

  35·3

  Clinical Grade E

  272·4

  232·2

  40·2

  294·2

  250·7

  43·5

  Clinical Grade F

  320·2

  275·3

  44·9

  340·8

  294·6

  46·2

  Clinical Grade G

  354·7

  324·1

  30·6

  381·3

  349·3

  32·0

  Clinical Grade H

  376·6

  356·1

  20·5

  397·9

  378·8

  19·1

  Clinical Grade I

  428·7

  408·3

  20·5

  459·9

  439·3

  20·6

  1 Totals may not add up due to rounding.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish details of the numbers of unqualified NHS 30
  equivalent number of health care assistants or health care support workers employed wholly or primarily in nursing roles by the NHS in 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish details of the numbers of qualified nursing or midwifery staff joining the NHS in 1990, 1991 and 1992 who(a) were newly qualifying student nurses with employed status, (b) were newly qualifying project 2000 students, (c) were registered nurses entering the NHS after a period of non-employment, (d) joined NHS units directly after being employed by another NHS unit and (e) joined NHS units directly after being employed in other nursing, such as general practitioner nursing, nursing homes, independent hospitals, etcetera.

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

  and make-up of pay by type of pay or allowances for each of the clinical grades for nursing and midwifery staff in 1991 and 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table:

  nursing staff joining the NHS in 1990, 1991 and 1992, who were (a) joining directly after completing full-time education, (b) aged under 21 years, (c) joining from other

  31
  NHS units, (d) joining from other care sector employment, (e) joining from other employment, (f) joining from non-activity in the labour market and (g) joining from unemployment.

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

  Unqualified nursing staff joining the National Health Service; years ending 31 March:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Joining from other NHS units

  2,680

  2,340

  1—

  Joining from other care sector employment

  3,370

  2,810

  1—

  Joining from other employment

  4,070

  3,130

  1—

  1 Not collected.

  Notes:

  1. For year ending 31 March 1990 information was not available from 11 data suppliers—regional health authority headquarters, district health authorities and the London ambulance service. Information for 1991 excludes 27 data suppliers who either did not supply data or whose data were unusable.

  2. Some 32 per cent. (1990) and 39 per cent. (1991) of all joiners were recorded as "source of recruitment not known".

  Source of data: KM45 return 1991 and 1990.

  Number of dentists who have given notice to deregister adult and child patients—week ending 3 July 1992 to week ending 11 June 1993

  Family health services authority

  Number of dentists1 at 30 June 1992

  Number of dentists

  Adults

  Children

  Cleveland

  176

  7

  0

  Cumbria

  150

  23

  10

  Durham

  170

  5

  0

  Northumberland

  99

  5

  0

  Gateshead

  81

  4

  2

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  125

  0

  0

  North Tyneside

  75

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  51

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  88

  0

  0

  Humberside

  223

  47

  6

  North Yorkshire

  259

  46

  0

  Bradford

  175

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  65

  13

  5

  Kirklees

  135

  23

  0

  Leeds

  293

  61

  14

  Wakefield

  95

  2

  0

  Derbyshire

  286

  35

  0

  Leicestershire

  253

  15

  1

  Lincolnshire

  133

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  300

  77

  17

  Barnsley

  74

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  102

  6

  0

  Rotherham

  84

  6

  1

  Sheffield

  204

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  183

  14

  0

  Norfolk

  225

  51

  7

  Suffolk

  215

  7

  2

  Bedfordshire

  154

  4

  0

  Hertfordshire

  438

  23

  2

  Barnet

  176

  25

  2

  Brent and Harrow

  222

  4

  2

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  320

  1

  0

  Hillingdon

  98

  0

  0

  Kensington, Westminster and Chelsea

  268

  5

  0

  Essex

  456

  40

  5

  Barking and Havering

  112

  8

  1

  Camden and Islington

  197

  2

  0

  City and East London

  214

  16

  0

  Enfield and Haringey

  214

  3

  2

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  183

  8

  1

  East Sussex

  291

  26

  1

  32

  Prescribed Items (Cost)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated percentage of prescribed items dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors which cost less than 20p.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Approximately 5 per cent.

  Dental Health
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of dentists by family health services authority and in total who have given notice of their intention to deregister adults and children in the last two years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information available centrally is the number of dentists, by family health services authority and in total, who have given notice to deregister patients since 3 July 1992. This is shown in the table. We are advised by family health services authorities that they are able to assist patients who seek their help in obtaining national health service dentistry. Since July 1992 total registrations have increased by 2·63 per cent. from 27,314,952 to 28,034,677 as at 30 April 1993.

  Deregistration can occur for a number of reasons for example, patients moving away from the area, or dentists retiring and can be instigated by dentists or patients.
  33

  Family health services authority

  Number of dentists1 at 30 June 1992

  Number of dentists

  Adults

  Children

  Kent

  526

  206

  20

  Greenwich and Bexley

  170

  19

  0

  Bromley

  142

  38

  1

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  351

  28

  0

  Surrey

  496

  63

  0

  West Sussex

  298

  21

  0

  Croydon

  146

  18

  0

  Kingston and Richmond

  146

  5

  0

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  289

  30

  1

  Dorset

  235

  34

  0

  Hampshire

  531

  51

  1

  Wiltshire

  179

  15

  0

  Isle of Wight

  47

  12

  0

  Berkshire

  274

  55

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  256

  67

  0

  Northamptonshire

  144

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  208

  35

  2

  Avon

  375

  14

  0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  146

  65

  11

  Devon

  373

  151

  19

  Gloucestershire

  211

  48

  1

  Somerset

  152

  0

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  237

  14

  0

  Shropshire

  138

  6

  0

  Staffordshire

  268

  17

  5

  Warwickshire

  142

  5

  0

  Birmingham

  344

  7

  0

  Coventry

  94

  13

  1

  Dudley

  89

  0

  0

  Sandwell

  97

  0

  0

  Solihull

  70

  6

  1

  Walsall

  71

  0

  0

  Wolverhampton

  69

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  371

  17

  2

  Liverpool

  176

  54

  1

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  107

  7

  0

  Sefton

  116

  1

  0

  Wirral

  140

  15

  1

  Lancashire

  446

  155

  53

  Bolton

  93

  7

  2

  Bury

  77

  6

  2

  Manchester

  226

  1

  0

  Oldham

  91

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  73

  0

  0

  Salford

  95

  4

  0

  Stockport

  123

  4

  0

  Tameside

  81

  1

  0

  Trafford

  100

  14

  5

  Wigan

  109

  0

  0

  ENGLAND—TOTAL

  17,400

  1,941

  211

  1 Includes dentists who have a contract with more than one family health services authority.

  Dryburn Hospital
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the fulfilment of the statutory consultation period in respect of the scheme by Dryburn hospital to convert one of two paediatric wards into a day ward; how much money has so far been spent; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We understand that the North Durham district health authority is considering the future of these wards and will consult the community health council on any proposals for substantial variations to sevices, as required by the Community Health Council Regulations 1985.
  34

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the awards given to voluntary organisations under the section 64 general scheme of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 during the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Bowis
  In 1992–93, grants totalling £18·3 million were awarded under the section 64 general scheme to 312 voluntary organisations in England. This represents a real terms increase of nearly 8 per cent. over 1991–92 and of 47·5 per cent. over 1978–79. Details are given in the table.
  35

  Grants to voluntary organisations under S64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968—General Scheme (1992–93 Provisional Outturn)

  Organisation

  £

  Access Committee (England)

  155,000

  Action for Dysphasic Adults

  30,000

  Action for Sick Children

  70,000

  Action for Victims of Medical Accidents

  20,000

  Action on Disability and Development

  13,000

  Action on Smoking and Health

  241,500

  Action Resource Centre

  5,000

  ADFAM (Families and Friends of Drug Misusers)

  22,700

  Age Concern

  355,000

  Age Exchange Theatre Trust

  18,000

  Aid for Children with Tracheostomies

  9,930

  AIDS Ahead

  40,000

  AIDS and Housing Project

  29,000

  AIDS Care Education and Training (ACET)

  150,000

  AIDS Education and Research Trust

  10,000

  Alcohol Concern

  618,000

  Alzheimer's Disease Society

  168,000

  Amarant Trust

  9,000

  Amnesia Association

  6,000

  Angel Project

  6,500

  Arthritis Care

  15,000

  Association for All Speech Impaired Children

  5,000

  Association for Prevention of Drug Addiction

  7,878

  Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents

  48,700

  Association for Residential Care

  42,635

  Association for Stammerers

  17,000

  Association of Breastfeeding Mothers

  6,000

  Association of Disabled Professionals

  3,000

  Association to Aid the Sexual and Personal Relationships of People with a Disability

  39,500

  Babylife Support Systems (BLISS)

  11,000

  Barnados

  105,000

  Black HIV/AIDS Network (BHAN)

  40,000

  Blackliners

  40,050

  Bobath Centre

  18,000

  Body Positive

  50,000

  Brandon Centre

  15,000

  Breakthrough Trust

  40,000

  Breastcare and Mastectomy Association of GB

  25,000

  Bridge

  80,834

  Bridges

  5,000

  British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering

  300,000

  British Association for Services to the Elderly

  12,000

  British Association for the Study and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (BASPCAN)

  27,500

  British Association of Cancer United Patients (BACUP)

  16,000

  British Association of the Hard of Hearing

  55,000

  Britich Council of Organisations of Disabled People

  45,000

  British Deaf Association

  10,000

  British Fluoridation Society

  33,000

  British Institute of Industrial Therapy

  25,000

  British Institute of Mental Handicap

  30,000

  British Kidney Patient Association

  15,000

  British Organ Donor Society (BODY)

  5,000

  British Red Cross Society

  54,750

  Brook Advisory Centres

  111,500

  Cancer Relief MacMillan Fund

  30,050

  Cancer Research Campaign

  15,000

  Cancerlink

  43,900

  Care Resources for People Affected by AIDS/HIV (CARA)

  15,000

  Carers National Association

  220,000

  Catholic Child Welfare Council

  3,000

  Catholic Marriage Advisory Council

  44,310

  Centre for Accessible Environment

  70,000

  Centre for Applied Psychology of Social Care

  37,020

  Child Accident Prevention Trust

  103,000

  Child Care

  231,957

  Child Poverty Action Group

  18,000

  Child Psychotherapy Trust

  28,417

  Childline

  82,200

  Children's Legal Centre

  50,000

  Choices in Childcare

  17,996

  36

  Organisation

  £

  College of Occupational Therapists

  4,000

  Community Drugs Project

  6,500

  Community Hygiene Concern

  10,000

  Community Network

  10,000

  Compassionate Friends

  22,000

  Contact

  32,000

  Contact a Family

  80,000

  Continence Foundation

  26,250

  Coronary Prevention Group

  87,500

  Cot Death Society

  4,000

  Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People

  60,000

  Council for Disabled Children

  60,000

  Counsel and Care

  60,000

  Crohns in Childhood Research Association

  5,000

  Crossroads Care Attendant Schemes Ltd.

  130,000

  Crusaid

  10,000

  Cruse

  114,000

  Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust

  18,000

  Dark Horse Venture

  4,500

  David Hobman Charitable Trust

  5,000

  Daycare Trust

  30,000

  Dial UK

  45,000

  Disability Alliance

  30,000

  Disabled Housing Trust

  17,000

  Disabled Living Centres Council

  57,000

  Disabled Living Foundation

  337,000

  Disablement Income Group

  45,000

  Downs Syndrome Association

  15,000

  Dystonia Society

  2,304

  Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Association (DEBRA)

  11,000

  East London Asian Counselling

  24,000

  Eating Disorders Association

  29,000

  Elizabeth Fitzory Homes

  20,000

  Endometriosis Society

  15,000

  Enuresis Resource and Information Centre

  30,000

  Excel Employment

  20,000

  Exploring Parenthood

  14,000

  Extend

  20,000

  Family Heart Association

  27,400

  Family Planning Association

  120,000

  Family Policy Studies Centre

  140,000

  Family Rights Group

  48,995

  Family Service Units

  290,000

  Family Welfare Association

  106,000

  First Key

  118,832

  Foundation for Conductive Education

  20,000

  Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths

  34,500

  Foundation for Women's Health Research and Development (FORWARD)

  30,000

  Friends for the Young Deaf

  10,000

  Genetic Interest Group

  11,000

  Gingerbread

  78,000

  Globe Centre

  31,500

  Good Practices in Mental Health

  60,000

  Greater London Association of Alcohol Services

  6,196

  Guillain-Barre Syndrome Support Group

  9,000

  Haemophilia Society

  24,000

  Headway Association

  55,000

  Health Information for Nottingham Teenagers (HINT)

  36,000

  Heartline Association

  5,000

  Herpes Association

  18,500

  High/Scope UK

  8,000

  Holiday Care Service

  35,000

  Home Farm Trust

  20,000

  Home Start Consultancy

  100,000

  Homes for Homeless People

  48,000

  Hornsey Trust for Handicapped Children

  15,000

  Horticultural Therapy

  57,000

  Housing Campaign for Single Homeless

  36,500

  Hyperactive Childrens Support Group

  7,000

  Impact Foundation

  20,000

  In Touch

  3,000

  Independent Representation of Children in Need (IRCHIN)

  30,000

  Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence

  424,155

  37

  Organisation

  £

  Institute of Transcultural Health Care

  22,000

  International Social Service

  53,500

  ISSUE (was National Association for the Children)

  47,250

  Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled

  1,110

  Jubilee Sailing Trust

  20,000

  Kids

  15,000

  Kids Club Netword

  97,000

  Kings Fund Centre for Health Services Development

  129,500

  La Leche League of Great Britain

  10,000

  Landmark South London HIV Centre

  60,000

  Leisure Link

  15,000

  Leonard Cheshire Foundation

  75,000

  London Chinese Health Resource Centre

  45,840

  London East AIDS Network

  25,000

  London Lighthouse

  300,000

  London Voluntary Service Council

  31,000

  MacFarlane Trust

  155,233

  Mainliners

  40,000

  Manic Depression Fellowship

  16,000

  Marfan Association

  3,000

  Marie Curie Memorial Foundation

  20,000

  Maternity Alliance

  37,695

  MENCAP

  250,000

  Menieres Society

  8,000

  Mental After Care Association

  50,000

  Mental Health Foundation

  347,500

  Mental Health Media Council

  30,000

  Merseyside Drugs Council (Wirral)

  10,000

  Migraine Trust

  10,000

  Mildmay Mission Hospital

  150,000

  Miscarriage Association

  15,000

  Mobility Information Service

  13,000

  Motor Neurone Disease Association

  15,000

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association

  15,000

  NAFSIYAT (Intercultural Psychiatry)

  15,000

  National Aids Manual Charitable Trust

  25,000

  National AIDS Trust

  225,000

  National Association of Children with Congenital Abnormalities of the Lower Limbs

  11,000

  National Association for Maternal and Child Welfare

  17,000

  National Association for Mental Health (MIND)

  475,000

  National Association for Patient Participation

  7,000

  National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO)

  302,400

  National Association for the Limbless Disabled

  22,500

  National Association of Family Based Respite Care

  13,000

  National Association of Leagues of Hospital Friends

  20,000

  National Association of Toy and Leisure Libraries

  55,000

  National Association of Young People in Care (NAYPIC)

  20,900

  National Asthma Campaign

  15,000

  National Back Pain Association

  21,000

  National Childbirth Trust

  65,826

  National Childminding Association

  127,000

  National Children's Bureau

  414,800

  National Citizens Advocacy

  10,000

  National Community Health Resource

  8,000

  National Council for one Parent Families

  150,000

  National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO)

  125,000

  National Counselling and Welfare Service for Sick Doctors

  2,650

  National Development Team

  567,000

  National Federation of Kidney Patients

  12,500

  National Food Alliance

  31,000

  National Fostercare Assocation

  105,000

  National Information for Parents of Prematures (NIPPERS)

  11,000

  National Information Forum

  16,000

  National Institute for Social Work

  100,000

  National Meningitis Trust

  15,000

  National Organisation for Counselling Adoptees & Parents (NORCAP)

  8,000

  National Osteoporosis Society

  40,000

  National Playbus Association

  54,000

  National Schizophrenia Fellowship

  204,000

  National Self Help Support Centre

  47,500

  38

  Organisation

  £

  National Society for Phenileketonuria (United Kingdom) Ltd.

  6,000

  National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC)

  150,000

  National Society for Non Smokers (QUIT)

  85,380

  National Stepfamily Association

  20,000

  Naz Project

  27,000

  Neurofibromatosis Association (LINK)

  14,000

  New Horizons Trust

  7,000

  New Parent Infant Network (NEWPIN)

  60,000

  North Regional Association for the Blind

  69,391

  One to One

  15,000

  Outset

  25,000

  Overseas Doctors Association

  17,000

  Parent Network

  10,000

  Parent to Parent Information on Adoption Services

  6,500

  Parentline Opus

  40,000

  Parents against Injustice (PAIN)

  35,000

  Parents for Children

  12,000

  Parkinsons Disease Society

  25,162

  Partially Sighted Society

  10,000

  Patients Association

  20,000

  People First

  17,000

  Phobic Action

  20,000

  Phobics Society

  7,500

  Physically Handicapped and Able Bodied (PHAB)

  30,000

  Positively Women

  70,000

  Post Adoption Centre

  5,000

  Post Adoption Services

  5,000

  Prader Willi Syndrome Association UK

  4,000

  Pre-Retirement Association

  20,000

  Pre-School Playgroups Association

  570,000

  Primary Immunodeficiency Association

  8,000

  Prince of Wales Advisory Group on Disability

  112,500

  Queen Elizabeth Foundation for the Disabled

  54,000

  Rainer Foundation

  18,700

  Rape Counselling and Research Project

  20,000

  Relatives Association

  13,000

  Release

  2,958

  Remap Great Britain

  12,000

  Repetitive Strain Injury Association

  6,000

  Rescare

  15,000

  Research Trust for Metabolic Diseases in Children

  10,000

  Restricted Growth Association

  10,000

  Richmond Fellowship

  97,000

  Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR)

  225,000

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  246,600

  Royal National Institute for the Deaf

  105,870

  Royal Philanthropic Society

  6,000

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA)

  53,000

  Samaritans

  160,000

  Save the Children Fund

  20,000

  Schizophrenia A National Emergency (SANE)

  67,849

  Scoliosis Association UK

  2,000

  Sense (NADBRH)

  95,000

  Sequal

  25,000

  Sickle Cell Society

  30,000

  Skills for People

  11,000

  Society for Mucopolysaccharide Diseases

  4,000

  South Regional Association for the Blind

  145,000

  St. John Ambulance

  53,000

  Standing Committee on Sexual Abuse of Children (SCOSAC)

  20,000

  Standing Conference Ethnic Minority Senior Citizen (SCEMSC)

  20,000

  Standing Conference on Drug Abuse (SCODA)

  310,730

  Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society (SANDS)

  61,000

  Streetwise Youth

  20,000

  Stroke Association

  46,562

  Strutton Housing Association

  12,000

  Support After Termination for Abnormality (SATFA)

  21,250

  Tacade

  8,500

  Tavistock Clinic Foundation

  6,030

  Tay Sachs and Allied Diseases Association

  3,000

  Terence Higgins Trust

  450,000

  39

  Organisation

  £

  Tibbie Trust

  1,500

  Toxoplasmosis Trust

  10,000

  Tracheo Oesophageal Fistula Support (TOFS)

  2,000

  Tripscope

  4,000

  Tuberous Sclerosis Association

  9,000

  Turning Point

  148,200

  Twins and Multiple Births Association (TAMBA)

  18,000

  UK Association for the International Year of the Family 1994

  20,000

  UK Health for All Network

  30,000

  UK Rett Syndrome Association

  20,000

  UK Thalassaemia Society

  28,000

  United Response

  29,845

  Values Into Action

  15,000

  Vietnamese Mental Health Project

  10,000

  Vision Aid

  13,000

  Vocal

  28,750

  Voluntary Organisations Liaison Committee for Under Fives (VOLCUF)

  62,000

  Voluntary Aid Societies Emergency Committee

  23,901

  Walsingham Community Homes

  10,000

  Westminster Pastoral Foundation

  70,000

  Widows Advisory Trust

  18,000

  Winged Fellowship Trust

  10,000

  Women's Aid Federation (England)

  154,200

  Women's Health Concern

  22,000

  Women's Nationwide Cancer Control Campaign

  34,200

  Women's Therapy Centre

  25,000

  Working Mothers Association

  35,000

  Young Minds

  10,000

  Total Paid

  18,298,241

  Residential Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will raise the capital or savings limit of £8,000 over which a person must pay the full cost of a place in residential care; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The capital limit is kept under review, but we have no current plans for change.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have had to sell their homes in order to pay for the costs of care in a residential or nursing home since the implementation of community care on 1 April; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Cancer and Diet
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the setting up of a Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA) committee on cancer and diet, giving details of the terms of reference and the name of the chairman and members.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Kenneth Calman, in his role as chairman of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food (COMA), has asked Professor Alan Jackson, from the department of human nutrition at the university of Southampton, to chair a new working group. Its terms of reference are"To advise on the relationship between nutrition and the development of cancer and to make recommendations."

  Members of the COMA working group on diet and cancer will include:

  Dr. Sheila Bingham—Medical Research Council Dunn Clinical Nutrition Centre, Cambridge

  40

  Professor Nicholas Day—Professor of Public Health, University of Cambridge

  Professor Anthony Dayan—Department of Toxicology, St. Bartholomew's Hospital Medical School, London

  Dr. Michael Kemp—Medical Research Council, London (representing the secretariat of the UK Cancer Co-ordinating Committee)

  Dr. Barrie Margetts—Department of Human Nutrition, University of Southampton

  Professor James Parry—Department of Genetics, University of Swansea

  Dr. Stanley Vennit—Institute of Cancer Research Sutton

  Dr. Christine Williams—Nutritional Metabolism Group, School of Biological Sciences, University of Surrey

  The first meeting of the working group will be in July and the chairman hopes that the report will be ready in 1996.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 22 February,Official Report, columns 483–84, what information on NHS trusts her Department intends to include in the summarised accounts; and when she expects them to be published.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The summarised accounts of national health service trusts in England for 1991–92 comprise an income and expenditure account, a balance sheet and a cash flow statement together with notes to the accounts.

  Responsibility for the audit and publication of the accounts lies with the National Audit Office.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 620, if she will list those GP fund-holding units in the Yorkshire region which overspent their budgets in 1991–92; and what consequent action was taken by her Department.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally. It is for the Yorkshire regional health authority to take any action it considers appropriate.

  Anophthalmia and Microphthalmia
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research is being carried out into the existence of clusters of anophthalmic and microphthalmic suffering children in areas where Benomyl, Carbendazim or related products are being used; how many clusters of anophthalmic children have been located in the United Kingdom and in what areas; and how many children are affected;

  (2) what surveys she has commissioned as to what proportion of cases of anophthalmia and microphthalmia are caused by environmental factors.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: On the basis of available data, the evidence does not suggest an increase in anophthalmia or confirm the existence of clusters; nor is there any evidence to link Benomyl or similar products to these conditions. I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister for Health gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 20 May at column 259, for details of the research proposal. As designed, the research proposal will seek to examine cases of anophthalmia in Great Britain over the last five years so that an assessment can be made

  41
  about any differences between urban and rural areas and the geographical distribution of cases. The proposed study is restricted to anophthalmia because of the eKtreme difficulty in diagnosing the severity of microphthalmia in early life. The researchers intend to keep in close contact with colleagues at Moorfields eye hospital, who see a large proportion of these cases and are carrying out their own study into anophthalmia and microphthalmia, including geographical factors. This is due to be completed in October. This information will provide a sampling frame for any further studies which may be necessary.

  These studies will help us to find out more about these rare and tragic conditions, including any possible environmental factors.

  Information obtained from the register of congenital malformations maintained by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS), which maintains a record of congenital malformations registered in the first seven days of life, is contained in the table.

  Registrations of anophthalmia and microphthalmia in the first seven days of life

  (England and Wales)

  Year

  Anophthalmia

  Microphthalmia

  1976

  22

  17

  1977

  19

  10

  1978

  22

  11

  1979

  15

  7

  1980

  26

  8

  1981

  13

  15

  1982

  15

  12

  1983

  11

  11

  1984

  20

  14

  1985

  15

  17

  1986

  9

  9

  1987

  15

  9

  1988

  13

  5

  1989

  14

  13

  1990

  7

  8

  1991

  5

  10

  Source: OPCS congenital malformations register, unpublished.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Prosecutions
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will initiate a review of the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines on whether or not to prosecute.

  The Attorney-General
  The guidelines are set out in the code for Crown prosecutors. They are regularly reviewed by the Director of Public Prosecutions in consultation with the Law Officers.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the extent to which the CPS consults the police before it decides to discontinue a case.

  The Solicitor-General
  When considering discontinuance, Crown Prosecution Service lawyers are instructed to consult the police in all save the most exceptional circumstances.

  Police (Paperwork)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to reduce the volume of paperwork imposed on the police by the Crown Prosecution Service.
  42
  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service is committed to requiring from the police only such paperwork as the interests of justice dictate.

  Mr. Asil Nadir
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Attorney-General how many representations he has had from other hon. Members about the case of Mr. Asil Nadir.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 10 June, column 334.

  Lenient Sentences
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the use of his power to appeal against lenient sentences.

  The Attorney-General
  Since 1989, when the power to refer unduly lenient sentences was introduced, 117 references have been made to the Court of Appeal, which has increased just over 82 per cent. of the sentences it has reviewed.

SCOTLAND

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1992 and indicate, in each case, whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision, or whether the service was contracted out.

  Mr. Lang
  No market tests involving in-house bids have been completed since November 1992. Work is continuing on the market tests in my 1992–93 programme and I expect to make an announcement on the results of the programme later in the year.

  Drug Dealing (Evictions)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on how many persons since 1980 have been evicted from local authority or other public sector housing because of drug-dealing activities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Science and Technology
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will designate one of his Ministers to be responsible for his Department's contribution to the Government's science and technology "Forward Look".

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 16 June 1993]: Paragraph 2·37 of the recent White Paper "Realising Our Potential—A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology" describes the preparation of the "Forward Look" by the Office of Science and Technology. Government Departments will participate through the existing, well-established machinery of the official and ministerial Cabinet committees on science and technology.

WALES

  Tourism
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the income from tourism in Wales in 1992: and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  About £1·3 billion.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his assessment of the success of the World Health Organisation/Council of Europe initiatives to reduce drug misuse in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The fight against drug misuse in Wales is carried out on many fronts including the European Drug Prevention Week last November, which I judge to have made a very worthwhile contribution to all our efforts.

  Economy
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on prospects for the Welsh economy during 1993–94.

  Mr. Redwood
  The prospects are good: unemployment has started to fall, output is up and business confidence is high. The recovery is under way in Wales.

  Hospital Treatment
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients were treated in NHS hospitals in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what the figures were in 1979.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1991–92, the NHS in Wales treated 500,340 in-patients and 554,680 new out-patients compared to 349,700 and 428,740 respectively in 1979.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress is being made in the setting up of NHS trusts in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are currently 14 operational NHS trusts in Wales. My right hon. Friend has today initiated formal public consultation on 10 applications which he has received seeking NHS trust status from 1 April 1994.

  Hospital Beds
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of area health authorities in Wales to discuss future provision of hospital beds.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I am in continual contact with representatives of all health authorities in Wales and the former Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), and I met all chairmen on 15 April.
  44

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received on alterations to assisted areas in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since taking office, I have received several representations on the assisted areas review. We hope to make an announcement before the parliamentary recess, following the necessary clearance by the European Commission.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet the chairman of Targed to discuss the need to improve youth training opportunities in north-west Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The former Secretary of State met the chairmen of the Welsh training and enterprise councils regularly to discuss a range of issues and my right hon. Friend intends to continue that practice.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for inward investment from overseas into Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Wales continues to attract high levels of inward investment. In the 12 months to 31 May 1993, the 195 projects recorded promise in excess of 13,500 jobs, and a capital investment of almost £900 million.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase the financial resources of the Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Decisions on the agency's resources for future years will be decided in the course of the public expenditure survey in the usual way.

  Beach Pollution
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the awards by the Tidy Britain Group to Welsh resorts; and what steps are being taken to reduce sewage pollution on Welsh beaches which have failed to comply with mandatory EC coliform standards.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Over 90 per cent. of beaches nominated by Welsh local authorities were credited with national seaside awards by the Tidy Britain Group. This is a significant increase over the number of awards made last year and represents a substantial achievement requiring exacting standards of water quality and beach management.

  The large majority of bathing waters in Wales identified under the European Commission bathing waters directive already meet the directive's mandatory standards. A major investment programme is in hand by Dwn Cymru, most of which will be in place by the end of 1995, to enable all designated bathing waters in Wales regularly to meet these standards.
  45

  Constitutional Change
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received about constitutional change.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Ponty Brenin Primary School
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Ponty Brenin primary school in Gorseinon, Swansea to meet pupils and teachers to discuss his education policies.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to do so, but I shall bear the suggestion in mind in considering my next programme of school visits.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the Welsh unemployment figures.

  Mr. Redwood
  I welcome the four consecutive months of falling unemployment in Wales.

  National Eisteddfod
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what.plans he has to visit the national eisteddfod in Builth Wells; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received an invitation to the eisteddfod and will decide whether to attend nearer the time.

  Sex Discrimination
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many claims were made to tribunals in. Wales under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 for each year since 1979; how many separate employers were involved; how many of these claims were successful; and what was the average amount of compensation awarded in each year.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is not available prior to 1991–92. That which is available is given in the table:

  Claims made to tribunals under Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in Wales1

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Applications registered

  78

  106

  Number of respondents2

  70

  58

  Number of successful cases

  4

  0

  Average award

  £3,535

  —

  1 Provisional.

  2 The number of firms or individuals named in a case. There may be more than one per claim.

  Source:

  Central Office of the Industrial Tribunals.

  Head Injuries
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many deaths have occurred in each year since 1979 in Wales where the underlying cause of death was recorded as being from a head injury.
  46
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of deaths to residents of Wales in each year since 1979 where the underlying cause of death was recorded as being from a head injury are shown in the following table:

  Number

  1979

  295

  1980

  276

  1981

  231

  1982

  232

  1983

  210

  1984

  223

  1985

  242

  1986

  252

  1987

  227

  1988

  191

  1989

  236

  1990

  230

  1991

  218

  1992

  225

  Source:——Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  ICD 800–804 Fracture of skull

  ICD 850–854 Intracranial injury, excluding those with skull fracture International Classification of Diseases (9th Revision)

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of hepatitis C have been recorded(a) amongst registered drug users and (b) in total in Wales in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not available. Cases of hepatitis C are not separately notifiable.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing(a) the infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births and (b) the perinatal mortality rate per 1,000 total births in (i) Wales and (ii) each district health authority in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is published for the years 1986 to 1991 in the Welsh Office publication "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for Wales", No. 19 1992, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, together with the respective dates, those meetings of the EC Council of Ministers which were attended by ministers in his Department in the latest 12 months.

  Mr. Redwood
  Over the last year Welsh Office interests have been represented at EC meetings by ministerial colleagues from the lead department in the subject area concerned, and where relevant by senior officials from the Welsh Office to advise those Ministers. I will be visiting Commissioners in Brussels soon to pursue Welsh interests.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will give details of the number of unqualified NHS nursing staff joining the NHS in 1990,
  47
  1991 and 1992, who were (a) joining directly after completing full-time education, (b) aged under 21 years, (c) joining from other NHS units, (d) joining from other care sector employment, (e) joining from other employment, (f) joining from non-activity in the labour market or (g) joining from unemployment;

  (2) if he will give details of the number of qualified nursing or midwifery staff joining the NHS in 1990, 1991 and 1992 who were (a) newly qualifing student nurses with employment status, (b) newly qualifying Project 2000 students, (c) registered nurses entering the NHS after a period of non-employment, (d) joining NHS units directly after being employed by another NHS unit or (e) joining NHS units directly after being employed in other nursing;

  (3) how many qualified, unqualified and learner nursing staff joined the NHS in 1991 and 1992.

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

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will give details of the distribution of average gross weekly earnings per person for each of the NHS clinical nursing and midwifery grades, listing the percentages of each grade earning under(a) £140, (b) £150, (c) £170, (d) £180, (e) £190, (f) £200, (g) £210, (h) £220, (i) £230, (j) £240, (k) £250, (l) £275, (m) £300 and (n) those earning £300 and over, in 1991 and 1992;

  (2) what were the average gross weekly earnings and make-up of pay by type or allowance for each of the clinical grades for nursing and midwifery staff in 1991 and 1992.

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

  Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many qualified NHS nurses and midwives, unqualified NHS nursing staff, nursing learners there were in 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992 in(a) numbers and (b) as a percentage of the total NHS nursing and midwifery staff.

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

  Nursing and midwifery staff in post (whole-time equivalents (WTE)) as at 30 September

  Qualified

  Unqualified

  Learners

  Year

  WTE

  Per cent.

  WTE

  Per cent.

  WTE

  Per cent.

  1989

  17,850

  63·7

  7,069

  25·2

  3,118

  11·1

  1990

  17,986

  6·40

  7,031

  25·0

  3,075

  10·9

  1991

  18,010

  64·4

  7,019

  25·1

  2,934

  10·5

  11992

  18,096

  65·8

  7,355

  26·7

  2,069

  7·5

  1 Unqualified staff are staff paid as grade A, B or nursery nurses. The 1992 figures exclude about 64 whole-time equivalent nursing and midwifery staff employed by Pembrokeshire NHS trust for whom details of grade are not known centrally. In addition there are about 1,000 student nurses who have been reclassified as students following the introduction of Project 2000 nursing education reforms.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of junior doctors working an average of more than 83 hours a week in Wales on 1 April.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No junior doctors were contracted to work more than 83 hours per week on average, on 1 April 1993.
  48

  River Pollution
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to ensure that disused coal and metal mines do not leak dangerous chemicals into Welsh rivers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The National rivers Authority has been reviewing the extent of the problem of pollution from abandoned mines in England and Wales. The Government are, at the same time, considering the framework of legal responsibility for this pollution. Separately the authority's Welsh region is undertaking a survey, to which the Welsh Office is contributing, the objectives of which are to identify all ferruginous discharges emanating from or connected with abandoned coal mines in the region and to determine their impacts on the water quality, biological quality and fishery status of the receiving waters.

  Disused Quarries
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken in Wales to encourage the owners of disused quarries to restore them to a natural state; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Advice on the reclamation of mineral workings is given in the joint Department of the Environment/Welsh Office minerals planning guidance note 7 (MPG7). MPG7 refers to the derelict land grant scheme, administered by the Welsh Development Agency, which encourages the reclamation of derelict land to bring it back into beneficial use or to improve its appearance. The grant is available to private individuals and others.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the average council tax payment due in each district council area in Wales in the current financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  The average council tax set in each district council area in 1993–94 is given in the following table. The average amount due to be paid in each area will be reduced by the average council tax benefit granted for that area. Information on district benefit levels is not held centrally.

  £

  Alyn and Deeside

  366

  Colwyn

  352

  Delyn

  370

  Glyndwr

  355

  Rhuddlan

  354

  Wrexham Maelor

  343

  Carmarthen

  342

  Ceredigion

  356

  Dinefwr

  327

  Llanelli

  334

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  326

  South Pembrokeshire

  315

  Blaenau Gwent

  230

  Islwyn

  254

  Monmouth

  363

  Newport

  285

  Torfaen

  268

  Aberconwy

  322

  Arfon

  283

  Dwyfor

  301

  Meirionnydd

  308

  Ynys Mon

  319

  Cynon Valley

  218

  49

  £

  Merthyr Tydfil

  214

  Ogwr

  261

  Rhondda

  203

  Rhymney Valley

  235

  Taff Ely

  277

  Brecknock

  322

  Montgomeryshire

  296

  Radnorshire

  301

  Cardiff

  283

  Vale of Glamorgan

  316

  Port Talbot

  291

  Lliw Valley

  311

  Neath

  325

  Swansea

  334

  Total Wales

  301

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what local authorities in Wales he intends to cap in respect of council tax.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have today laid before the House a draft order, under section 57 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, setting out my decision on the final cap for Aberconwy borough council.

  On 26 April my predecessor announced that he proposed to designate Aberconwy borough council for capping. He proposed a cap of £8,566,950, a reduction of £167,745 on the authority's budget of £8,734,695. On 21 May, Aberconwy wrote to challenge the proposed cap and suggested an alternative amount of £8,734,695—the same as its original budget.

  In taking my decision, I have considered all the available relevant information, including the case made by

  Local Authority Budget Requirements, Non-Domestic Rales and Council Tax Income, 1993–94

  Budget requirement

  Income1 from non-domestic rates

  Income1 from Council Tax

  as a percentage of Budget requirement

  £000

  £000

  %

  £000

  Alyn and Deeside

  10,240

  2,256

  22

  1,784

  Colwyn

  7,709

  1,769

  23

  1,056

  Delyn

  9,016

  2,066

  23

  1,653

  Glyndwr

  5,347

  1,306

  24

  731

  Rhuddlan

  8,795

  1,721

  20

  1,226

  Wrexham Maelor

  16,453

  3,530

  21

  2,616

  Carmarthen

  7,818

  1,737

  22

  1,108

  Ceredigion

  10,063

  2,101

  21

  1,611

  Dinefwr

  5,675

  1,211

  21

  753

  Llanelli

  13,807

  2,331

  17

  2,471

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  10,844

  2,161

  20

  1,157

  South Pembrokeshire

  7,034

  1,286

  18

  529

  Blaenau Gwent

  15,004

  2,339

  16

  988

  Islwyn

  11,133

  2,026

  18

  967

  Monmouth

  9,725

  2,351

  24

  1,932

  Newport

  22,929

  4,068

  18

  2,664

  Torfaen

  13,811

  2,742

  20

  1,594

  Aberconwy

  8,890

  1,709

  19

  1,434

  Arfon

  9,519

  1,713

  18

  1,117

  Dwyfor

  5,958

  859

  14

  613

  Meirionnydd

  6,175

  1,029

  17

  1,086

  Ynys Mon

  11,490

  2,117

  18

  1,954

  Cynon Valley

  12,992

  1,983

  15

  909

  Merthyr Tydfil

  11,986

  1,785

  15

  754

  Ogwr

  20,603

  4,056

  20

  1,988

  Rhondda

  17,225

  2,406

  14

  914

  Rhymney Valley

  15,707

  3,079

  20

  1,437

  Taff Ely

  14,977

  2,960

  20

  2,157

  Brecknock

  6,279

  1,282

  20

  1,123

  50
  the authority in support of a higher cap, and the impact of the flooding in the borough as a result of the severe weather between 10 June and 12 June 1993.

  As a result, I have decided that in the current circumstances of the authority it would not be reasonable to proceed with the cap proposed by my predecessor and I have therefore decided to set the cap at £8,734,695—the level of Aberconwy borough council's original budget.

  My decision arises from wholly exceptional circumstances in Aberconwy because of the flooding and the substantial unforeseen costs which the authority will have to bear, even allowing for assistance under the Bellwin scheme which I announced on 14 June. In the absence of the flooding, I would have proceeded to cap the borough council's budget at the proposed level and on the basis of the estimates it has given me, I still expect the council to draw on its reserves and make savings on its original budget to pay for the extra expenditure and revenue loss caused by the floods. The council and other authorities in Wales should be clear therefore that I am determined to ensure that all local authorities in Wales budget in line with my plans in future years.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing(a) the budget requirement, including parish precepts of all local authorities in Wales, (b) the income per council from non-domestic rates as a total figure and as a percentage figure and (c) the income in respect of council tax.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is given in the table:
  51

  Budget requirement

  Income1 from non-domestic rates

  Income1 from Council Tax

  as a percentage of Budget requirement

  £000

  £000

  %

  £000

  Montgomeryshire

  6,863

  1,638

  24

  1,136

  Radnorshire

  3,346

  744

  22

  506

  Cardiff

  45,949

  8,809

  19

  6,153

  Vale of Glamorgan

  15,981

  3,482

  22

  2,988

  Port Talbot

  8,817

  1,567

  18

  688

  Lliw Valley

  8,638

  1,923

  22

  914

  Neath

  10,693

  2,030

  19

  1,578

  Swansea

  32,839

  5,774

  18

  3,267

  Clwyd

  278,044

  54,972

  20

  42,305

  Dyfed

  254,100

  47,060

  19

  36,586

  Gwent

  298,182

  58,790

  20

  35,172

  Gwynedd

  166,715

  32,285

  19

  23,310

  Mid Glamorgan

  384,800

  70,710

  18

  36,533

  Powys

  91,966

  15,927

  17

  11,031

  South Glamorgan

  271,855

  53,424

  20

  31,576

  West Glamorgan

  255,681

  49,089

  19

  34,847

  Total Districts

  460,330

  87,944

  19

  57,556

  Total Counties

  2,001,343

  382,256

  19

  251,360

  Total Wales

  2,461,673

  470,200

  19

  308,916

  1 Including community council precepts.

  Housing Management
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what date he plans to implement compulsory competitive tendering of local authority housing management in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) on 17 December 1992,Official Report, columns 313–14.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further representations he has made to the German Government over the proposed transport of toxic waste from Germany to the ReChem incineration plant at Pontypool.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government have made no further representations.

  NHS Trusts (Chief Executives)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the advertisements placed in the press by his Department for each of the positions of NHS trust chief executives in Wales.

  Annual average daily flows

  Road

  Section

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  M4

  Newhouse to Magor

  39,200

  44,000

  44,300

  43,400

  45,100

  M4

  Magor to Coldra

  —

  45,900

  45,800

  45,200

  47,000

  M4

  Coldra to Caerleon

  —

  64,650

  71,600

  66,700

  67,500

  M4

  Caerleon to Malpas

  67,200

  74,900

  76,900

  76,950

  77,500

  M4

  Malpas to Tredegar Park

  —

  78,900

  81,100

  81,000

  81,800

  M4

  Tredegar Park to Castleton

  —

  66,000

  71,400

  68,500

  74,200

  M4

  Castleton to Coryton

  35,000

  38,000

  43,000

  40,850

  42,700

  Note: All flows 24 hour annual average daily flows.
  52
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The responsibility for the placing of any such advertisement rests with the individual NHS trust.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to assess the views of the public on the extent of the historical and community links between Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr in relation to the proposed new unitary authority combining the two district boroughs.

  Mr. Redwood
  I shall give very careful consideration to all the views that have been received.

  M4
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures of traffic flows on the M4 from(a) New House roundabout to Coldra, (b) Coldra to Malpas interchange, (c) Malpas to Tredegar park and (d) Tredegar park to Tongwynlais; and what they were for the previous four years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Traffic flows on the M4 between Newhouse and Coryton are as follows:
  53

DEFENCE

  RAF Flying Hours
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the figures for the average number of hours flown by RAF crews indicating time spent at(a) low-level flying and (b) medium-level flying in each year since 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received on the subject of compensation for members of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  About 40 representations have been received on this matter from hon. Members since the beginning of the year.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his Department's policy to compensate those veterans who were exposed to damaging levels of radiation during testing between 1952 and 1967; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government would consider sympathetically a claim for compensation on behalf of any ex-service man who suffered illness from radiation through participation in the British atmospheric nuclear test programme. Not a single case of illness, however, has ever been shown to have been so caused. Almost all the personnel involved received little or no radiation from the nuclear tests. There is no evidence of increased mortality or of increased overall cancer incidence among British nuclear test veterans.

  Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to amend the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987 so that claims would be permissible for accidents that occurred before 15 May 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government have no plans to amend the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987.

  The question of whether the change made in 1987 should be retrospective was fully debated in the House at the time. It was decided that the new Act would not be retrospective. I see no reason to take a different view now.

  Intellectual Property Rights
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what response he has made to requests to protect intellectual property rights after contractorisation.

  Mr. Aitken
  Any information transferred to a contractor is subject to a standard obligation of confidence which limits the use of the information to the purposes of the contract.
  54

  Anti-Missile Systems
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what projects he is engaged in, and with which partners, to explore the possibility of theatre anti-missile protection systems.

  Mr. Aitken
  We are currently engaged in a NATO ballistic missile defence (BMD) study based on a postulated risk of accidental or deliberate ballistic missile attack against NATO in the post-cold war era. We are also defining an internal pre-feasibility study into possible BMD systems to counter potential threats against the United Kingdom and our forces deployed overseas.

  Upholder Submarine
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence upon what date it was decided not to proceed with the planned expenditure of £3·5 million on moving the Upholder class of submarine from Gosport to Devonport.

  Mr. Hanley
  No such decision has been taken, but no further expenditure will be committed until the future of the Upholder class has been decided.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officially recognised apprenticeships have been completed by persons employed by his Department in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, over the past 10 years the Ministry of Defence has recruited some 8,300 civilian apprentices into disciplines recognised by the national trade unions.

  The intake numbers were as follows:

  Number

  1983

  1,257

  1984

  1,260

  1985

  1,034

  1986

  1,025

  1987

  674

  1988

  691

  1989

  683

  1990

  708

  1991

  574

  1992

  393

  Aircraft Incident (Taunton)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that the hon. Member for Taunton is sent a report on the outcome of the inquiry into the incident over the Taunton area on 15 June, when a Royal Navy aircraft dropped its fuel tanks; and if he will make an interim statement.

  Mr. Hanky
  I can confirm that a Navy Sea Harrier operating in the Taunton area on 15 June suffered an electrical fault which caused its two external fuel tanks to be released. The tanks landed in fields. There were no injuries. An investigation is currently in hand and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member when this has been completed.
  55

  Gulf Trust Fund
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been released to date from the Gulf Trust fund; and to how many recipients.

  Mr. Hanley
  Total expenditure to date from the Gulf Trust is £753,857, some of which has been in the form of loans on beneficial terms. Recent payments made by the benevolent funds have yet to be reimbursed from the Gulf Trust. 161 beneficiaries have so far been provided with assistance from the trust together with four charitable bodies and three charitable funds.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to review the supervision of the advice given on training to clients of his Department by departmental offices and by agencies to whom clients are recommended for training.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Employment Service (ES) advisers are trained in techniques to diagnose client need so that they may suggest a suitable job or training opportunity. If a client feels they have been misinformed, the ES operates an easy to use complaints system.

  Someone who is interested in training and enterprise council (TEC) provided training will be given more detailed guidance by the training body or an independent guidance agency appointed by the TEC. TECs are required to operate quality control procedures and will take up any complaint made to them by a client.

  I have been advised that these procedures are working in a broadly satisfactory way and there is no need for a fundamental review. Guidance can, however, be a complex area and clients are occasionally misinformed. Where these cases are brought to our attention the matter is always investigated.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to increase the allowances paid to young people on the youth training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are no plans to increase minimum youth training (YT) allowances. Minimum YT allowances are set at levels which reflect the fact that trainees are involved in the learning process and I believe current levels are sufficient to meet the normal requirements of trainees living in the parental home.

  Trainees who live independently may apply for income support if they consider their income is insufficient to meet their needs. Employers are the main beneficiaries of the Government's investment in training and are strongly encouraged to supplement trainee incomes—an estimated 30 per cent. of YT trainees are employed and receive wages.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to ensure that representatives of district and borough councils are appointed to the boards of the TECs; and if he will make a statement.
  56
  Miss Widdecombe
  It is for TECs themselves to decide the membership of their boards within the broad framework set out in their contract with my Department. I am satisfied that TEC boards have adequate representation of their local authorities.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), of 14 June,Official Report, column 452, what definition of apprenticeships was used in in his answer; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Respondents to the Labour Force Survey self-classify themselves when answering appropriate questions about apprenticeships. However, if clarification is needed interviewers are provided with the following guidance note:'Normally an apprenticeship commences at the age of 16 or 17 and is usually completed by the age of 21 after a minimum of three years.

  Include:

  Indentured apprenticeships;

  Those registered with a national body, eg. National Joint Council for the Building Industry;

  Persons with an employer's certificate of completion;

  Those recognised by an industrial training board or by a trade union for membership purposes;

  Articled clerks—those serving a period of training as accountants, solicitors etc;

  Hairdressers who are undergoing a planned training programme.

  Exclude:

  Persons who have been upgraded through informal (or formal) training and/or experience;

  Architectural draughtsmen.'

  Apprenticeships are only part of the system of delivering vocational training. The 1980s saw the introduction, and expansion, of training for young people through the youth training initiatives. In addition, many young people opt to acquire vocational training through the further education system.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many fully indentured apprenticeships have been completed in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many of those persons who are recognised by the labour force survey as having completed an apprenticeship in 1992 had taken in excess of two years' training to achieve it.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what circumstances TECs finance apprenticeships which take in excess of two years to complete; and how many such apprenticeships were funded by TECs during 1991.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) provide training opportunities under youth training (YT) for young people leading to approved qualifications at or above national vocational qualification level 2 standard. A TEC may support a young person undergoing apprenticeship training for the duration of the apprenticeship period, subject to the trainee remaining under 25 years of age. The Labour Force Survey shows that some 52,000 apprenticeships were operating under YT in the spring of 1991.
  57

  Federation of Economic Development Authorities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has now replied to the letter dated 20 May to his Department from the Federation of Economic Development Authorities in relation to each of the points raised with him in that letter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Yes. I replied on 3 June.

TRANSPORT

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if ho will place in the Library a copy of the European Commission's reasoned opinion on the environmental impact of the proposed east London river crossing and its effect on Oxleas wood.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) on 18 May 1993,Official Report, columns 92–93.

  Underground Rail Systems
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to which other major European cities have underground rail systems which either break even or make an operating profit.

  Mr. Norris
  Detailed information on the financial performance of underground railway systems outside Britain is not collected by the Government. In any case, direct comparisons between complex systems operating under very different financial regimes are extremely difficult to make.

  Public Transport Demand
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration in his evaluation of the potential application of road pricing to inner London has been given to the impact on public transport demand, particularly on London Underground; and if road pricing assessments will include an evaluation of how far the public transport system can cope with the additional demand without significant modernisation.

  Mr. Norris
  The likely impacts on public transport demand will be estimated as part of the evaluation exercise on city congestion charging in London.

  West Coast Line
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the plans for the upgrading of the west coast line.

  Mr. Freeman
  Re-equipping the west coast main line is an investment priority. I understand that British Rail has set aside funds for design work and plans to begin renewing the infrastructure next year. Decisions on the precise phasing of the renewal programme will need to have regard to public expenditure constraints.
  58

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that contractors constructing the channel tunnel rail link use main arterial routes only;

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that contractors constructing the channel tunnel rail link locate their work sites so as to avoid disturbance to homes.

  Mr. Freeman
  Union Railways is currently preparing a code of practice for construction as part of its environmental handbook, which will be published in due course.

  Motor Cycles
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will continue to resist proposals for outlawing motor-cycles by the European Community where the power is in excess of 100 brake horse power.

  Mr. Key
  The EC Council of Ministers adopted on 14 June a common position on the proposal for a directive on motor cycle power, which will permit higher powered motor cycles up to a limit of 94kW (125bhp) to be approved for registration in the United Kingdom until the end of the century. The proposal will now go to the European Parliament for Second Reading. It would be premature to speculate on the outcome.

  Traffic Regulation Conditions (Buses)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many traffic regulation conditions involving bus services have been recommended by the traffic commissioners, and how many he has refused, in each year since 1985;

  (2) what factors he takes into account when determining his response to a traffic regulation condition involving bus services.

  Mr. Freeman
  Traffic regulation conditions are determined without reference to the Secretary of State, by traffic commissioners, who are quasi-judicial independent bodies. They may only be imposed if commissioners are satisfied that they are required to prevent danger to road users or to reduce severe traffic congestion.

  An appeal may be made to the Secretary of State against the determination of the traffic commissioner. Factors to be taken into account in deciding the appeal will vary according to the nature of the appeal, but a pre-condition is that the traffic commissioner has acted within his powers.

  The number of traffic regulation conditions imposed each year since 1985 is as follows:

  Number

  1985

  Nil

  1986

  2

  1987

  9

  1988

  5

  1989

  1

  1990

  1

  1991

  1

  1992

  3

  TOTAL

  22

  59
  There have been five appeals against traffic regulation conditions made to the Secretary of State since 1985. Three were dismissed; one was allowed; and one was allowed in part, but the traffic regulation condition was varied.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what consideration he has given to the financial and environmental benefits of increasing weight limitations on heavy goods vehicles;

  (2) what plans he has to increase weight limitations on heavy goods vehicles.

  Mr. Key
  We are considering the responses to a consultation paper we issued on a proposal to increase the maximum gross weight to 44 tonnes for six-axle articulated lorries and drawbar trailer combinations carrying goods to and from railheads. Some respondents have argued that there are benefits in allowing such a weight increase more widely. The financial and environmental factors are among those that we shall take into account in coming to a decision.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the result of the Transport Council held in Luxembourg on 7 and 8 June 1993.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 June 1993, c. 383–84]: The Transport Council resumed on 19 June the meeting that it had held on 7 and 8 June. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council resolved the long-standing issues of road freight vehicle taxation and charging of road freight cabotage. This agreement was fundamentally based, as the Danish presidency acknowledged, on work carried out by the United Kingdom presidency. I am delighted to say that this completes the single market in transport and that British interests were fully protected. This agreement will provide a significant opportunity for British hauliers in European markets.

  The Council agreed that the definitive Community arrangements on road haulage cabotage—the right to carry loads within another country—will come into force on 1 July 1998. The present Community cabotage authorisation and quota system will continue until then, with the total quota for the Community for two month cabotage authorisations being increased on 1 January 1994 to 30,000, and annually from 1 January 1995 by 30 per cent.

  The Council agreed on a broad framework to be applied by all countries in introducing permits, as indicated as one option in our Green Paper "Paying for Better Motorways". The details of this are entirely consistent with the options I set out in the Green Paper.

  The Council agreed that the maximum annual user charge for road freight vehicles should be 1,250 ecu, to be reviewed every two years, with the first review by I January 1997. The definition of roads that may be covered is essentially motorways and similar roads, with a possible extension to other roads under a Community procedure.

  The Belgian, Danish, German, Luxembourg and Netherlands delegations announced that they had reached an agreement on a common user charge system for their territories, under which one permit will cover the use of roads in all five countries. This will be better for British
  60
  hauliers than individual charges in each of the member states. The agreement provides for charging to start from 1 January 1995, with reduced charges for the first three years for Greek transport operators and for the first two years for Irish and Portuguese.

  The Council agreed on minimum rates of vehicle tax, and that until the end of 1997 five member states can apply rates up to 50 per cent. below the minimum rates.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners (Mortgages)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has of the number of pensioners who own their own homes and have repaid their mortgage.

  Mr. Hague
  In 1989, the latest year for which figures are available, over half of all pensioners owned their own homes, Of these, 94 per cent—or 3·5 million—owned their own homes outright with no mortgage commitments.

  Unemployment
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to re-include 16 to 18-year-olds who are out of work and not in education into unemployment registers.

  Mr. Burt
  None. All 16 to 18-year-olds have available to them either employment, further education or a guaranteed training place.

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1992 and indicate, in each case, whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision, or whether the service was contracted out.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 24 February at column 618. There have been no further market tests completed by this Department since that date.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) whether sufferers from Huntington's disease, motor neurone disease and ataxia are to be excluded from eligibility for assistance by the independent living (1993) fund; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what criteria will be used to identify those terminally ill disabled people who are to be excluded from assistance by the independent living (1993) fund.

  Mr. Scott
  Questions of eligibility for assistance from the independent living (1993) fund are a matter for the trustees of the fund.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he will take to provide support for severely disabled people who are terminally ill following the decision to exclude them from assistance by the independent living (1993) fund.
  61
  Mr. Scott
  Support for people who are terminally ill is already provided in many forms by statutory, voluntary and charitable agencies.

  Pensions
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many married women between the ages of(a) 60 to 65 years, (b) 65 to 75 years and (c) 75 to 85 years do not qualify for a retirement pension or occupational pension;

  (2) how many married men between the ages of (a) 60 to 65 years, (b) 65 to 75 years and (c) 75 to 85 years are receiving a retirement pension or an occupational pension;

  (3) how many married couples over 65 years are dependent on the husband's retirement or occupational pension.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available. Neither the retirement pension statistics nor the family expenditure survey—upon which the pensioner income series is based—provide reliable information on both the state retirement pension and the occupational pension received by members of married couples.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of raising the basic state retirement pension to a level at which income support and housing benefit would cease to be payable to pensioners; and by how much the standard rate of income tax would have to be raised to raise the same sum.

  Mr. Hague
  The additional cost of increasing the basic retirement pension to the higher pensioner rate of income support would be £3·4 billion. This represents a full-year extra cost in 1993–94 net of savings made by the consequent reduction in spending on income related benefits.

  The basic rate of income tax would have to be increased by 8p to raise this amount.

  It is not possible to estimate a level of retirement pension at which all pensioners cease to be eligible for housing benefit as entitlement depends on the level or rent paid, and rents vary widely. As an illustration of the cost involved I estimate that it would cost £11·2 billion net in 1993–94 to increase retirement pensions to a level vihere income support and housing benefit entitlement would cease for pensioners paying the average local authority weekly rent paid by pensioners in receipt of housing benefit—£26·64 in May 1991, the latest available figures.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will revise the current disability handbook on myalgic encephalomyelitis to reflect(a) its severe disabling nature and (b) recent research findings;

  (2) if he will transfer the entry on myalgic encephalomyelitis in the disability handbook from the chapter on chronic fatigue syndromes to the chapter on certain neurological disorders.

  Mr. Scott
  The entry on myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) in the "Disability Handbook" is currently being revised and will be transferred to the chapter on "Certain Neurological Disorders", when the revision is complete. It will reflect the consensus view of the nature and severity of the condition, taking into account recent research evidence.
  62

  National Insurance
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many employed earners paid national insurance contributions at the contracted-out standard rate; and how many people earned above that year's upper earnings limit for national insurance purposes, in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Hague
  About 9·6 million employed earners paid some national insurance contributions at the standard contracted-out rate in 1990–91.

  In the same year, 1·8 million of all contributors who paid class 1 contributions had earnings at or above the annual earnings limit.

  Source: DSS internal sample of 1 per cent. of national insurance contributors.

  State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals currently(a) contribute towards a state earnings-related pension, (b) do not pay SERPS because they are in an occupational scheme, and (c) do not pay SERPS because they are in a personal pension scheme.

  Mr. Hague
  During 1990–91, the latest year for which information is available, employed earners paid national insurance contributions as follows:

  Great Britain millions

  (i) At the standard not contracted out rate

  11·6

  (ii) At the contracted out rate because of membership of an occupational pension scheme

  8·2

  (iii) A mixture of both (i) and (ii) above

  1·4

  (iv) At the standard not contracted out rate (included in (i) and (iii)) but subsequently had a rebate of contributions paid into an appropriate personal pension

  4·1

  Source: 1 per cent. sample of national insurance contribution records.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many members of personal pension schemes who have opted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme he expects to opt back into SERPS over the next five years;

  (2) how many members of personal pension schemes who opted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme have opted back into SERPS.

  Mr. Hague
  It is not possible to estimate the numbers of people likely to opt back into the state earnings-related pension scheme (SERPS), since the decision as to whether or not to opt back depends on an individual's particular circumstances.

  We estimate that some 76,500 United Kingdom personal pension holders had rejoined SERPS by the end of 1990–91, the latest year for which figures are available. This estimate is based on a 1 per cent. sample of national insurance contributors and may include people who have left and rejoined SERPS more than once.
  63

  Social Fund (Rent Deposits)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the pilot scheme enabling people to receive payments from the social fund for rent deposits to report on the pilot project.

  Mr. Scott
  There is no such scheme. However, the Department of the Environment is currently funding a pilot rent deposit scheme as part of the rough sleepers initiative in central London.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to study the implications of the transfer of housing benefit administration from local authorities to the Benefits Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  There are no proposals for such a transfer. In March this year the Department issued guidelines designed to help individual local authorities to make informed decisions about whether or not to contract out those aspects of benefit administration which the law permits.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department are taking to increase the take-up of housing benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  Information on housing benefit is available at all Benefits Agency and unemployment benefit offices, although, as responsibility for the administration of housing benefit lies with individual local authorities, they are in the best position to undertake local publicity and initiatives to improve local take-up.

  Latest estimates of housing benefit take-up, for 1989, which were published earlier this year, show 91 per cent. of available benefit being claimed.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce compensation to tenants when local authorities do not issue interim payments for housing benefit purposes.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no such plans. Local authorities are responsible for the administration of housing benefit and it is for them to decide whether any recompense should be made following their investigation of individual complaints. In addition, if the local government ombudsman finds maladministration and injustice in a particular case, the judgement can include a recommendation about financial compensation.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to issue a national form for reporting change of circumstances for housing benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no such plans. Full statutory responsibility for the administration of the housing benefit scheme rests with local authorities. That responsibility extends to the design and production of appropriate claim forms. Authorities may produce supplementary forms where they consider it would help to streamline benefit administration.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out in a table for every year since 1984 the amount of housing benefit going to tenants(a) in local authority housing, (b) in housing association properties and (c) in private rented housing; and if he will make a statement.
  64
  Mr. Hague
  The available information is in the table.

  1 2Rent Rebates

  1 3Rent Allowance

  £ million

  £ million

  1983–84

  1,980

  536

  1984–85

  2,146

  687

  1985–86

  2,296

  881

  1986–87

  2,419

  996

  1987–88

  2,506

  1,030

  1988–89

  2,718

  1,055

  1989–90

  2,946

  1,337

  1990–91

  3,345

  1,596

  1991–92

  3,659

  2,399

  41992–93

  4,445

  2,903

  Source:—The source of the data is the departmental report.

  1 Rent rebates are housing benefit in respect of local authority tenants; rent allowances are housing benefit paid to tenants in privately rented accommodation.

  2 Includes transitional payments introduced when the responsibility for housing benefit was fully transferred from supplementary benefit to housing benefit. (1983–84)

  3 Separate information for housing associations is not available; information for these properties is included with rent allowance.

  4 Estimated outturn.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the average council rent is the maximum non-dependant deduction for housing benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  The maximum non-dependant deduction in 1993–94 is estimated to represent approximately 65 per cent. of the average local authority rent in Great Britain.

  Fraud
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress his Department has made in encouraging local authorities to reduce council tax and housing benefit fraud; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The Department has recently undertaken several initiatives to heighten fraud awareness amongst local authority staff and to encourage local authorities in their anti-fraud work:From April 1993 authorities will not only receive an increase in benefit subsidy, from 25 per cent. to full rate, for overpayments resulting from fraud but authorities will also share in benefit savings they achieve above specific baseline figures.
  In May 1993, a model national fraud service level agreement was signed, which had been prepared by the Department, in consultation with the local authority associations and the Benefits Agency. The agreement provides a framework for effective two-way liaison between fraud sections in local authorities and Benefits Agency sector fraud.
  In 1992–93, the Department, in conjuction with the Benefits Agency training unit, offered free fraud training to authorities and funds have now been secured for further training in 1993–94.
  The Department will be involved in and do all it can to support the newly formed London-wide team of local authority specialists which has been set o up to co-ordinate authorities' anti-fraud efforts across borough boundaries.

  Local Authorities (Rents)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to implement the Audit Commission's recommendation that local authorities should be able to apply to the rent officer every six months.

  Mr. Burt
  Under current arrangements, local authorities cannot normally refer to the rent officer for a fresh
  65
  determination within a period of 12 months, but there are circumstances in which referral within this period is permitted. We have no plans to amend the general 12-month referral period.

  Income Support (Mortgage Interest)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants were paid income support for mortgage interest in each year since 1988(a) as a total, (b) who were pensioners, (c) who were unemployed and (d) who were disability premium recipients; and if he will provide an annual cost for each category in both current prices and 1988 prices.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Income support recipients with mortgage interests considered in their assessments

  Number of cases

  Annual equivalent amount of mortgage interest

  £

  1988

  Total

  300

  285,600

  Pensioners

  75

  37,300

  Unemployed

  125

  138,200

  Disability premium recipients

  26

  25,700

  Others

  —

  —

  1988–89 prices

  Total

  300

  285,600

  Pensioners

  75

  37,300

  Unemployed

  125

  138,200

  Disability premium recipients

  26

  25,700

  Others

  —

  —

  1993–94 prices

  Total

  300

  372,906

  Pensioners

  75

  48,702

  Unemployed

  125

  180,447

  Disability premium recipients

  26

  33,556

  Others

  —

  —

  1989

  Total

  281

  353,000

  Pensioners

  74

  51,200

  Unemployed

  91

  135,700

  Disability premium recipients

  31

  38,100

  Others

  85

  128,000

  1988–89 prices

  Total

  281

  331,2270

  Pensioners

  74

  48,042

  Unemployed

  91

  127,330

  Disability premium recipients

  31

  35,750

  Others

  85

  120,105

  1993–94 prices

  Total

  281

  432,480

  Pensioners

  74

  62,728

  Unemployed

  91

  166,254

  Disability premium recipients

  31

  46,678

  Others

  85

  156,820

  1990

  Total

  310

  553,400

  Pensioners

  88

  81,200

  Unemployed

  87

  194,500

  Disability premium recipients

  37

  62,600

  Others

  99

  215,100

  1988–89 prices

  Total

  310

  480,772

  Pensioners

  88

  70,543

  66

  Number of cases

  Annual equivalent amount of mortgage interest

  £

  Unemployed

  87

  168,974

  Disability premium recipients

  37

  54,384

  Others

  99

  186,870

  1993–94 prices

  Total

  310

  627,740

  Pensioners

  88

  92,108

  Unemployed

  87

  220,628

  Disability premium recipients

  37

  71,009

  Others

  99

  243,995

  1991

  Total

  411

  949,200

  Pensioners

  87

  93,100

  Unemployed

  161

  442,000

  Disability premium recipients

  45

  94,700

  Others

  118

  319,500

  1988–89 prices

  Total

  411

  773,104

  Pensioners

  87

  75,828

  Unemployed

  161

  360,000

  Disability premium recipients

  45

  77,131

  Others

  118

  260,226

  1993–94 prices

  Total

  411

  1,009,436

  Pensioners

  87

  99,008

  Unemployed

  161

  470,049

  Disability premium recipients

  45

  100,710

  Others

  118

  339,775

  1992

  Total

  499

  1,143,200

  Pensioners

  90

  94,100

  Unemployed

  216

  596,800

  Disability premium recipients

  53

  104,600

  Others

  141

  347,800

  1988–89 prices

  Total

  499

  899,627

  Pensioners

  90

  74,051

  Unemployed

  216

  469,644

  Disability premium recipients

  53

  82,314

  Others

  141

  273,697

  1993–94 prices

  Total

  499

  1,174,635

  Pensioners

  90

  96,688

  Unemployed

  216

  613,211

  Disability premium recipients

  53

  107,476

  Others

  141

  357,364

  Source: Income Support Statistics Annual Inquiries, May 1988 to 1992.

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand. Cost figures are given to the nearest hundred thousand pounds.

  2. Figures are given for the numbers of income support recipients who have mortgage interest considered iri their assessment. The annual costs have been estimated from the weekly amount of mortgage interest considered in the assessment. In practice the amount of income support paid to the recipient may be reduced due to assumed contributions from non-dependants living in the household.

  3. Some "Pensioners" may also receive a disability premium. These people have been counted as "Pensioners" rather than "Disability premium recipients".

  4. Costs at 1988 prices have been calculated using the gross domestic product deflator.
  67

  Walsall Council (Bus Passes)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 10 June,Official Report, column 333, when he expects to conclude his discussions with Walsall council over its refusal to comply with legislation allowing blind people in receipt of the disability living allowance to have the concessionary bus pass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We remain engaged in discussions with the council and hope to conclude them in the near future. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the discussions are completed to let him know their outcome.

  Industrial Deafness
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were in receipt of(a) invalidity pension and (b) invalidity allowance owing to being incapable to work because of industrial-induced deafness in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claimants of invalidity benefit in each constituency in the London borough of Brent are aged to(a) 18 to 30 years, (b) 31 to 40 years, (c) 41 to 50 years and (d) 51 to 65 years;

  (2) how many claimants of invalidty benefit there were in (a) the London borough of Brent and (b) the Brent, South parliamentary constituency at the latest available date.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many male and female claimants of invalidity benefit there were in Pendle in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of invalidity benefit in Pendle are aged(a) 18–30 years, (b) 31–40 years, (c) 41–50 years and (d) 51–65 years.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people currently in residential care are in receipt of invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the proportion of registered disabled persons currently in receipt of invalidity benefit.
  68
  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were in receipt of(a) invalidity pension and (b) invalidity allowance for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is in the table.

  Numbers receiving invalidity pension and invalidity allowance

  Date

  Invalidity pension

  Invalidity allowance

  2 June 1979

  609,900

  505,100

  31 May 1980

  614,500

  512,100

  30 May 1981

  632,600

  533,000

  29 May 1982

  683,100

  575,400

  2 April 1983

  736,800

  364,000

  31 March 1984

  797,000

  665,500

  30 March 1985

  848,900

  708,200

  5 April 1986

  899,200

  516,400

  4 April 1987

  967,900

  508,400

  2 April 1988

  1,047,500

  509,100

  1 April 1989

  1,126,000

  518,100

  31 March 1990

  1,208,900

  523,300

  30 March 1991

  1,306,000

  534,600

  Notes:

  1. Based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants; the latest date for which information is available is 30 March 1991.

  2. The estimated average number of people receiving invalidity benefit at any one time during 1992–93 is 1,490,000 (source: departmental report).

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give for each benefit office the number of claimants in receipt of invalidity benefit in May 1979 and at the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information is not available.

  Industrial Disablement Pension
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people received industrial disablement pension in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is in the table:

  Estimated average numbers of recipients1 at any one time

  Thousands

  Period

  Number

  1979–80

  270

  1980–81

  265

  1981–82

  260

  1982–83

  265

  1983–84

  265

  1984–85

  260

  1985–86

  265

  1986–87

  285

  1987–88

  290

  1988–89

  295

  1989–90

  295

  1990–91

  305

  1991–92

  295

  1992–93

  295

  1 The information is taken from departmental reports. The figures include recipients of industrial injuries disablement pension and/or reduced earnings allowance.

  69

  DSS Employees (Fraud)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many DSS employees have been charged with fraud in each year since 1979; what was the value of this fraud; and what is the estimated total value of frauds committed by DSS employees for each of those years.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  Information is not available for the period 1979 to 1983, and only partial details are available for the period 1984 to 1987. There is no basis on which to estimate the total value of unknown fraud committed. The figures in column 4 relate to the value of fraud on the part of DSS employees detected each year. Where criminal prosecution was not considered to be appropriate the incidents were dealt with by internal disciplinary measures.

  Year

  Number of staff prosecuted

  Amount of fraud involved (£)

  Known total value of internal fraud

  1984

  9

  35,816·39

  —

  1985

  4

  41,484·88

  —

  1986

  3

  13,563·27

  —

  1987

  10

  22,911·09

  —

  1988

  1

  4,206·05

  7,802·33

  1989

  1

  42,924·80

  57,628·31

  1990

  1

  34,084·90

  55,933·91

  1991

  1

  46,649·07

  160,040·53

  1992

  3

  106,961·35

  160,276·76

  1993

  3

  93,617·25

  195,635·93

  Mr. Terry Green
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what consideration he gave in deciding to appoint Mr. Terry Green as a non-executive director with the Benefits Agency to his immediately preceding status as a civil servant in the agency;

  (2) if he will publish the terms and conditions relating to the recent appointment of Mr. Terry Green as a non-executive director of the Benefits Agency.

  Mr. Hague
  The appointment of non-executive members of the Benefits Agency management team is 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 M. Richard to Mr. John McAllion, dated 18 June 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what consideration he gave in deciding to appoint Mr. Terry Green as a non-executive director with the Benefits Agency to his immediately preceding status as a civil servant in the Agency and if he will publish the terms and conditions relating to his appointment of Mr. Terry Green as a non-executive director of the Benefits Agency.
  We have recently been looking, within the Benefits Agency, at the roles and responsibilities of the directors who form the Benefits Agency Management Team. We concluded that it would be appropriate to reduce the number of full-time executive directors from six to five, but that it would also be desirable to appoint two part-time non-executive members of
  70
  the Team, particularly to contribute to the strategic thinking of the Agency. I have been very pleased to appoint Terry Green as a non-executive member of the Management Team with a special interest in customer service issues. In that role he will be able to develop the work he led on customer service when he was employed by the Agency.
  The terms and conditions relating to this appointment are not yet the subject of a formal contract but it has been agreed that Mr. Green will work for three days a month. Details of an individual's remuneration are regarded as confidential, but the daily fee payable to Mr. Green is well within the normal range for this type of appointment. He will also be reimbursed travel and subsistence expenses in accordance with the normal Benefits Agency rules. His immediately preceding status as a civil servant was relevant only to the extent that he is able to bring to our deliberations considerable knowledge of customer services issues in the Benefits Agency. The normal rules of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme relating to re-employment will be applied.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Comfrey
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if individuals may import comfrey products for their private use; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The advice of the Government's independent expert committees is that consumption of comfrey products containing high levels of pyrrolizidine alkaloids may give rise to toxic effects in humans. With the co-operation of the principal health food trade associations, I have taken action to protect consumers by securing the removal of relevant products from sale. However, this is not a legislative prohibition.

  Tobacco Subsidy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the EC subsidy for tobacco growing in ecu and sterling for 1991 and 1992; and what is the estimated level for 1993.

  Mr. Jack
  Community expenditure on tobacco amounted to 1,330 mecu (£931 million)1 in 1991 and 1,233 mecu (£873 million)2 in 1992. For 1993, the last year in which the unreformed regime applies, it is forecast at 1,401 mecu (£1,110 million)3.

  1 £1 = 1·4291 ecu

  2 £1 = 1·4130 ecu

  3 £1=1·2617 ecu

  Agriculture Council (Voting)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 27 May,Official Report, columns 687–88, what were the voting figures for each decision taken at the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 24 and 25 May; and if she will make it her policy to include in future statements on council meetings information on whether formal votes were taken.

  Mr. Jack
  The Agriculture Council, which met from 24 to 27 May, reached agreement in principle on the 1993 price proposals and related measures; no formal vote was taken. The various measures were adopted at the subsequent Council on 14 June. No formal vote was taken
  71
  but five member states registered votes against a measure increasing milk quotas and one against a measure extending the sugar regime. My right hon. Friend and I will in future indicate in statements on Council meetings whether formal votes were taken.

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the current criteria for grant-aiding coast protection and sea defence works; what changes she is expecting to make in the criteria; how much of the East Anglian coastline she expects to meet the criteria in the next two years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The basic criteria for grant-aiding coast protection and sea defence works are that they should be technically sound, economically worth while and environmentally acceptable. The protection of life is the paramount objective, but in considering applications for grant aid, there is a presumption that natural coastal processes should not be disrupted except where life or important natural or man-made assets are at risk. In recent months, the Ministry has published revised and expanded guidance on project appraisal and new guidance on environmental aspects of coastal defences, so that operating authorities are aware of how the criteria are applied. Application of the criteria is kept under review, but no changes are foreseen at present.

  The need for improvements to some coastal defences in East Anglia is recognised. Several major grant-aided schemes are already under way or in the course of preparation. It is not possible to say how much of the East Anglian coastline will meet the critera for grant aid in the next two years, as it is for the local operating authorities, in the first instance, to decide what schemes to bring forward for approval. However, it is likely that a major part of the Ministry's grant provision will continue to be directed to the Anglian region.

  Sea Level
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies her Department has conducted in the last five years into the impact to the British coast which would be caused by a rise in the sea level of a quarter of a metre; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Ministry continues to fund a number of flood and coastal defence research projects relating to climate change and possible sea level rise, designed to ensure that we are in a position to assess the likely impact on the coast and to plan our response. These include the assessment of changes in the probability of sea levels in storms and of the impact of any changes in wave and storm climate on beaches. In addition, the Ministry funds a national system of tide gauges and recent work has been carried out to relate these to a global reference system so that changes in sea level and geological movements can be separately identified.

  A further item of research the Ministry has sponsored in the period mentioned involved an economic appraisal of the consequences of climate-induced sea level rise for the East Anglian coast between Hunstanton and Felixstowe, which was carried out by the university of East Anglia. The research indicated that a strategy of raising defences
  72
  as required would be economically worth while and current Ministry advice is that new or improved defences should include an allowance for future sea level rise based on estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  Equine Viral Arteritis
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) of 10 June,Official Report, columns 307–8, whether national provisions in force at the time the stallion which was possibly infected with equine viral arteritis was imported into the United Kingdom afford the same degree of protection to the United Kingdom as the provision set out in article 20(2) of the EC directive 90/496/EEC, (a) against inadequate third country veterinary certification and (b) when equidae are, or are suspected of being, infected with or contaminated by an infectious or contagious disease.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The animal health rules applicable to the import of horses into Great Britain at the time the stallion was imported were of at least equivalent effect to those now required under EC rules. Where there is evidence of inadequate veterinary certification, this is always taken up with the country concerned.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when regulation No. 3295 implementing Council directive 90/496/EEC came into force; on what date article 27 of that directive stipulates that it should have been brought into force in the United Kingdom; what are the reasons for the difference in dates; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No. 3295) came into force on 1 January 1993.

  Article 27 of directive 90/426/EEC required member states to bring into force implementing laws, regulations and administrative procedures from 1 January 1992. The provisions were implemented in Great Britain under existing legislation pending the coming into force of SI 1992 No. 3295.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when her Ministry first received representations from the Animal Health Trust that a relaxation in the rules governing the import of horses and farmed livestock would make the United Kingdom vulnerable to equine viral arteritis.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  As soon as it was realised that specific provisions in relation to EVA were not to be included in the EC animal health rules of equidae, the industry was advised to strengthen the existing voluntary code of practice designed to guard against the introduction of disease into the breeding stock.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the timing of the implementation of directive 90/496/EEC, on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae, had with respect to the importation of horses infected with equine viral arteritis and farmed livestock testing sero-positive to foot and mouth.
  73
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The timing of implementation of directive 90/426/EEC, which does not apply to farmed livestock, has had no effect on the importation of horses infected with EVA.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what measures are presently in place, or are due to be implemented, which might restrict the United Kingdom's ability to halt the importation of animals infected with equine viral arteritis or other non-notifiable diseases;

  (2) whether the United Kingdom is able to act independently of other EC nations within the context of the European single market, to protect against the importation of equidae infected with equine viral arteritis and farmed livestock testing sero-positive to foot and mouth.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  EC rules require that animals entering the Community or moving between member states must be certified as free from clinical signs of disease. Member states may return animals not complying with this requirement.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action the Government are taking to ensure that equine viral arteritis is included on the list of notifiable diseases listed in schedule 5 to the Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) Regulation 1992.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  None, because EVA is not required under EC rules to be notifiable in member states.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a vaccine will be available to tackle equine viral arteritis virus; and why stocks were not available in the United Kingdom for immediate use.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  An application for an inactivated vaccine has recently been received by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and is being assessed as quickly as possible.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the most recent figures on the number of premises and horses known to have been infected with equine viral arteritis.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  According to information provided by the Animal Health Trust, active infection has been found on six of 14 premises currently under voluntary movement restrictions. Eighty-eight horses have, to date, tested seropositive.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what national rules have been in force pending the implementation of directive 90/496/EEC; and what protection these rules provided against the importation of equidae infected with equine viral arteritis.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  National rules in force prior to implementation of directive 90/426/EEC required horses to be tested seronegative to equine viral arteritis prior to importation.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action her Department is taking to assist in the eradication of equine viral arteritis from the United Kingdom; and by when she expects eradication to have been achieved.
  74
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) on 10 June 1993, columns 307–308.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research her Ministry has financed towards the development of a genetically engineered killed vaccine for equine viral arteritis.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  None, although research into the equine viral arteritis virus is currently taking place at the Central Veterinary Laboratory, Weybridge and the Animal Health Trust, Newmarket for which a total of £0–25 million has been allocated over three years.

  Animal Imports
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list each country from which horses and cattle cannot be imported into the United Kingdom until a quarantine requirement has been fully met.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Current animal health rules for imports of horses and cattle into the United Kingdom do not include any quarantine requirements, although imports from a number of countries are subject to pre-export or post-import isolation.

  Animal Diseases
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list those animal diseases currently present in the EC but not in the United Kingdom, which are not listed as notifiable diseases, and against which the United Kingdom is, or will be, prevented by EC legislation from imposing import restrictions on horses and farmed livestock.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Member states are only required to report to the Commission and each other outbreaks of diseases which are notifiable under EC rules. Information on non-notifiable diseases is only available from a variety of sources and is not comprehensive or necessarily current.

  Food From Britain
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the level of funding given to Food From Britain for each of the last five years and the projected funding for each of the next three years.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 June 1993]: The information is as follows:

  Government grant to Food From Britain

  £000

  1988–89

  4,186

  1989–90

  4,500

  1990–91

  4,500

  1991–92

  4,500

  1992–93

  4,757

  1993–94

  15,010

  1994–95

  25,249

  1995–96

  25,400

  1 Estimate.

  2 Provision.

  Sheep Quotas
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what financial support she plans to provide for those farmers deprived of sheep quota after the national reserve is exhausted; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) when she expects to announce details of the distribution of reserve sheep quotas;

  (3) if she will publish, on a regional basis, the number of farmers deprived of quota as a result of the new sheep quota regulations.
  76
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 17 June 1993]: Producers who received sheep annual premium in 1991 and claimed in 1992 have an automatic entitlement to sheep quota. Where producers are not covered by the automatic rules, they will be able to apply for quota to the national reserve, if they fall into certain priority categories. All farmers, including those who are unsuccessful in obtaining quota from the national reserve, will be able to acquire quota through the transfer and leasing provisions the Government have negotiated. It is expected that details of the distribution of the national reserve quota for sheep will be made available later in the summer.

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

Albania: UK Diplomatic Representation
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on British diplomatic representation to Albania.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Albania were restored on 29th May 1991. The British Ambassador to Albania is resident in Rome; a chargé d'affaires is resident in Tirana.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Mindful of Albania's need for assistance, both financial and diplomatic, in adjusting to the outside world and to democracy, will she reconsider their offer to provide a building in settlement of our claim arising from the destruction of the British legation which has so far been rejected on the grounds of cost?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever for that question. We are in discussion with the Albanian Government over compensation for the 1939–40 legation building. Our handling of this matter necessarily has to take into account the capital costs which might be involved in accepting a building for our embassy since that would be likely to be more expensive than renting space at the French Embassy, which we do currently.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is an excellent example where a small mission—indeed, a mini-mission—might be appropriate with a relatively junior but talented young member of the diplomatic service as our ambassador?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for that question. We do have a mini-mission there already, albeit with a chargé d'affaires. The first chargé d'affaires there was indeed a young man—a former assistant private secretary of mine who ran it very well from the beginning and who has been recognised for doing so. We now have two young people there, both doing an excellent job in support of British political and commercial interests.
We are mindful of the need to provide assistance. We shall seek to do so through the know-how funds which we extended to Albania last July. Bilateral aid now goes through that route. We are helping quite considerably, although in a small way as yet.
Lord Amery of Lustleigh: My Lords, am I right in thinking that one of the main objectives of government policy is to prevent the war in Bosnia from sliding into a conflict in Kosovo or Macedonia? In view of the fact that Albania is both geographically and ethnically closely connected with both, is it really wise not to have a listening post nearer than Rome, at a rather critical period in Balkan international history? Does it really make sense for British representation to be limited to accommodation in the basement of the French Embassy, albeit that it is a friendly power?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand what my noble friend Lord Amery of Lustleigh says very well indeed. We have more than a listening post in the French Embassy, albeit in a small way. We listen and have good contact also with members of the Albanian Government. But we must do this in a way in which we can both fund and use it to the fullest extent. We are seeking to do that at present. We are in close touch with President Berisha

3
whom I met in Ankara last month. The Foreign Secretary is very much in touch with him. I too hope that President Berisha will soon be able to visit Britain. So our contacts are in place and our listening is good. We, together with our European partners, will do all that we can to make sure that we use all available information to prevent any spreading of the Balkan crisis.

Sunday Trading
2.41 p.m.
Lord Campbell Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, when proposing options to replace the Shops Act, they will refrain from proposing any restrictions on Sunday trading in Scotland.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): Yes, my Lords.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reassuring reply. Did he see the letter in The Times last Tuesday from the Keep Sunday Special Campaign mentioning an option extending to Scotland? As Scotland is not affected by the Shops Act, and has had no restrictions within living memory, would it not be retrograde to disturb a voluntary system of Sunday trading that has been working well for many years?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did see the letter to which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy refers. I agree with him that Scotland does not wish to be regulated. According to a recent poll, only 8 per cent. of the people in Scotland want any regulation. The system has worked there very well in the past and we have no intention of changing it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the other advantages about Scotland is that, following the letter from the Keep Sunday Special Campaign to which the noble Lord referred, what is shown about the Scottish experience is how little Sunday is disturbed by Sunday trading?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. That is the experience of the people in Scotland.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Scottish example is an extremely good one which, in that respect at least, we should follow?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is one of the arguments, though not the only one. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that it is quite a forceful argument.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that whenever I have had the pleasure and privilege of going to Scotland I have been impressed by the quietness of everything on a Sunday and by the fact that I have seen very few shops open?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, whenever I have had the privilege of going to Scotland my experience has
4
always been that I have been entertained by the amount of noise and happiness there. However, I agree that in Scotland the opening of shops on Sundays does not seem to have had a material or disastrous effect.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a little over 20 per cent. of shops open on Sundays, although they are free to do so, and that it has been estimated that a larger proportion of the population in Scotland goes to church on Sundays than is the case in England?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, Scotland has always had a fairly severe discipline of puritanism which has not necessarily been reflected in England.

Benlate: Safety
2.44 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ban the use of the fungicide Benlate until the result of an inquiry into whether it causes children to be born without eyes is known.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, we greatly sympathise with families with children who are born without eyes. However, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides has examined, in the past 15 months, the data relating to benomyl (the active ingredient of Benlate) on two occasions. On both occasions it advised that there was no need for concern over its continued use in the UK. A ban would therefore not be appropriate.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, but is he aware that the very many women who have given birth to children who have no eyes—some 30-odd in the past few months—will not be particularly enamoured of that Answer? Would he be prepared to contact those scientists and researchers who have shown, not absolutely beyond peradventure but as a grave possibility, that the fungicide Benlate can be very dangerous? They are asking—these are not my words—whether its use should be stopped until the full inquiry which the Minister has announced has reported. Until then, should we be taking such a dreadful risk with other people's as yet unborn babies?
Earl Howe: My Lords, perhaps I should emphasise to the noble Lord that anophthalmia, the condition of being born without eyes, is very rare indeed. The figures that I have with me show that between 1980 and 1992 an average of 14 anophthalmia cases occurred each year. There is no perceptible trend in those figures over the period. The Government take this matter very seriously and, as well as consulting the ACP, we have invited the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine to submit research proposals for an epidemiological study of anophthalmia. Those are now being considered as a matter of urgency.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, while sympathising with those parents who, tragically, have had children born to them without eyes, does my noble friend agree

5
that many medical scare stories arise as a result of unconfirmed experiments? Therefore, is it not quite right that the Government have instituted confirming experiments and, in this case, have come to the particular view that they have?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. All the evidence suggests that the press have made links and suppositions that are not supported by the facts. As I said, anophthalmia is a very rare condition. Its incidence is not increasing. One cause is known to be genetic; another is German measles. Benomyl has been marketed in this country for many years and its toxicological profile is well established.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on 29th March, in a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Ashley, he confirmed that no research studies had been conducted on humans into links between the use of pesticides and eye defects, and that in a further Written Answer on 14th April, he confirmed that the Advisory Committee on Pesticides had not examined the data on benomyl in those areas where it is used but had relied instead on information from California? In the light of that lack of information about experience in the UK, why has the Department of Health not yet responded to the proposals for a research study from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, to which he referred? The Department of Health actually asked for those proposals from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in March. In the light of the very distressing nature of the eye condition and the lack of information, should not the Government be moving rather more quickly on this matter since they asked for the research proposals in March and have not yet responded to them?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that there is no delay. The Department of Health has taken steps to streamline the necessary procedures for committing public moneys to this significant research project It went out for peer review last month. The time allowed for that process was six weeks, and the contract for the study by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine should shortly be cleared by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is it an absolute fact that there will be a full-scale investigation into this horrible substance, which very responsible researchers have claimed is the cause of children being born without eyes? Will the Government's researchers contact the people who have made and stand by those statements? Is the Minister aware that it has now been discovered that it is not a good thing even to spray crops or animal feed with this particular substance?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I take due note of the last part of the noble Lord's question and I shall look into it. As regards the first part of his question, Moorfields Eye Hospital, with geographers from Lancaster University, are conducting research into cases of anophthalmia and microphthalmia which are known to them. The Department of Health's expert
6
independent advisers will review all data on anophthalmia and microphthalmia and examine Moorfields' study as soon as it is available.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the data which the Ministry has available indicate that on the introduction of this fungicide there was an increase in the number of those suffering from the condition, or has there been a continuing level going back many years?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the only figures that we have date back to 1976. Benomyl was first marketed in the UK in 1969 but we are attempting to collate details dating back further than those which we have.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, do the Government conduct any independent research for themselves as regards agricultural pesticides or do they rely entirely on the manufacturers' data?
Earl Howe: My Lords, by far the largest section of the R&D budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods is devoted to pesticides.

Bank of England: 1993 Accounts
2.51 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the explanations in the 1993 annual accounts of the Bank of England, there is any continuing support for "small banks". and whether the provision against loss already provided in the accounts of £115 million is likely to be increased for the current year.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, this is a matter for the Bank of England. The Bank made a public statement on 25th March 1993. Since then it has published its annual report and accounts for 1993 and the Banking Act Report for 1992–93, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House and which contains more detail.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that parsimonious reply. Does he agree with me that the whole purpose of this undisclosed support operation by the Bank of England was to persuade depositors that all was well with their chosen banks and to induce them not to move? Does he further agree that a deliberate policy decision was taken riot to disclose this massive support operation or the perceived £25 million provision for losses in the accounts of the Bank of England for 1992, which is the year previously? Has the Treasury considered the implications of a prima facie breach of Section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986 which, whether the Treasury likes it or not, is the law of the land and applies to the Bank of England just as much as it applies to the rest of us? May I remind the noble Earl—
Noble Lords: No. Order!
Lord Spens Lord Spens: My Lords, does the noble Earl understand that the relevant ingredients of Section 47 are:

7
"Any person who … makes a statement … which he knows to be misleading, false or deceptive … for the purpose of inducing … another person … to enter into, or to refrain from entering into … an investment agreement"?
Noble Lords: Order! Reading!
Lord Spens: My Lords, that person is guilty of a criminal offence. In the circumstances—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Spens: My Lords, in the circumstances will the Minister instruct the Crown Prosecution Service, in the public interest, to investigate, with a view to initiating proceedings against the Bank of England, its directors and officers—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is at the end of his question and that the House would like to hear the reply.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the matters to which the noble Lord refers are, as I said in my original Answer, for the Bank and its auditors. The purposes of the support operations which the Bank conducted were and are to avert more widespread difficulty in the financial sector, which would impact on other institutions, their depositors, businesses and the economy more generally. I shall, of course, look into some of the detail which the noble Lord mentioned in his many supplementary questions. As far as we are aware there is no reason to question the Bank's judgment.
Lord Richard: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that in 1991 the Bank faced losses in this area of £25 million and that last year it faced losses of £90 million? We do not know what the losses will be this year. While the Minister can take refuge in saying that it is a matter for the Bank of England, is not the Treasury at least concerned that the Bank of England can make a miscalculation costing £115 million?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is a separate question from that on the Order Paper. I would not agree with the terminology used by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition in describing the operation. It is, of course, a matter for the Bank and the auditors.
Lord Richard: My Lords, with great respect, it really is not a separate question; it flows naturally from the Question on the Order Paper and the Answer which the Minister gave. Therefore, I ask him yet again whether the Government are not concerned by the fact that the Bank miscalculated, which cost it £115 million.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I would not agree with the noble Lord's terminology of "miscalculated". The Bank undertook a support operation, which is quite in order under the powers granted to it by the Act of Parliament and described lucidly in the Bingham Report.

Business
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 Report stage of the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill will be taken, followed by the Third Reading of the Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, and four Motions for approval. Lastly, the order of commitment to the Merchant Shipping (Registration, etc.) Bill will be discharged.

Education Bill
2.55 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.
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. 235A:
After Clause 193, insert the following new clause:—
Exemption where child attains 5 years during term
(". Where—

(a) a child attains the age of five years during the school term of a grant-maintained school, and

(b) arrangements have been made for the admission of the child to that school at the start of the next school term,

then, during the period beginning with his attaining that age and ending with the start of that next school term, section 36 of the Education Act 1944 (duty of parents to secure the education of their children) and section 183 of this Act shall not apply to the child.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor technical amendment. It is necessary to ensure that parents of children who reach the age of five in the middle of a school term have equal access to grant-maintained and LEA-maintained primary schools. The Education Act 1948 made it clear that, where a child reaches compulsory school age in the middle of a school term, an LEA-maintained primary school may defer his admission until the beginning of the next term. The 1948 Act also provided that in such a case the parent of a child was not to be under any duty to secure the child's full-time education until the beginning of the next term if it were not practical to do so before that date.
There is no similar provision in relation to grant-maintained schools. The intention of the amendment is simply to plug that gap. It will prevent parents from being required to secure the attendance of their child at school where he or she reaches the age of five part-way through the school term, but they have been offered a place at a grant-maintained school at the beginning of the next term. They will be entitled to keep their child out of school for the remainder of the term rather than accept a place at another school. The amendment simply brings the treatment of

9
children about to attend grant-maintained schools in line with those about to attend LEA schools. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister two specific questions. First, is the background to the amendment the anticipation that grant-maintained schools will have different term arrangements from LEA schools? Secondly, why is it not envisaged that the provision will apply to LEA schools?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought I had made it clear that under the 1948 Act it does apply to LEA schools. The amendment simply plugs the gap so that children intending to go to grant-maintained schools should be treated in exactly the same way as those about to attend an LEA school. Under the 1948 Act there is power for the LEAs to treat children about to attend an LEA school in that way. We simply omitted to make such a provision for grant-maintained schools. The amendment brings the two into line.
The background to the amendment is not that there should necessarily be different dates for school terms as regards grant-maintained and LEA schools. That will be a matter for the schools themselves. The amendment simply brings the treatment of children about to go to grant-maintained schools in line with that of those about to attend LEA schools. I hope that with that assurance noble Lords will accept this government amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3 p.m.
Clause 194 [Extension of the Education (Schools) Act 1992]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 235B:
Page 119, line 41. at end insert:
(""appropriate appointing authority" means, in relation to any aided or special agreement school—

(a) the appropriate diocesan authority, if it is a Church of England school, Church in Wales school or Roman Catholic Church school, and

(b) in any other case, the person who appoints the foundation governors").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee I brought forward two sets of amendments: first, to give a new power of appointment of additional governors in the case of failing voluntary schools; and secondly, to ensure consultation with the Churches on the membership of any education association established to conduct a voluntary school.
The right reverend Prelate expressed anxieties about the bodies named in the amendments. As a result, I withdrew them and agreed to consult further. The amendments now before your Lordships reflect further discussions with the Churches and I am grateful for their co-operation on this important issue.
This amendment and Amendments Nos. 235B, 238A, 239A, 240A, 240B, 271E, 275B, 276A and 276B relate to the appointment of additional governors in cases where schools are deemed to be "at risk". Amendments Nos. 235B, 275B and 276A define the appropriate appointing authority. Amendment No. 240B allows the appropriate appointing authority to appoint such number of additional foundation governors as it thinks fit.
In the case of Church of England schools, the board of education for the diocese in which the school is situated will have the power of appointment. In the case of a Church in Wales school, the relevant diocesan board of finance will usually have that power. In the case of a Roman Catholic school, the bishop of the relevant Roman Catholic diocese will have the power. In the case of other voluntary aided schools, the persons who appoint foundation governors will have the power.
Amendments Nos. 238A, 239A and 240A to Clauses 199, 200 and 201 of Part V add those bodies to the list of those to whom copies of inspection reports, action plans and LEA commentaries on voluntary aided schools are sent.
Amendment No. 241D concerns the issue of consultation on the membership of an education association established to conduct a voluntary school. In Committee I sought to amend the Bill to require the Secretary of State to consult the person who appoints the school's foundation governors on membership. Again, we have had useful discussions with the Churches on this issue and the amendment names the appropriate diocesan authorities, as defined in Amendments Nos. 275B and 276A, as the people who should be consulted except where the schools are not Church of England, Church in Wales or Roman Catholic schools, when the person who appoints the foundation governors will be consulted.
I recognised also the Churches' anxieties that if a voluntary school were transferred to an education association, there was no requirement in the Bill to ensure that an education association should include a member with experience of education in the voluntary sector. In practice, I should have expected that to be the case but I have addressed that worry, and I am sure that the House will welcome the amendment which puts such a requirement on the face of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 236, 237, 241A, 241B and 241C are drafting amendments intended to improve the clarity of expression across Part V. Amendment No. 241G is consequential on new Clause 90 introduced in Committee. It brings the provisions for borrowing by education associations into line with those for GM schools.
It may be helpful to the debate if I anticipate Amendment No. 241E in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. As I understand it, they seek to place a specific requirement on the face of the Bill in respect of the composition of all education associations. I have already added a requirement, through Amendment No. 241D, that one member of an EA appointed to conduct a voluntary school should have experience of the voluntary sector.
In appointing the members of an education association, my right honourable friend will be looking for persons who have shown capacity in their fields and I am prepared to accept the broad thrust of the amendment. I acknowledge that, generally speaking, someone with such experience would be a desirable member of an education association. I am not convinced that we should limit the experience specifically to,

11
"a school providing the relevant kind of education",
because there are issues in a secondary school where somebody with general school experience may bring that expertise to bear. Equally, somebody in the secondary sector—for example, with experience of financial management—may be able to bring his knowledge to bear in a primary school.
However, we accept the thrust of the amendment, although I am concerned that tying oneself to a particular sector may be too restrictive. I shall consider further the wording and shall consult with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and return with another amendment to Clause 208 on Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I was going to speak to Amendment No. 241E. However, in the light of the Minister's assurances, it would be prudent for me not to address the amendment in full but to look forward to the amendments which she said will be brought forward on Third Reading.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I welcome the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I am sure that she will bear in mind in making appointments to education associations the need to have on them people with close knowledge of the education system. The recommendations of education associations are likely to carry more weight if their members are recognised in the education world to be people of knowledge and experience. However, I thank the noble Baroness for the assurances that she has given.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may continue with this pleasant period of peace and goodwill around the House by saying how grateful I am on behalf of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church for the extensive amendments which the Minister has brought forward. As near as is possible, they meet our anxieties and I am grateful for the trouble which the Minister and her department have taken in order to ensure that the Bill is improved entirely to our satisfaction.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I too should like to say that this is an encouraging beginning to a long day's work. I have made the point previously that when undertakings are given as regards consultation I hope that the Minister and her officials will be able to ensure that adequate time is allowed for consultation. Very often it is the case that the people who are being consulted are working with very small staffs and have very heavy workloads. Therefore, they cannot make sense of the consultation unless they are given plenty of time in which to undertake it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 236 and 237:
Page 120, line 13, leave out ("Chapter") and insert ("Part").
Page 120, line 14, leave out ("Chapter") and insert ("Part").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 199 [Destination of Reports]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 238 to 239:
Page 123, line 4, at end insert:
("( ) to the head teacher of the school").
Page 123, line 9, at end insert ("and (if different) to the appropriate appointing authority").
Page 123, leave out lines 13 to 16 and insert ("in respect of which any person has power to appoint an externally appointed core governor under a provision of the instrument of government made in pursuance of Schedule [Core governors for groups] of this Act, to that person.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 200 [Special measures by appropriate authority]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendments Nos. 239A and 240:
Page 124, line 23, at end insert ("and (if different) to the appropriate appointing authority").
Page 124, leave out lines 27 to 30 and insert ("in respect of which any person has power to appoint an externally appointed core governor under a provision of the instrument of government made in pursuance of Schedule [Core governors for groups] of this Act, to that person.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 201 [Additional special measures by local education authority]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 240A:
Page 125, line 23, at end insert ("and (if different) to the appropriate appointing authority").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 204 [Appointment of additional governors]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 240B:
Page 127, line 26, at end insert:
("(5) If at any time—

(a) this section applies in relation to an aided or special agreement school, and

(b) the conditions in subsection (6) below are satisfied, the appropriate appointing authority may appoint such number of additional foundation governors as they think fit.

(6) Those conditions are—

(a) that a period of ten days has elapsed since—

(i) in the case of a school not having a delegated budget, the period prescribed for the purposes of section 200(3) of this Act expired, and

(ii) in any other case, the period allowed under section 201(3) of this Act for preparing a statement under that section expired, or

(b) that the Secretary of State has received a copy of a statement prepared—

(i) in the case of a school not having a delegated budget, under section 200 of this Act, and

(ii) in any other case, under section 201 of this Act, and has served notice in writing on the appropriate appointing authority stating that the power conferred by subsection (5) above is exercisable.

(7) The Secretary of State may by notice in writing served on the appropriate appointing authority determine that subsection (6) (a) above shall have effect as if the reference to ten days were to such shorter period as he may determine.
(8) In the case of any appointment made by virtue of subsection (5) above to the governing body of a school—

(a) the instrument of government for the school, or

(b) if the governing body is constituted in accordance with arrangements under section 12 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, those arrangements,

shall have effect as if, notwithstanding section 4(3) of that Act (foundation governors for aided and special agreement schools), the instrument or, as the case may be, arrangements authorised the appropriate appointing authority to appoint such number of additional foundation governors as they think fit.

13
(9) Where in the case of any aided or special agreement school which is not a Church of England school, Church in Wales school or Roman Catholic Church school there are different powers to appoint foundation governors, references in this section (other than subsection (6) and (7)) to the appropriate appointing authority are to—

(a) all those persons who have any such power acting jointly, or

(b) if they are unable to agree, such of them acting jointly, or such one of them, as the Secretary of State may, after consulting all those persons, determine.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 205 [Suspension of right to delegated budget]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 241:
Page 127, line 34, at end insert ("and a copy of the notice shall be given to the head teacher of the school at the same time as the notice is given to the governing body").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 206 [Grouping and de-grouping]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 241A:
Page 128, line 9, after ("received") insert ("a copy of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 207 [Prohibition on ballot under Part II]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 241B arid 241C:
Page 128, line 28, after ("received") insert ("a copy of").
Page 128, line 35, after ("received") insert ("a copy of").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 208 [Power to establish education associations]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 241D:
Page 129, line 7, at end insert:
("( ) Before making an order under this section in the case of a voluntary school, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) if it is a Church of England school, Church in Wales school or Roman Catholic Church school, the appropriate diocesan authority, and

(b) in any other case, the person who appoints the foundation governors.

( ) In the case of an education association which conducts a voluntary school, at least one member must be a person who has experience of, and has shown capacity in, the provision of education in voluntary schools.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 241E not moved.]
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 241F:
Leave out Clause 208.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 241H, 242A to 242E, 242G to 242J, 243A to 243D and 244A and 244B.
First, as regards Amendment No. 241F, we firmly believe that policies should be designed to avoid schools failing. We have consistently argued against the Government's commitment to the application of market forces for that reason. National and local policy should be designed to ensure that all schools have the opportunity to succeed. For that reason, we have argued for schools to be properly resourced and that the teaching profession should be an all-graduate profession whose members receive worthwhile training and induction throughout their careers.
Schools require support from local education authorities with extra support needed at various
14
times; for example, following the appointment of a new head teacher. It is important to recognise that good LEAs have avoided schools failing in the past by reasoned intervention. They must be fully resourced and supported in their work to prevent schools from failing.
LEAs should have powers to intervene and to withdraw delegation of budgets. They should be able to call on Ofsted support extensively during a period in which any LEA action plan is being drafted. LEAs should be provided not only with the power but also with the ability to intervene successfully.
Finally on this amendment, we should like to see policies designed to ensure that all schools succeed, and recognition that resources are indeed a factor in ensuring success. We would also like to see local education authorities provided with the ability to support and assist schools so that they avoid failure, as well as the power to intervene where necessary. Finally, we would like to see a withdrawal of the proposed central government intervention through education associations.
Perhaps I may now address Amendment No. 241H. Its purpose is to allow local education authorities at least 12 months to turn the school around before an education authority is appointed. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that a local education authority is allowed at least 12 months to take action in order to deal with the problems that have been identified in the inspection report and to put those problems right. Allowing an education authority to take control of the school before the LEA has had the opportunity to deal with the problems that have been identified by the inspection might result in the school experiencing more problems and having greater difficulty in dealing with them.
The LEA has experience and knowledge of the school, and once the problems have been identified by the inspection report, it should be in a good position to work with the school to deal with the problems. An education association will come to the school as a newly-established body appointed by the Secretary of State and may, perhaps, have little or no experience of the particular problems of that individual school, though clearly, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, there will be individuals who have considerable experience relevant to dealing with the schools that are experiencing difficulties. By giving the LEA at least a year to tackle the issues, there is every reason to believe that the school should recover without needing to be taken over by an education association. That might ultimately avoid the more drastic result of the school's closure and all the consequences that that would bring.
I should now like to address Amendment No. 242A. The amendment is designed to increase the options for schools which have been run by an education association. As presently framed under the Bill, the only options are either school closure or grant-maintained status. The amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State consulted with the local education authority on the future of such schools. It is, therefore, complementary to the amendment agreed last week giving the LEA a

15
strategic planning role over schools in its area. Upon receipt of a report on an education association school, the LEA could, first, either request that the school be maintained once more by the local education authority; or secondly, inform the Secretary of State that the school should be given grant-maintained status; or, thirdly, inform the Secretary of State that the school should be discontinued.
If the LEA requested that the school be once more maintained by the LEA, it would then be for the governors and the parents to decide in the normal way whether or not to seek grant-maintained status. The amendment introduces flexibility into the arrangements and would allow for parents and governors of the schools run by an education association to be properly involved in the discussion and decision about the appropriate status for the schools.
I turn now to deal with a group of amendments which I should, perhaps, call a sub-group of amendments and which is headed by Amendment No. 242B. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 242C, 242D, 242E, 242G-242J, 243A-243D and 244A. The proposed group of amendments is similar to one debated in Committee which was led by Amendment No. 243C tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The principal aim of the group is unchanged; namely, to provide the option of a school conducted by an education association reverting to its former status as a county or voluntary school, in addition to the Government's proposed options of becoming a grant-maintained school or closing.
However, there are some important differences in the present group of amendments. First, the amendments tabled in Committee comprised a paving amendment and three proposed new clauses, without the supporting seven other amendments now tabled. In reply, the Minister was inadvertently hampered by the lack of consequential detail that was given, but nevertheless raised several reasoned objections. Therefore, the amendments seek to address the objections raised earlier. Most importantly, as can be seen from the paving amendment, the proposals are now limited to the situation before an order is made under Clause 10(1)(b); that is, before the 75 per cent. transfer point to grant-maintained status in an area is reached, or some lower percentage where the LEA chooses to shed its responsibilities.
I do not propose to go into great detail as regards the present group of amendments. However, I should like to explain the general thrust a little further. As with the former group of amendments, Clause 217 is left unchanged so that the starting point for an education association school finding a new future is the same. That is when it is no longer "at risk" and a summary of the inspector's report has been sent to every parent under Clause 217(3).
Under the Bill as drafted, parents need not even be consulted before the Secretary of State directs the education association under Clause 214 to publish proposals for grant-maintained status. The amendments and proposed new clauses provide for parents to be fully involved in determining the school's new status, whatever it is. In Committee the noble
16
Baroness Lady Blatch argued that once a school had been turned around, the work of the education authority association was done and the school, all things being equal, would move on to new governance by a representative governing body as soon as possible. Against that, we assert that the right of parents to be consulted—and offered a real choice—is more important than the administrative convenience of moving swiftly. However, the amendments would have no effect after the 75 per cent. point, as there is then insufficient real likelihood of the local education authority's management of the school being attractive to parents.
The amendments seek to address some of the reasoned objections put forward in Committee by the Minister. They still stick to the central principal point of our amendments; namely, that choice should be offered to parents of schools that are under the governance of education associations. As it is choice that we hear time and again is the guiding principle of many aspects of the Bill, I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to them. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly to two of the proposed amendments. I should like, first, to speak to Amendment No. 241H to which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, just referred, which relates to the length of time which an education association has to turn around a school. Secondly, I should like to speak about Clause 211 as regards the issue of options open to a school which has failed and which has been turned around by an education association.
Anyone who has been interested in the area of education, either in this House or in another place, will know that there is no category of schools that does not include a small minority of failures. Whether it is an independent school, a comprehensive school, a primary school or a voluntary school, every Minister at the Department of Education (the DFE as it now is) has, at one time or another, had to deal with the problem of a school that fails. There are many reasons therefor: it may be the personality of or the difficulties faced by the head teacher; it may be because of the catchment area of the school; or it may be because the school has had an unstable life and it is difficult for it to maintain the kind of morale and cohesion that are needed over a period of time to make a school a really good one.
As I said, there is no monopoly of failed schools. They exist in every category; indeed, they always have. It is important that there should be ways of dealing with them. However, whoever is responsible for dealing with a failed school—be it the governing body in the case of an independent school or a local education authority in the case of a maintained school—it is quite clear that that authority or governing body must have adequate time to turn around the school. It is not something that can be done immediately, quickly or in a matter of weeks. It involves human relationships, the relationship between the head teacher and the staff and, in many cases, it involves the relationship between the staff and the governors.

17
As all noble Lords in the House who have been concerned with education will know, it is a matter which, like any other organic institution, takes a little time and a little patience. Indeed there are real dangers in trying to rush the process of turning around a school that is in trouble. There is the danger that, in an attempt to turn it around too quickly, the school may find itself in a worse position than if there is a longer period of time in which to change the nature, psychology and attitude of the school.
In the White Paper the Government proposed a period of 12 months. I believe most of us would recognise that that is not an unreasonable period of time—three school terms—in which to attempt this difficult task of turning a school around. I am troubled by the fact that in these amendments no reference is made to a minimum period of time. Indeed, it appears that the Secretary of State may declare any such shorter time as he or she may wish.
As in many other aspects of the Bill, a great deal of responsibility rests on the Secretary of State: in practice, that means the civil servants at the department, many of whom have not had direct dealings with schools at what one might describe as the ground floor level. I hope I may press the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to say what she would expect to be the normal period of time which the education association would be able to rely upon to start this difficult task of turning a school around.
I appreciate that there may be some exceptional cases. There may be cases where, to avoid the demoralisation of a school, it is important to move quickly. I suspect that those cases will be extremely rare. It may be necessary to give the education association time to get to know people and to talk to them. It is of crucial importance that the EA should be open to their suggestions and ideas. I would therefore welcome an assurance from the Minister that the 12 months laid down in the White Paper would in most cases be adhered to and that the Secretary of State would not use his powers to shorten that time in many instances.
I follow what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, said with regard to the options open to a school that has failed, has seen an education association put in place, and has reached the stage where its future has to be considered. I am sorry that the Government have taken the view that one of the three options for such a school should be closed off. The three options are: closure; becoming a grant-maintained school; and becoming, once again, a local authority maintained school or continuing as one. I believe the education association would be in a much better position than the Secretary of State to advise on the best possible course for the school to take. Yet by this Bill we are taking one of those three options away.
All of us have seen how quickly a local education authority can change for the better. Most of us would say that that rather depends on the outcome of elections. That is what elections are all about. Certainly local education authorities can adopt different policies and different attitudes. It is perfectly
18
possible for an organisation, when it knows the circumstances of a problem, to find adequate answers to it. We suggest that the education association must recommend a course of action in these cases. It is then for the Secretary of State to consider that course of action and parents must be consulted about it before a decision is made. I found the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford convincing when he asked whether, if this matter was stood on its head, we would declare that any grant-maintained school had failed and was therefore obliged to return to local education authority control without anyone being consulted. Some grant-maintained schools will fail in that regard.
Either this Bill is concerned with giving the greatest possible voice and influence to parents or it is not. This particular part of the Bill rules out one option on which parents might wish to express a view and on which they might wish to be consulted. They might wish a school to remain within the local education authority's purview. I and my noble friends argue that parents must retain the right to be consulted and to express a view on this matter as the Government have insisted they do in the case of a school moving from the control of a local education authority to grant-maintained status. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly on a couple of these amendments. First I shall speak to Amendment No. 241H. I believe this is an important amendment. Local action is always going to be preferable to the heavy stick from outside, partly because of greater familiarity with the circumstances and the kind of remedies that are likely to succeed, and partly because of the follow-up that will be possible over time.
One can foresee that an interventionist Secretary of State might easily be tempted to flex his or her muscles and send in the hit squad prematurely, perhaps at a point where local measures were just beginning to take effect. It is right that a breathing space should be built in, and 12 months is by no means too long for this. The Minister in another place said of a similar amendment, which was not actually moved, that it offered a reasonably practical course of action. He said:
"We do not want to rush in and impose an education association when the governors of a school and the LEA are attending to the matter".
This being so, will the Minister please look favourably on this addition to Clause 210?
Turning to Amendment No. 242A, it would be interesting to know which principle the Government thought more important: the imposition of grant-maintained status, or the right of parents to choose the future of their school. Whenever it comes to the crunch, the latter seems to go down the drain.
In opposing a similar amendment in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who is not in her place, spoke of,
"the ultimate devolution of power and accountability to parents, where it most belongs".
But it appears this power is not to extend to choosing in each case whether their school is to change status or

19
not. There are only two options allowed, as we have heard, after the hit squad has been in: extinction, or GM status.
Now, in some cases an LEA will have been very much at fault. In others—say, where there has been a loss of experienced staff resulting in disciplinary problems which will take time, patience and resources to resolve—the position will not be clear-cut. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has given other examples too. In these cases, to talk as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, did in Committee of a school being,
"in effect rendered inoperable by a local authority",
is frankly absurd. It is entirely appropriate that parents on the spot should judge. One way would be to ballot there and then. The other would be by means of this amendment which has a presumption in favour of local authority status, which can be converted in short order to GM status if parents feel so inclined and demand a ballot.
It does seem that the Government only trust parents so long as they can be relied on to take the right decision. This amendment would preserve the options, and for that reason deserves to be supported.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I rise only because my name was mentioned in connection with having said that a local authority would allow a school to become inoperable. This has happened in the past and emergency staff and head teachers have been drafted in to rescue schools. I add no more to my previous argument.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, when the Minister replies I hope that she will spend a little time defining a failing school. We spent a little time on this matter in Committee but, as the Minister is aware, many of us were dissatisfied with the position. It is a matter which is being talked about a great deal and not only in the education world. At this stage it is important to clarify exactly what we are talking about when we debate failing schools.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall deal with that rather direct question first. It is not for any politician, even my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, to make a subjective judgment about what is or is not a failing school. If the noble Lord looks at the procedure set out in the Bill, he will see that it is for Ofsted to make the recommendation on professional grounds as to whether it believes that a school is at risk. That will be the information on which the Secretary of State triggers the process set out in the Bill.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is she saying that the Secretary of State will accept fully what Ofsted says?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what I am saying is that the Secretary of State will be advised by Ofsted even if complaints come to the Secretary of State informally, or formally from a local authority, or from whatever source. It will be for the Secretary of State to
20
put the inspectorate into the school and it will be for the inspectorate to make a report to the Secretary of State to confirm whether or not the school is at risk. If the school is deemed to be at risk, the Secretary of State would be failing in his duty not to address that issue. If the school is not at risk, the Secretary of State must consider the professional judgment and the advice he is given. I cannot say at this stage how any particular Secretary of State would respond to advice from professional bodies that a school was at risk.
There is a great deal of misunderstanding about this part of the Bill, and perhaps I may deal with the amendments on the Marshalled List. We have returned again to the question of the introduction of education associations and the future of schools conducted by education associations once they have been given a clean bill of health. Amendment No. 241F in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, removes the clause which provides for the Secretary of State to establish an education association to conduct a failing school. With that one amendment we would return to the present situation in which we know that there are schools which, in the view of the inspectorate, are at risk yet are not necessarily being improved. Some are, but we know that many are not.
The appointment of an education association is not the only weapon in the armoury for remedying the problems at a failing school. It is the step of last resort and will be taken only where other bodies have failed to take effective action to remedy the problems. I shall not go into the full detail of the way in which failing schools will be identified or the steps which will be taken before an education association can be brought in to take over the management of the school. Suffice it to say that local education authorities are given additional powers to allow them to remedy the school's problems. The process would allow the governing body of a school and its maintaining LEA the first opportunity. However, if they fail to set out adequate plans for action, or if they fail to implement them effectively, I can assure the House that my right honourable friend will not hesitate to transfer a school to an education association. We would be failing the children in the school if, in such desperate circumstances, we did nothing to seek to improve the standard of their education.
The amendment to Clause 210 seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from transferring a school to an education association until 12 months have passed from the date he receives a copy of the LEA's statement of the action it proposes to take in relation to the school. As I have said, in cases where the LEA has produced what appears to be a sensible and well-judged action plan, the Secretary of State will want to allow it time to carry out the plan. He must not, however, be prevented from placing a school in an EA, where he is of the opinion that the LEA's action plan would be ineffective or the LEA incapable of carrying it out. It is entirely possible that, having allowed a school under its control to have reached such unacceptable standards, the LEA would not produce an effective action plan. The amendment also neglects to consider the possibility that the LEA might not propose to take any action with regard to the

21
school. It, too, might feel that it is best for the school to be transferred to an education association. The Secretary of State must be free to take that step without delay.
I am sure that the House is now aware that in such cases it is our intention that, when the education association has completed its task, a school will normally become grant-maintained. The Opposition have presented us with a series of amendments designed to allow schools conducted by education associations to be returned to local education authorities once they have been turned around. One set is bewildering in its complexity, while Amendment No. 242A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, appears to be a masterpiece of elegance and simplicity. I shall deal firstly with that amendment, whose effect is to leave any decision about the future of the school in the hands of the LEA, an LEA which has already failed that school. The LEA may decide to maintain the school itself; it may recommend to the Secretary of State that it should become grant-maintained; it may recommend to tile Secretary of State that it should be discontinued. It is preposterous to suggest that an LEA which had let a school down so badly in the first place should then be given sole responsibility for making decisions about its future. The whole objective of the Opposition's amendment is clear. They have condemned our proposals for lack of parental choice over the future of schools which have been brought back to health after a period with an education association; yet their agenda is to return the school to the LEA which has already failed the school. Where is the parental choice in that?
I shall turn now to the series of amendments with which we have become familiar. It is interesting to see a new twist on them. I can understand why the Opposition feel that it is a good idea to abandon their policy of returning a school to the control of an LEA in areas where at least 75 per cent. of pupils are educated in grant-maintained schools. However, the amendments still pursue the idea that, where the relevant LEA shares a responsibility for providing school places, a school should be returned to it. I am forced to repeat what I have said before: if an LEA has already failed a school I can see no sense in returning it to that same LEA.
In the small number of cases where schools are transferred to education associations it will be because the LEA has not only failed to ensure a satisfactory level of education at the school in the past but has given no indication that it is capable of restoring acceptable standards in the future. Parents are unlikely to want schools to return to LEAs which have failed them in the past, and the complex processes proposed will do nothing to contribute to the stability of a school which has been restored to health by an education association.
Baroness Willliams of Crosby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The point which we are trying to make to the noble Baroness from this side of the House is that, whatever the opinion of Ministers may be, this is an issue which in the end should be decided by the parents. It is not
22
for Ministers to say that it would not make sense for the school to return to LEA control. Surely the noble Baroness will understand that we are suggesting that that choice as well as the other options should be open to parents.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I would make two points in reply to that remark. I have already mentioned a number of amendments which do not give parents that opportunity. Some of the amendments put that decision in the hands of the local education authority. We have a mixed bag of amendments here. Secondly, I repeat that I would find this outbreak of democracy very touching if noble Lords opposite, including the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, supported parents making the choice in favour of grant-maintained status in the first place.
I have already mentioned the arguments of noble Lords opposite, not to mention those of Opposition Members in another place, on the subject of parental choice over the future of a school turned round by an education association. In this set of amendments it is the education association which chooses whether the school should be returned to the LEA or go on to ballot for grant-maintained status. Again, where is the concept of parental choice here? It seems to me that if an education association decides to return a school to an LEA the only real choice lies with the LEA, as the Opposition have now considered the possibility that it might be unwilling to take the school back. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has accepted in this instance the principle that the school should become grant-maintained without a parental ballot. If the education association however, feels that, because the LEA has failed the school in the past and is likely to do so again, the school should become grant-maintained, the balloting process must take place. It is a bizarre logic which says that the EA's judgment can be trusted only if it decides to return the school to the LEA.
As I said in our previous debate on this issue, in the unlikely event that an education association proposed that a school should return to LEA control the amendments provide for a long and cumbersome route back to the LEA. The amendments have not changed in that respect and are still somewhat unclear about the length of the process back to LEA control. It seems to me it could take at least nine months. If the Secretary of State were to reject the proposals for the school to return to the LEA, the only option open under these amendments would be for him to require the LEA to publish further proposals. It is not clear what happens if he rejects them again. Is it to keep publishing proposals until it gets them right? Needless to say, that is not a process which could contribute to the stability and well-being of the school.
The procedure already in the Bill for these schools to move to GM status is, by contrast, a quick and simple one, perhaps taking three to four months. Given that the school will have been through a period of some uncertainty while being conducted by the EA, it is desirable that, once recovered, its future should be determined as quickly as possible.
If a school is to return to the LEA, the amendments now give the power of appointment to the new

23
governing body to the Secretary of State, instead of the education association as previously. While I am sure that my right honourable friend appreciates the Opposition's faith in his judgment, we intend that once the work of the EA is done the school, by acquiring GM status, should have a representative governing body composed in the same way as those of other GM schools. The amendment does nothing to allay my concern in our previous debate that an LEA may be reluctant to maintain a school where it has had no say in the membership of the governing body, as it does now with all county and voluntary schools. Although the amendments now allow LEAs to decline to maintain those schools, they have to give notice of their decision within two months of the EA giving its notice that the school should return to the LEA. If it takes back the school it may still be in the position of maintaining a school where it has no say in the membership of the governing body.
I should like to remind the House that when an EA publishes proposals for grant-maintained status, parents will have the opportunity to make their feelings known. The Secretary of State will take all representations, including parents' views, into account when he considers the proposals.
On one thing I agree wholeheartedly with noble Lords opposite. This is an important issue. We did not reach the conclusion that a school conducted by an EA should not return to its former maintaining LEA without very careful consideration. Though we have now debated this more than once, the Opposition have failed to make a convincing case that LEAs which have failed—not once, but at least twice—to ensure that a school gives its pupils an adequate standard of education, should be given another chance. The children in the school have only once chance. We must not fail them. These amendments would do nothing to ensure that their only chance is not taken away from them.
We should not become self-indulgent about the role of LEAs in this matter. The only issue that matters is that a school that is failing or is at risk of not providing good education for its children should be restored to good education as fast as possible with the help of the local authority and/or an education association.
Turning to Amendment No. 243C, we debated an identical amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in Committee on 4th May. As my noble friend Lord Henley said then, subsection (b) of the amendment assumes incorrectly that grant-maintained schools will be among the types of school that could be conducted by an education association.
Let me explain why I shall ask the House to reject the amendment. It proposes that where a county school conducted by an education association is discontinued the school property must be returned to the local education authority. The Bill certainly does not rule out that eventuality, but it allows the necessary flexibility for the different circumstances that may arise. For example, the school may have received capital grants from the funding authority, or
24
it might be appropriate for the premises or other school property to be used for the purposes of another school.
Amendment No. 244B would require the regulations to be made under Clause 218(1) to be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I am, of course, aware that the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers drew that regulation-making power to the attention of the Committee as one where the affirmative resolution might be appropriate. But that matter was not raised by your Lordships in Committee. We have a good record in our response to the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee. I can assure the House that we considered seriously the case made for the affirmative resolution in this case, as the Scrutiny Committee suggested.
The basic framework for the operation of schools conducted by education associations is set out on the face of the legislation. By virtue of Clause 208(5), education associations and members of education associations are included in references in any enactment to the governing body of a school and the governors respectively. There is no power under the regulation-making power to amend that provision. By virtue of Clause 211(4) to (7) references in any enactment to grant-maintained schools include schools conducted by education associations.
Schools conducted by education associations will be subject to the same requirements of employment law, race relations legislation, and so on, as other schools. But not every provision is capable of applying as it stands or is intended so to apply. The provisions of Clauses 208 and 211 are therefore made subject to the following provisions of Chapter II of Part V, including Clause 218. Regulations made under that clause will therefore be able to disapply or adapt particular provisions as necessary.
Perhaps I could give a couple of examples. When a school is conducted by an education association, it will be necessary to disapply Clause 52 of the Bill, since a school conducted by an EA will have no governing body. An education association is not to be able to propose the discontinuance of the school it conducts. Regulations will therefore disapply Clause 100 in relation to EAs. I could give other examples. The changes that will be needed are of a technical nature and therefore are appropriately left to delegated legislation. It is not, I contend, the kind of legislation that normally requires affirmative resolution procedure.
I am grateful to your Lordships for your forbearance. This is a long and complicated group of amendments. It is important to make just two more points. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, was concerned about the length of the period. I hope she will accept that it is right that LEAs should be given the first opportunity to restore good education to a failing school. There is only one caveat to that. In extremis, where it is deemed that an LEA has been contributing to the failure of that school or is deemed not to have the capability to restore good education, there should be flexibility for the Secretary of State, as is set out on page 50, paragraph 11.8 of the White Paper. There it says that he would allow up to

25
a full academic year to improve the school, or to curtail that period if it were felt that the the local authority was making no progress or, indeed, if it refused to take proper action.
Secondly, the kind of flexibility that my right honourable friend would wish to see is where a local authority has produced an effective action plan and effective plans for restoring the school. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, will agree with me that it takes a long time for some schools to have full, good education restored to them, and so if the plans and the action being taken by the local authority are sufficiently impressive to Ofsted, which will make the recommendation to my right honourable friend, and is such that the time needs to be extended, then my right honourable friend would wish to have that time extended, because progress, albeit slowly but surely, is being made and it is preferable not to stop that activity in its tracks and put in an education association. But where my right honourable friend believes that progress is not being made, that the plan of action is not adequate, then, in order to have education restored quickly, my right honourable friend would wish to have the flexibility to do that. It is flexibility that we require here to achieve the objective which I know unites the whole House; that is, that good education should be restored to a failing school as quickly as is practicable.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I have to say that we are disappointed by those replies. The Minister said that she was not touched by the interest in democracy shown by our Front Benches. We have been candid about our views. We oppose the general thrust of the Government's education policy root and branch. But this is a revising Chamber. We are trying to revise the legislation so as to level the playing field. That is an expression we have used time and time again. We have made our views plain, but the Minister has not been candid in expressing her antipathy to LEAs.
This group of amendments seeks to address yet another inequality that exists between LEA-maintained schools and grant-maintained schools. We are taking the Government at their word when they say that they want choice for parents. That is what we are trying to put on to the face of the Bill. The argument that LEAs have failed is one that the parents can take on board. They can also take on board the fact that LEAs can change. They do change, as we have seen recently, as a result of things called elections, something about which we all agree.
It has been said before, and I shall repeat it: what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I can see no reason why parents should not be given the option of staying under LEA control. It is for that reason that I must ask the opinion of the House.
3.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 241F) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 148.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

Airedale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Lockwood, B.

Aylestone, L.

Longford, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McNair, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carter, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Pen rhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton Davis, L.

Nathan, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Eatwell, L.

Richard, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Galpern, L.

Seear, B.

Geraint, L.

Scrota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shaughnessy, L.

Stallard, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swinclon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hunt, L.

Wallace of Coslarty, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Warnock, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Crosby. B.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Judd, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kennet, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Aldington, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Annan, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Cranborne, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Arran, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Astor, V.

Davidson, V.

Auckland, L.

Denham, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Dudley, B.

Bellwin, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Beloff, L.

Effingham, E.

Bessborough, E.

Elibank, L.

Blatch, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Blyth, L.

Elles, B.

Boardman, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Borthwick, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Brentford, V.

Ferrers, E.

Butterworth, L.

Finsberg, L.

Cadman, L.

Foley, L.

Caithness, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gainford, L.

Carney of Lour, B.

Gainsborough, E.

Carnock, L.

Goschen, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Gridley, L.

Cayzer, L.

Haig, E.

27

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Peel, E.

Halsbury, E.

Pender, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Porritt, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Prior, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Quinton, L.

Henley, L.

Reay, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller]

Renton, L.

Hives, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Roskill, L.

Hood, V.

St. Davids, V.

Howe, E

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Salisbury, M.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kimball, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Knollys, V.

Savile, L.

Knutsford, V.

Seccombe, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Shannon, E.

Lindsay, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Liverpool, E.

Stewartby, L.s

Long, V.

Strange, B.

Lucas, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Suffield, L.

Swinfen, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tebbit, L.

Manton, L.

Terrington, L.

Marsh, L.

Teviot, L.

Merrivale, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Milne, L.

Thurlow, L.

Milverton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Trumpington, B.

Mottistone, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Moyne, L.

Vivian, L.

Munster. E.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Norrie, L.

Westbury, L.

Northbourne, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Northbrook, L.

Wynford, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Yarborough, E.

Orkney, E.

Young, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.58 p.m.
Schedule 11 [Education Associations]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 241G:
Page 209, line 44, at end insert ("except money lent under section 90 of this Act").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 210 [Transfer of responsibility for conducting school to an education association]:
[Amendment No. 241H not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 242:
Page 130, line 13, after ("body") insert ("and head teacher").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 211 [Effect of order under section 210]:
[Amendments Nos. 242A to 242E not moved.]
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 242F:
Before Clause 214, insert the following new clause:
28
("Establishment of a General Teaching Council
.—(1) Within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent the Secretary of State shall establish an enquiry into the future development of the teaching profession in schools in England and Wales and in particular such an enquiry shall consider the establishment of a General Teaching Council.
(2) The General Teaching Council shall have regard for schools requiring special measures.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during our deliberation of the Bill it has become clear that the one essential ingredient to the future of our education system is the quality of the teaching profession. That fact cannot be over-emphasised and it is the underlying reservation on this side of the House in the context of the debate on education associations. We are not convinced that ad hoc, specific, artificial arrangements that are put in place to make a success of a school can achieve that result unless the quality of the teachers within the school can bring about the improvements that are sought. Therefore if we are looking genuinely to the next century the House should do all possible to improve the Bill to enhance the status of teachers and their profession.
There have been many changes to education in the past 14 years. Among teachers and parents it was a welcome relief when the Secretary of State said that this Education Bill would be the last for a quarter of a century. Yet, despite having said that, he has already announced fundamental changes in primary teacher training. All the changes that have been introduced—a new one is envisaged—have been imposed with scant regard to the professional judgment of teachers and the views of parents and others involved in education. The new proposals for teacher training are a case in point. I find a certain paradox in a situation in which we are told that the future preparation of teachers can be left increasingly to teachers within schools at the very time that the Government state that they are not prepared to recognise an enhanced status for that profession, in the way that we advocate, with its own general teaching council.
The proposals regarding the changes for primary teacher training were issued this month for a minimal period of consultation. Comments are required by the DfE by the end of July and implementation is envisaged in the autumn, with new legislation likely to follow. It is all too characteristic of the rush last summer over the Bill.
The Government apparently want to allow non-graduates into infant teaching—mothers and nursery nurses with A-levels or other qualifications for higher education. This "Mums' Army" will have to squeeze into their one-year course knowledge of the national curriculum, assessment, practical classroom skills, language development and essential theories about how children learn.
The Times Educational Supplement described the proposals as "unnecessary" and "unjustifiable". In a very convincing editorial comment on 11th June, it states:
"The Mums Army proposal can have no rationale beyond dogma and some obscure political purpose and is a serious threat to schools".
There is no doubt in my mind that the proposals constitute precisely such a serious threat. We have long argued for a widening of access to teacher

29
education, but it has to be no less rigorous than existing courses, leading to graduate and professionally qualified status.
I wish to make it absolutely clear that I am completely in agreement with those who say that it can be a deeply regenerating experience for the teaching profession to see many from outside the profession, from families which do not necessarily have a tradition in education, coming into the profession. That would be an exciting enhancement, a great drive forward for the future of education. However, that is not instead of preparation or professional status; it is not instead of training. That breath of fresh air from outside goes together with proper training and preparation.
However, whatever our views on the proposed changes, the fact is that the proposals affect the status of the whole teaching profession and the quality of education for all children. Successful changes emanate from constructive dialogue. Such significant changes should not be imposed by Ministerial edict on our schools. It is our view that a general teaching council would be the ideal forum to discuss the professional views of teachers and the concerns of those in education, as indeed it would be to discuss the needs of schools requiring special measures.
During an earlier debate in Committee we considered an amendment that called for consultation on the establishment of a general teaching council. The amendment had support from all sides of the House. It fell, but only just, when the Minister made it clear that the Government would not be moved on the matter and would refuse to establish a general teaching council, making any consultation on establishing one a waste of time.
We are discussing a further amendment on the issue having reflected on the strength of argument in that debate and in the light of the new government proposals for teacher training. An inquiry into the future development of the teaching profession should consider the need to establish a general teaching council. The future development of the teaching profession is inextricably linked to the quality of education and the future economic prosperity of our country.
It is time to pause for breath and to take stock. We believe that the review which we propose, leading to the establishment of a proper professional body which could play its full, rigorous part in the development of the education system, is timely and deserves support from all sides of the House. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, this amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has explained, is not a direct proposal for a general teaching council, but for an inquiry where at least the reasons for and against a GTC could be impartially explored.
If properly set up, it could have a dispassionate look at all the arguments we have thrown about over the past few weeks. It could advise whether or not the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, are right to feel that the worst of union attitudes and practices
30
will be translated to the new body proposed by Professor Tomlinson and others, or to some other body constituted in a way that they may suggest. It could look at the merits of the non-statutory "royal college" model which the Government appear to favour.
This is a most important debate. Almost every week, it seems, there are new ideas thrown at the profession with little regard for the views of participants, whether suppliers or consumers of education. The latest, as we have heard, is the deprofessionalising of infant teaching—the Mums' Army, or, like the card game we used to play when I was young, "Mother's Madness". This, as a question of teacher training, would have been ideally suited for discussion in a general teaching council, where representatives of the profession and wider public interest could put forward well thought-out proposals over the whole range of educational matters.
I have some concerns about professions being the sole regulators of their own affairs. But I have even greater concerns about the Government determining almost everything that goes on, especially in the area of the hearts and minds of our children. That is something we have always tried to avoid in our decentralised democracy, and it is one of the most disturbing features of recent legislation how this principle is being thrown out of the window with apparent insouciance. Significantly, it was fear of general opposition to the Government's reforms within a GTC that formed one plank of the Minister's refusal to contemplate it in Committee. To me that is one of the strongest reasons for a teaching council so that controversial measures can be properly debated and, where necessary, professional nonsense can be exposed for what it is. The Government's present propensity to dictate unchecked over a range of professional matters is doing harm to our education service and to the all-important relationships within it.
Teachers are often accused of having low expectations of their pupils. If you treat people as if you expect more of them, they will usually respond. Could not the Government themselves adopt this more positive attitude towards teachers?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I wish to address briefly the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and to make two or three points which have not already been made.
First, I find myself filled with a certain strange sense of déjà vu at present. Throughout the 1970s the battle fought by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher of Kesteven, and myself was to try to establish that teaching should be a graduate profession. We moved little by little towards that goal. The first step was to require that no one could enter teaching unless he or she had an O-level pass in both mathematics and English. The second was that all teachers should hold a degree of one kind or another to be followed by a postgraduate certificate of education lasting for one year.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and I fought for the same thing,—there was no division between the parties. The view was held extremely strongly at the time that teaching needed to be made

31
into the same kind of profession as medicine and law; in other words, an honourable profession with a very high status. There were two reasons for that. First, it was recognised that teaching was a difficult and responsible job and it was important to try to keep teachers with their classes for some time, and to keep them in the profession. At that time one of the most troubling aspects of education was the relatively rapid turnover in teachers simply because the profession commanded neither the salaries nor the status that it deserved.
Therefore, I repeat that at the time there was no division between us or between the major political parties about the need for all teachers, including primary and nursery school teachers, to hold graduate or equivalent to graduate status. That was the whole drive at the time.
I add another reason. At that time in 1975 the country had decided to become a member of the European Community and it was recognised that virtually every other country, with the exception of the Iberian group and Greece, had a graduate profession in teaching. Those countries' requirements were in many cases more demanding than ours; that was true of Scandinavia, the Low Countries, Germany and France, and it is still true today.
We therefore appear to be going back to arguing that a primary school or infant teacher requires only a year or two of qualification to teach in the schools at a time when many of our neighbours in Europe are moving ahead, if anything to a more demanding status for teachers. That may be an unwise road to march down, especially at a time when the equivalent qualification is a serious part of the provision being made within the European Community treaties.
A further reason is that, as a country—and I pay due credit to Her Majesty's Government on the issue—a much larger proportion of our young people are becoming graduates. Ever since the Robbins Report of the 1960s there has been a steady move, which has continued government by government; that move has been rapid under the present Government as regards the polytechnics, now the new universities. A growing proportion of that age group is taking a degree.
How strange, then, that we should be moving away from that concept in the case of some elements of the teaching profession, because we shall have more graduates than we have had for a long time. It is therefore more important that we regard the teaching of young children as a crucial part of the responsibilities of a graduate profession.
Perhaps I may finally add two other points. First, partly as a result of the Bill and partly as a result of the public expenditure difficulties that the Government face, we know that it is likely that there will be fewer and not more nursery schools over the next few years. That means that the responsibility which rests upon teachers in the first two or three years of compulsory education is greater than it would be if most of the children came from nursery schools or nursery classes. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has pointed out the importance of qualified teachers, able to deal rapidly with children who may have special learning
32
needs at these early stages in their education. It is rather rare for people who are essentially ill-trained to be able to pick up those kinds of needs at an early stage.
Finally, I believe that the move towards a general teaching council is good in the sense that it establishes the professional status of teachers. One of the reasons that we have not attained that over recent years is, I am afraid, that there have been sharp divisions between the teachers' associations about a general teaching council and the kind of functions it should have. I shall not bore the House with many reminiscences; I just wish to give one. I remember back in 1978 inviting the teachers' associations to discuss a general teaching council. At that time there was no agreement among teachers' associations as to what ought to be the functions of a general teaching council. In fairness to the House, we must make it plain that responsibility for good education rests not only with the Government, but also with all those who are concerned and involved in education.
Nevertheless, that does not mean that it was the wrong way to go. I profoundly believe that it was right, and that the teaching profession needs the self-respect that goes with having a professional council, with being consulted about the nature and structure of the training of teachers and, not least, that goes with saying that some people are no longer able or fit—not necessarily through their own fault—to continue to serve in that profession. That would be the way that the General Medical Council is able to act with regard to doctors.
Therefore, I believe that the amendment has a great deal to say about the shape and future of education. It should commend itself to your Lordships. The dangers of drifting in the opposite direction are acute and could result in a profound part of this country no longer being regarded as being in the front rank of European countries when it comes to the issue of education. I for one would regret that very much.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as this is the first time that I have followed the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, since she was ennobled, perhaps I may say what a pleasure it is to find oneself taking part in the same debate as her. It was in a way a nostalgic experience for me because I remember her as a socialist Secretary of State for Education and I remember her attitude towards grammar schools. I find myself no more in agreement with her now than I used to be in those days.
As regards the amendment, she will forgive me if I do not follow her precisely in the arguments which she put because I wish to speak to the amendment in a more general way.
The first point that occurs to me with regard to the amendment is that the idea that there should be an inquiry into the teaching profession within three months of the Act receiving Royal Assent seems to me to be a misguided suggestion. I say that because the Bill will make a number of changes which we believe to be improvements. It is, alas, a detailed Bill and it will take some time not only for the teaching

33
profession but also for all involved in the education world to absorb and apply what Parliament proposes in the Bill. I cannot see how an inquiry within three months of Royal Assent could get anyone anywhere effectively. That is the first difficulty which I feel.
Noble Lords will note that the inquiry is to take place in two stages. First, the Secretary of State is required to:
"establish an enquiry into the future development of the teaching profession in schools in England and Wales".
Presumably that is to be a wide inquiry. In particular, subsection (1) states that:
"such an enquiry shall consider".
There is an obligation to consider, but not to establish a general teaching council.
However, if a general teaching council is established, there is one matter to which it shall have regard, and only one. As we all know, to state one particular matter as an obligation or in any other way in a statute and to leave out all other possible matters means that those concerned are confined to that one matter. The one matter to which a general teaching council would have to have regard would be "schools requiring special measures". That phrase is not defined. What are such schools? We find the words "special needs" in a large part of the Bill and I am glad that that is so. But "schools requiring special measures" would be a newly introduced phrase in the Bill so far as I am aware. That raises the disadvantage of uncertainty. Those are the reasons why—and they are general to the amendment—I find myself unable to support this amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I should have thought that the recent announcement by the Secretary of State on setting up "Mums' Army" makes some sort of inquiry into the future development of the teaching profession particularly important at this moment. The deprofessionalising (if there is such a word) of the teaching profession surely makes it even more important to set up a general teaching council, or at any rate to plan for one, than it was a few weeks ago before the recent announcement by the Secretary of State.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I should like very much to support the amendment. It is very modest. It demands only that a committee of inquiry be set up. I took it that subsection (2) did not propose to confine any general teaching council that might be set up to having regard to schools requiring special measures. I confess to being somewhat confused by the second part of the amendment. Nevertheless, I took it that the general teaching council, if set up, would have regard, among its other duties, to those schools which were failing. However, with regard to the first part of the amendment, it seems to me to be of enormous importance that the Government should not be seen to refuse to inquire into the setting up of a general teaching council. In 1985 I put forward the idea of a general teaching council (being by no means the first person to do so) in the Dimbleby Lecture of that year. I was asked to see the then Secretary of State for Education, now the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, to discuss the matter. We did discuss it, and his first
34
objection was the one that we have heard many times; namely, that any such council would undoubtedly become unionised. His second objection was that it would be impossible to satisfy the teachers as to the fairness of their representation as members of that council. I have heard those two objections many times since.
The purpose of a committee of inquiry could be, first, to look at whether there are ways round the difficulties caused by the composition of the general teaching council. Secondly, it could examine ways in which one could ensure that the general teaching council, if set up, remained totally separate from the unions. That second point is of extreme importance. What we lack at the moment is a statutory body that has responsibility for the training of teachers, the many other aspects of the teaching profession, and the nature of schools—matters about which the Government need to consult but have at the moment no body with which they can consult because they do not wish, for obvious reasons, to fall into a discussion which will become a battle with the unions. It is the absence of a general teaching council which makes it so very difficult for the Government to take part in consultation before introducing the kind of changes that we now see. That seems to me to be a weakness, and one which I am sure the Government themselves deplore. There is no proper body of consultation.
The last point that I want to make is that a non-statutory teaching council is futile. It would not fulfil the particular need for a body which is the obvious and proper body for discussion. Let us not be fobbed off with the response that the teachers can form a council if they so wish and "play act" at being a general teaching council. That is not enough. We need a statutory body. But we need it—I fully agree with this point—to be set up only after all the difficulties about its establishment have been thoroughly examined by an independent committee of inquiry. It is, of course, open to that committee to say that no such body should be set up because it would be too difficult. We need that response thoroughly argued, and the argument set out, before a final refusal to have a general teaching council is accepted.
Lord Elton: My Lords, this Bill is passing across the waters of education like a great liner passing across a smooth or fairly choppy sea. The amendment suggests that we cast our fishing line into the water immediately behind the stern in the turmoil of its wake. For that reason, like my noble friend Lord Renton, I believe that it is premature. But I believe that it is premature for another, more important and sadder, reason. That is to do with the profession, which the Secretary of State would be invited, or indeed directed by this amendment, to inquire into.
The body which it is proposed should be set up is, I take it, the body which would regulate for teaching all those aspects of the profession which the General Medical Council administers for the purposes of medicine. One sees what a desirable parallel that is for the profession; it is one to which, had I still been in that profession (as I was for 10 years) I should myself aspire. But the profession has changed. In some respects it is not altogether, in my view, professional.

35
I do not want to apportion blame for that. The problem has clearly arisen from the increasing confrontation between the Government and teachers and the increasing acrimony of that confrontation. But when, in the middle of the last decade, the teachers descended—I can think of no other word—to the level of striking in a way that damaged the prospects for the whole of the lives of some of their pupils, that was a highly unprofessional course of action. Any hope one had that the position was being recovered in recent years was, to say the least, weakened by the reception which the Secretary of State recently received at one of the professional associations' general conferences.
The question is, therefore, whether teachers as a body, and as organised, are a professional body. It follows inevitably from the experience in Scotland that it would be to those organisations in one form or another that a general teaching council would immediately fall. It does not seem to me that the condition of the practice of teaching and its organisation is at present such that one would wish to pass to it this enormously important control over the standards not only of the profession into which the Secretary of State is invited to inquire, but of the future of all our children and grandchildren in their schools.
The second weakness of the amendment, as my noble friend Lord Renton again pointed out, is the extraordinarily obscure and (even more alarmingly) curtailed effect of the second subsection. The principal concern of the Secretary of State in making these arrangements should be the future of the children of this country. That should be the principal concern of the teachers in any general teaching council, just as the health of the people of this country is the principal concern of the General Medical Council. The terms of this amendment do not suggest that that would be the concern of that body. Therefore, I believe that it is misconceived and dangerous, and it should be rejected.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I understand very well what the noble Lord means when he compares this Bill to the passage of a liner. It makes those of us who are in the education profession feel that we are in rowing boats. When you are in a rowing boat and a liner has just passed, that is a moment when you have to ask some questions very urgently indeed; for you need to set a new course which will ensure that you do not sink. For that reason it is altogether misconceived to suggest that, because big changes are taking place, one should not ask questions. If the noble Lord had said that we should not reach answers, that would have been quite another matter. But inquiries, after all, do not report instantly. They take a certain amount of time.
To deal with the point about the second subsection of the amendment, the complaint has been made of isolating a single purpose. But inquiries operate by terms of reference given by the Secretary of State. So if the Secretary of State wishes the inquiry to consider other points, he is perfectly able to put them within the terms of reference and put them in context with this one. Therefore, that point also falls.
36
I hope very strongly that concern about the future of children in schools is not something which either side of the House will attempt to monopolise. It is felt very strongly on both sides of the Chamber.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said a good deal about professional standards. I hope he will agree that if one tries to operate by professional standards one's first duty will be towards one's pupils. That duty takes priority over one's duty to anybody else, not excepting the Secretary of State. Consciences may often be misguided but provided one has a professional conscience, one must act according to it, whether rightly or wrongly.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, also said a good deal about threatening children's future by not conducting the tests. That is a controversial statement.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting. I was referring to the teachers' strike in the mid-1980s, not to teaching tests. My speech had nothing to do with that. I have not voiced an opinion on that issue.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that correction. I wondered about it while he was speaking. I am sorry to have misinterpreted him. But the noble Lord referred to the reception given to the Secretary of State at the conference of the National Association of Head Teachers. The Secretary of State said on that occasion that he did not know what he had done to deserve such a reception. That indicates that milder methods have not been very successful in getting the Secretary of State to listen. When one talks to someone who is deaf, one occasionally regrettably finds it necessary to raise one's voice. I am sorry that on this occasion it was so. But can the noble Lord, Lord Elton, tell me that it is possible to talk to the Secretary of State in a quieter voice and be heard?
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for very long but I wonder whether I could encourage the House to think more favourably about a general teaching council. I fully accept the criticisms made of this amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It is not a very happy amendment. But I do not believe that that is the principal issue, which is whether or not we want a general teaching council.
I have to say also that I regret that we have brought in the issue of what is collectively called "mums'army". That is peripheral to the general point of whether we want a general teaching council. I have mixed views about the so-called "mums' army". I reached the peak of my academic career at the age of four and have been in a steady decline ever since. Who teaches you at that early age is of vital importance. Perhaps if I had had better teaching at that age I should have been more successful than the examiners have proved me to be. I would rather that we left those issues on one side to focus on the particular point of whether we want a general teaching council and whether the general thrust of the amendment is one that we want to pursue.

37
I deeply regret that the teaching profession from time to time has gone on strike. In no way do I support, encourage or condone it. I very much regret the behaviour, reported in the press, at a recent trade union conference when the Secretary of State was present. That did not do the teachers' cause any good. Having said that, we have to recognise that when people behave in that way it is very often an expression of frustration rather than anything else. I remind your Lordships of what happened earlier this afternoon in this House. When a particular Member spoke in a way that noble Lords did not wish to hear, I regret to say that your Lordships shouted him down so that he could not continue. It is up to others to say whether or not that was because he was out of order or because they wished to bring him under control in some way. I would not wish to make a precise parallel with what the teaching profession has done; I merely say that that is an illustration of the way in which people sometimes behave when they are frustrated.
I believe that in a good educational system we must have, above all else, a dedicated and self-respecting teaching profession. I deplore some of the behaviour that the profession has been indulging in recently. However, I believe that to move towards a general teaching council, and particularly for the Government to do so, would be an act of imagination, generosity and confidence that might break the stalemate we have almost reached and dispel the sense of a lack of communication. That would give self-respect to the teaching profession. It would also provide a focus for professional consultation.
For those reasons, despite all the criticisms that have been made, I hope that we shall continue to move towards a general teaching council.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord Renton. We do not approve of the amendment as it is worded. However, I personally believe that we should work toward the establishment of a general teaching council.
First, there have been complaints from all round the country about teacher training colleges and their teaching. Students have come to see me about it. Secondly, as the right reverend Prelate said, many people are worried about the training of teachers for very young children. I received a deputation from Cornwall which said how worried people were about it.
I should like to make a completely different suggestion; namely, that the teachers themselves should be asked to bring forward a plan for a general teaching council. They should take a year to decide how they want the general teaching council to be set up and then to bring the plan to Westminster. I believe that the teachers themselves have to put forward a plan for a general teaching council and it is then for us to debate it. I believe that the responsibility for teaching lies with the teachers. Therefore, they themselves should say how it should be done.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I rise very briefly to comment on a remark made by the noble
38
Lord, Lord Renton. He referred particularly to subsection (2) of the amendment which states that the general teaching council,
"shall have regard for schools requiring special measures".
The noble Lord made a number of comments. Among other things, he said that that was a new phrase, that it was not contained in the Bill and therefore one had to be careful about it. Had that been the position, one would have agreed with the noble Lord. We all know what a formidable debater he is; and part of his skill, if I may say so, is based on his detailed knowledge of Bills. Therefore, I thought I had better say that Part V of the Bill is headed:
"Schools failing to give an acceptable standard of education".
Chapter I of Part V is headed:
"Identification of schools requiring special measures".
Later, there is a heading: "Special measures". Indeed, the three clauses under that heading deal specifically with special measures.
Chapter II of Part V is headed:
"New powers over schools requiring special measures".
In that section there are five clauses dealing with special measures.
That had to be said but it is not my main point. My main point is that one of the strengths of the amendment is that it deals with special measures. We are not just talking about the general measures which a general teaching council would affect—and it has been heartening to note the support from various Members of your Lordships' House. The amendment says that the teaching profession ought to take particular note of special measures. Those are defined. Indeed, we have talked about special measures not only at Report Stage but also during the Committee stage.
I feel that that subsection is of very great importance. The fact that noble Lords on this side of the House have raised it in the amendment is very much to be applauded. I hope that all parts of the House will support it.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend Lady Faithfull made a valid point. How one achieves a better position in society for teachers is a big question. We all felt it was not right. For years and years governments have thought about it and tried to do something about it, or perhaps have done nothing about it but have been aware of it. This amendment is not the right kind of amendment. I do not believe that professional status can be imposed on a body of people. What one ought to do is go out and talk to them, particularly their unions. As long as their unions quarrel amongst each other the possibility of bringing teachers together into one sensible body is very remote.
I do not believe the proposal fits into this Bill. When the 1944 Act was going through another place I remember Mrs. Cazalet-Keir and I moving an amendment to put equal pay for women teachers into the Bill. I won but then had to reverse it the next day. Sir Winston Churchill sent for me and said, "Look, you mustn't try to put an elephant into a perambulator". This amendment reminds me of that. It is not right in this Bill.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to the acrimony and strife that has taken place over the past few years between successive Secretaries of State and the teaching profession. Much reference has also been made to the irresponsibility of teachers in striking and to their discourtesy to the Secretary of State on certain occasions. I suggest to your Lordships that none of those things need have happened had there been an effective representative body to express and represent the views of teachers and to act as an intermediary between the Government with, let us face it, their political aims and the profession with, we hope, its professional aims. If there was an intermediary body so that the teaching profession was at arm's length from the Government, none of the things that have done so much damage to the teaching profession over the past few years need have happened. I strongly support the amendment. Even though, essentially, it may not be correctly worded I support the substance of it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should like to begin by referring to something that I believe unites every member of the House: that the quality of the teaching profession is absolutely crucial to the well-being and health of education in this country. In my view, this debate is about means to an end rather than the end in itself. The difference between us is that, unlike the proposers of the amendment, the Government believe that professional teachers should organise themselves into a professional body and that a general teaching council should not be born out of governments or trade unions; it should be born from the precious commodity of the professionalism of teachers. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, reminded us of how difficult it was during her term as Secretary of State to reach agreement with the key bodies in the debate—that is, the professional bodies of teachers and trade unions. While I agree with the sentiment expressed by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, I part company in the following respect. At the end of the debate why should not the teachers themselves form themselves into a professional body but not then come to government for statute?
There are some very interesting precedents. I refer to the royal colleges in the health service, of which there are a number. They range from large bodies like the Royal College of Nursing, with nearly 300,000 members, to the Royal College of Pathologists, with 5,000 members. None of those bodies has a statutory function but each acts as a professional body to promote members' interests. Several of those bodies see themselves as trade unions as well. For the most part they represent only one occupational group. Some also represent local groups—for example, the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. Royal colleges are still being set up. The Royal College of Anaesthetists was created in 1992. That body represents considerable expertise in the field in which it operates. It is closely involved in education and training. Many such bodies have links with similar organisations in other countries. They are able to use the title "member" or "fellow" of a royal college, which is generally held in high esteem. For example,
40
the Royal Society of Teachers was set up in 1929 but had its origins in the Teachers' Registration Council that had come into being in 1902. Both bodies acted as a register of qualified teachers. A small registration fee was charged and members were able to use the designation MRST (Member of the Royal Society of Teachers). Membership rose to almost 100,000 in 1931 and began to tail off as new teachers saw no reason to join. In 1949 that society was dissolved. There is no record of that society having had access to government or any obvious influence. But why should it not be resurrected?
A considerable number of references have been made to what I prefer to call mature entrants into teaching. Are noble Lords who have spoken against the idea denying the opportunities set out in our proposals for mature people with qualifications for entry into higher education, in addition to relevant experience which can be accredited—something I thought this House was in favour of—together with a full training programme leading to qualified teaching status for key stage one children? How patronising to write off that kind of expertise in our community. I for one do not do that. I believe that there are many people who cannot afford four years out of their lives to obtain the Bachelor of Education qualification but who have all the qualities and expertise that can be properly accredited, with full training, so that not a poor quality teacher but a teacher fully qualified according to the criteria set out for that course emerges at the end of the day.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, stated that in future there would be fewer, not more, nursery schools. I do not know on what evidence the noble Baroness bases that statement. The number of nursery places in this country has increased inexorably, though perhaps not so fast as many noble Lords would wish. There is no basis whatsoever for the remark of the noble Baroness. We are not closing down nursery schools. Where proposals come forward for such schools, they are given very serious consideration. We take into account proper targeting of those nursery places where they are most needed.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Renton made an excellent analysis of the amendment. It is difficult to know what it adds up to in practice. Under the Bill there is an obligation to consider the matter within three months. But it would be dishonest of me on behalf of the Government to agree at the Dispatch Box to this amendment. In view of the advice given by Her Majesty's Government to the Select Committee on Education in 1990—advice that we argue still stands—it would raise expectations quite unnecessarily. I do not believe that that would be appropriate for the Government.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that it is not my style at the Dispatch Box to "fob off" this House in any respect. I like to think that any matter that I argue in this House is based upon the following two principles: first, that I believe the case for the Government is a strong one; secondly, that I believe what I am saying has intellectual validity. There happens to be a difference of opinion between both sides of the House, but I resent the

41
phrase "fob off", because the Government believe that a professional association should come from the teachers themselves and not be born out of statute or trade unionism.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and others made reference to the NHT. I believe that the behaviour of members of the NHT towards my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at their conference recently was absolutely disgraceful. How much more dignified it might have been for those members who felt strongly about the issue at the time to have responded quietly—and how much more effective. Flow much more difficult for those people in that audience who regard themselves as professionals to go back to their schools and teach tolerance to the young people in front of them in the classrooms.
Perhaps I may say to the right reverend Prelate who made a reference to Questions today and to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, that I believe—and if he reads Hansard tomorrow he will agree too—that the noble Lord, Lord Spens, was out of order as regards a large proportion of the Question that he posed in this House. This House jealously guards its traditions and I believe that it was right to show its feelings on that occasion.
The amendment would require the Government to engage in an inquiry into the development of the teaching profession, with special attention being given to the setting up of a general teaching council. The essence of my reply is that such development should be for teachers themselves to take forward. As to looking again at the merits of a teaching council, we have already looked long and hard at all the arguments, and have not been persuaded. Accordingly, an inquiry can serve no useful purpose and I urge the House to reject the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will she confirm that the noble Lord opposite who corrected me was quite right in pointing out that the expression "special measures" is used in several clauses in the Bill, and that unfortunately there is no definition of it in Clause 282 which contains more than 50 definitions? Various references are defined, such as "special educational need", "special educational provision" and "special purpose grants" but, alas, not "special measures". My research therefore was not thorough enough and I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am in order, but perhaps I may say that with all those definitions and not one for "special measures", about which the noble Lord feels so strongly, his criticism should be directed to the Government and to the effect that there ought to be a definition of "special measures".
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say that my noble friend is absolutely right. There is no such definition and there are so many "special measures" that one can think of in relation to education. As I understand it, the inquiry would be in regard to setting up a general teaching council. I cannot believe that any general
42
teaching council, if it were set up, or any special body in education that was set up, would not be concerned with all education, whatever measures were required.
Lord Judd: my Lords, it has been a helpful debate and for the third time in our consideration of the Bill it is quite clear that there is a great deal of goodwill in all parts of the House towards the general proposition of a teachers' council. I would be foolish to forecast that it will prevail at this particular stage in our deliberations. But it is an issue which will not go away and I am confident that in due course the logic of what is being proposed, in one form or another, will be accepted and we shall move to the establishment of such a council. I hope that those in the profession who are so keen for this will take heart from the seriousness with which the issue was debated in this House.
Because of the importance of the debate I should like to reply to a number of points that have been made. First, I must genuinely—because it is important—thank the Minister for her clarity. Each time the issue was put forward she was absolutely adamant and categorical in regard to her position. That demonstrates that whatever positive feeling is building up in the House as a whole, it is not at this stage shared by the Minister. We should welcome the fact that she does not try—I almost said to "fob us off", which would be unacceptable—to suggest that she is on our side when she is not. At the end of a long Bill one comment shall wish to make to the Minister is that her candour is exemplary.
The Minister made a reference to attitudes towards mature students. I hope that away from the House she will take the opportunity to look in a relaxed way at what I said when introducing the amendment. I endorse what I said then and repeat that I can think of nothing better for the teaching profession than an infusion of energy and experience from the wider world. That would be a tremendous asset for the future of education. The point that I made in introducing the amendment was that that should not be instead of preparation and proper training, but coupled with it. To bring those two factors together would be a terrific investment in the future of the course.
One of the privileges that we have had during our deliberations of the Bill has been to listen to the wise interventions by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. What he has said on several occasions, not least his strictures about the importance of trying to build consensus into the future of education, is something we should all take extremely seriously. I am sorry that he does not feel that Amendment No. 242F meets the need. All I can say—I hope that the right reverend Prelate will forgive my making the point—is that if all those who stood and said that they were in favour of the proposition were to come forward with their ideas about how it could be carried forward, we might get a strong amendment which would command even more support in all parts of the House. But I am glad that there is goodwill both on the part of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and the right reverend Prelate, towards what is being proposed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, with all her experience, made a couple of points which we should

43
all ponder. She referred to the importance of the positive attitude of the teachers' unions and representative bodies. Of course, that is what is different about the situation at the moment. They have all come together and done a lot of work, and are a long way forward in finding a common approach as to how such a council should be established.
The noble Baroness also made what I felt to be an incredible point regarding the European Community. I find it sad that in this important dimension of our nation's life we should be not merely lagging behind but setting our face against what is seen as absolutely logical and healthy in the development of education in the rest of Europe. It is one of those situations in which we would do well to look at what our partners have done, why they have done it and what they are thereby achieving.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, emphasised the point by saying that the difficulty in the present situation when we are discussing the future of education is that there is no proper body with which to consult. That begs the question of whether there is a real wish to consult. I am afraid that that is my lingering anxiety. For me to be convinced that the Government really wanted to consult, they would have to be in the vanguard for establishing some kind of convincing arrangement by which that consultation could meaningfully take place. That is the problem.
That brings us to the point made by my noble friend Lady David who said that the idea of a "Mums' Army", thought up rapidly for quick implementation with little consultation, is again an illustration of why we need a body of this kind. It is frankly distressing that we can see yet another lurch forward affecting the whole future of the teaching profession in this country with no proper arrangements having been made to take the full analysis, thought, experience, wisdom, and goodwill of the profession into account in working out how that should be done. Of course, a council would help greatly in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised the point that three months was rather a short time in which to set up such an inquiry. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made the point that an inquiry of this kind would take time to complete its deliberations and therefore it would not suddenly happen three months after the passage of the Bill. But perhaps what should be emphasised is that it is strange for the noble Lord to be concerned about doing something so quickly after the passage of the Bill when what disturbs us is that there was no consultation or arrangement for consultation before the Bill was prepared and introduced. That is the real criticism. Not to have raised his voice about that rather detracts from any strength that there might have been in the rest of his case.
The references made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to special measures led to an interesting exchange. I was very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and my noble friend Lord Dormand made the observations that they did because they were right. This is a very specific reference to special measures because we support the concept that the
44
profession will be contributing to the strength and health of our educational system and will therefore be in the forefront of any consideration and deliberation about what needs to be done to put right what is wrong. We have thought about this amendment and we are glad that it has been introduced in this part of the Bill with this particular priority.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, is always very gentle about the way he does things, but rather sadly he shared his anxieties about the state of the profession. Because he is a very generous and fair man, I put it to him that of course we are all concerned when there are eruptions of militant action of any kind in the teaching profession. But we have to understand the frustration which is there. We also have to understand that, because there are so many strong people within the profession wanting to contribute to its future and the future of education, and who feel that they are being denied the opportunity to do so, they erupt emotionally. If only we could give them the status and standing which we are arguing for here the situation would be transformed and they would be drawn into a constructive relationship.
From every angle and standpoint on education which we have been considering in our deliberations on the Bill so far, it has become clear—and on this there is no difference between me and the Minister—that we are agreed that the teaching profession is fundamentally important. It is because we on this side of the House believe that it is no good just saying that but that, if we really believe it, we have to establish the means to enable the profession to play the full and constructive part it should, that yet again we want to pursue this particular point which is argued in our amendment. Therefore I press the amendment to a vote.
5.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.242F) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 142.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Airedale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Galpern, L.

Ardwick, L.

Geraint, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Blackstone, B.

Granville of Eye, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hampton, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hamwee, B.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Hanworth, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hooson, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hughes, L.

David, B.

Hunt, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Desai, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jeger, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Eatwell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Falkender, B.

John-Mackie, L.

45

Judd, L.

Richard, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Seear, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lockwood, B.

Serota, B.

Longford, E.

Shackleton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stedman, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thurlow, L.

Mayhew, L.

Tordoff, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Turner of Camden, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mulley, L.

Warnock, B.

Nathan, L.

White, B.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Ogmore, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Parry, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Henley, L.

Aberdare, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Aldington, L.

Hives, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hood, V.

Annan, L.

Hooper, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Howe, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Arran, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Astor, V.

Kimball, L.

Barber, L.

Knutsford, V.

Bessborough, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Blatch, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Blyth, L.

Lindsay, E.

Boardman, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Borthwick, L.

Liverpool, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas, L.

Brentford, V.

Lyell, L.

Cadman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnock, L.

Manton, L.

Chalfont, L.

Marsh, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Merrivale, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Milne, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Milverton, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Morris, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mottistone, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V.

Moyne, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Munster, E.

Eccles, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Nelson, E.

Elibank, L.

Norrie, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Northbourne, L.

Elles, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orkney, E.

Elton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Foley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Peel, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Pender, L.

Geddes, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Goschen, V.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Pym, L.

Haig, E.

Quinton, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Reay, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rennell, L.

Hayter, L.

Renton, L.

46

Renwick, L.

Suffield, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Terrington, L.

St. Davids, V.

Teviot, L.

Salisbury, M.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Trefgarne, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Trumpington, B.

Savile, L.

Ullswater, V.

Seccombe, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Selborne, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Westbury, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Stewartby, L.

Wise, L.

Strange, B.

Wynford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Young, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.11 p.m.
Clause 214 [School conducted by education association acquiring grant-maintained status]:
[Amendments Nos. 242G to 242J not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 243:
Page 132, line 16, after ("to") insert ("the head teacher of the school").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this was discussed with Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment Nos. 243A and 243B not moved.]
Clause 215 [Discontinuance of school conducted by education association]:
[Amendment No. 243C not moved.]
Clause 216 [Winding-up of education association]:
[Amendment No. 243D not moved.]
Clause 217 [Reports showing school no longer requires special measures]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 133, line 32, after ("to") insert ("the head teacher of the school").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 243. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 218 [Regulations for the purposes of Chapter II]:
[Amendments Nos. 244A and 244B not moved.]
[Amendment No. 244C not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 244D:
Before Clause 219, 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.

47
(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 organisations, charities or on a private basis.
(6) The cost of such residential schools to meet social needs shall normally be met jointly by the Education and Social Services Department; but, in exceptional cases, when such funding is not available, by Government grant.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on 29th April this year, I moved Amendments Nos. 74, 193AC and new clause 159. Those amendments were supported by all sides of the Committee. I withdrew them, hoping that my noble friend the Minister would reconsider her position. I am grateful to members of her department for seeing me, but nevertheless I am left to move this amendment.
This amendment concerns children whose education is suffering due to adverse social conditions, disruptive family circumstances, and mental and/or emotional disturbances, including child sexual abuse. These children may be intelligent, but their personal problems exhibit themselves by poor behaviour in school; particularly, by non-school attendance; and by delinquent behaviour. Such children can severely disrupt a class.
The amendment recommends that such cases should be the joint responsibility of the local authority education department and the social services department under Section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989. We all support the concept that children should be integrated into their local school and community and live with their family where it is possible and practicable. But experience has taught me that a proportion of such children can be helped only by a certain type of residential school.
Many of these residential schools, independent and non-maintained, are run by charities or the private sector. Such schools are expensive. Why are they expensive? First, because the staffing ratio needs to be high. Secondly, psychiatric services have to be paid for by the governors due to the breakdown of the child guidance clinic service and the psychiatric services for children in this country. Thirdly. many such schools now have children for 52 weeks of the year whereas, in time gone by, children used to go back to their local authorities during the holidays. Finally, I regret to have to say that many of the children needing these schools have no help from their social services departments in terms of aftercare. Therefore, a number of schools have had to pay for outreach workers themselves.
There are a number of local authorities which cannot (or perhaps will not) meet the fees of such schools. It is true, as my noble friend Lady Blatch has said, that if the children are statemented and the school is named in the statement, nothing can stand in the way, but many of the children who need to go to these schools are not statemented. Regrettably I have
48
to say—I know that this is not supposed to be the case, but I am bound to tell your Lordships—that treasurers take part in the statementing process.
If local authorities do not use these schools, they must close. That means that they are sold off and a valuable resource is lost. Furthermore, local authorities have to offer a service to such children and I am informed by the Social Care Association that they are in no position to do so in local authority homes. If these children's needs are not properly met, ultimately they fall into the penal system and that is even more expensive to the country.
I am bound to draw the attention of your Lordships' House and of my noble friend the Minister to the Statement on juvenile crime that was made in your Lordships' House on 26th May. My noble friend Lord Ferrers, answering for the Home Office, said:
"I tell my noble friend"—
that is me—
"that … £10 million is to help schools to tackle truancy".—[Official Report, 26/5/93; col. 382.]
My noble friend said that that sum was to be given to 74 local education authorities. Presumably, therefore, the education authorities must have some extra money for these particularly difficult children.
The amendment recommends that the fees of the residential schools which meet the needs of the most difficult and disruptive children in the country, many of whom are non-school attenders, should be met by education and social service departments jointly. If local authorities cannot pay the full fees, it is recommended that the Department for Education should meet part of the fees. After all, there is a precedent for this. Under the assisted places scheme, the department meets the fees of some children attending public schools whose parents cannot afford to pay. Why not meet the needs of disturbed and disruptive children? Surely, their needs should be met for the children's sake, the country's sake, and from the financial point of view also. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question. Is the noble Baroness going to speak also to Amendment No. 244E which is grouped with this?
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe that it is possible for one to disagree with the Marshalled List and I do, in fact, disagree with the grouping. Although Amendment No. 244E contains similar points, it is altogether different.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment on two grounds. First, it is often easily assumed that the integration of a child into a mainstream school is always the best solution for that child, but there are many children whose problems arise simply because they cannot manage or be managed in a mainstream school. Moreover, their problems arise more or less directly from their home situation. For such children, being able to go away to school as a weekly boarder, a full boarder or even for 52 weeks in the year is essential as a preliminary to education. Without education, such children have literally no hope of not ending up behind bars.
On Friday I was in what was probably the best

49
school that I have ever been in. It was a charity school run by the Roman Catholic Church. It took in children who had been turned out of every other school they had attended. It had recently opened a unit for psychiatric children who had left psychiatric hospitals and who would otherwise receive no education. None of the classes was larger than eight or nine in number. The children were surrounded by love and support, which carried them through their education. Some of the children will return to the mainstream but those who will not, because they are severely schizophrenic, are taking GCSEs. Arrangements are being made for them to go into colleges of further education with the continued support of the school.
Such schools are expensive and it is only reasonable that the local education authority should collaborate with the social services for providing the fees when one or other service cannot do so alone. It is undoubtedly true that at present even the statements which are being drawn up for children refuse to mention such schools because of the expense. This is yet another case in which, if money is spent now, jointly and seriously after discussion, money will be saved later. That is apart from the benefit to the children themselves.
Baroness David: My Lords, the noble Baroness has identified a real problem; there are children who need special treatment. Equally, it is true that the local education authority may not have the funds or that it and the social services department are not collaborating as well as they should. It may well be that in present circumstances the local authority—be it education, social services or jointly—may not have sufficient money to pay for these inevitably expensive places. Therefore, it is up to the Department for Education to contribute to the funding if it hopes to return children to their mainstream schools.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am a governor of a school in the East End of London for emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children. They live at home and attend the school. Therefore I know that that arrangement by no means costs nothing. The cost per child in such a specialist day school is of the order of £10,000 per year. The cost of fostering such a child could be as much as £250 per week, including specialist psychiatric services and so forth. Added together, the cost is almost as much as that for a residential school for which the child leaves home. There is a forceful logic in bringing together the Department for Education and the Department of Social Services because often the problems of such children are social problems resulting from a lack of support at home.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the amendment. As the noble Baroness pointed out, a great variety of people have special educational problems. Socially fed problems are a part of the situation but we can never decide what the relationship is between them; for example, educational problems sometimes lead to behavioural problems, which in turn lead to more social problems at home.
50
We need a variety of educational establishments to deal with the variety of problems. I suggest that the Bill should contain provisions as suggested in the amendment in order to guarantee a place for children who cannot, almost by definition, be educated in the mainstream. There are not many such children but many of the educational and social failures in our classrooms end up in our prisons.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too support the amendment most strongly. There is a school such as that described by my noble friend Lady Faithfull in the Isle of Wight. Those running the school are deeply worried that, under the terms of the Bill, it will fall between two stools and that no one will provide the extra funding. The school is a charity and it does its best to raise money but the costs are so huge that it must have support. It is dreadful to think that young children and teenagers will not receive the kind of education that that school can give. The school must be kept going. One of the problems is that people come to the Isle of Wight from elsewhere but the local county council does not necessarily have the money to support them all. I believe that as the Bill evolves it will be even more difficult for the money to be available locally. The provision of such money needs to be more widely-based, which is what the amendment provides. I hope that my noble friend will be sympathetic to the principle behind it. Whether she agrees with its detail is another matter altogether.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I too support the amendment. It is near and dear to the heart of my concern, which is the implementation of Part III of the Bill. The amendment has two elements but I shall not repeat any of the contributions made by noble Lords more competent than I to make them. Subsections (1) to (5) of the amendment are implementation machinery. Subsection (6) relates to cost. I can see no reason why subsections (1) to (5) should not be incorporated as guidance in a code of practice. I seek the assistance of my noble friend the Minister as to whether cost can be adequately dealt with by guidance or whether it would have to appear in primary legislation. I strongly support the incorporation into the Bill of such concepts of guidance for implementation, as they are utterly requisite.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the new clauses before us raise important issues which were, of course, debated fully during the progress of Part III of the Bill both in this House and another place. We must be clear as to the context in which we are discussing these issues. The background to the debate on the amendments is the wide-ranging measures in Part III of the Bill which will strengthen the provision of education to meet children's special educational needs. It is important to stress that all children with special needs will benefit from the new measures in the Bill, including those whose needs are based on emotional or behavioural difficulties.
The measures which we have taken in the Bill include strengthened duties on local authorities in respect of the assessment and statementing processes. Parents will have rights over the school placement

51
which they wish their child to attend, be it at a maintained, grant-maintained, ordinary or special school or, indeed, a school outside the maintained sector, such as one of the schools with which my noble friend is so closely associated.
Coupled with these strengthened duties on local education authorities are strengthened rights of appeal by parents against an LEA's decision over their child's special education. Those appeals will go to a new independent special needs tribunal whose decision will be binding on the local authority. For instance, should a parent have reason not to be satisfied with the decision taken by the local authority over a school placement for his child he may appeal to the tribunal which may, if it thinks fit, direct the LEA to name the school for which the parent has made a case, even if it is a non-maintained or an independent school. The LEA will have to accept that decision and pay the full costs of educating the child at that school.
Part III of the Bill also requires the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice covering the role of the school and the LEA towards pupils with special educational needs. That code is a completely new initiative by the Government. The thoroughness in carrying out procedures and consistency of approach which the code will promulgate, together with its sound practical advice, will be of particular benefit for all children with special educational needs. We shall also be issuing new guidance on a range of matters which will complement the code and the legislation. I shall say more about that in a few moments.
Let us be clear. We are not debating these matters in the context of the existing legislation, which may lie at the heart of some of the anxieties expressed. We are debating them in the context of the 1993 Bill and the complementary initiatives that are being taken by the Government. We must consider these issues squarely within the new regime and not the old.
Both the new clauses are concerned with ensuring the proper co-operation among the various agencies involved in identifying and assessing a child's special educational needs and in making the provision required to meet those needs. There is no doubt that we are all agreed that the health authorities and the social services departments have an integral part to play in those processes. Their role is essential if an authority is to gain a full picture of a child's needs. We are also agreed on the need for those agencies to co-operate fully with the LEA for the benefit of the child.
As I said earlier, the Secretary of State will be required under Part III of the Bill to issue a code of practice. That code will apply to schools, to LEAs and to other bodies assisting an LEA in its duties under Part III. The code will give substantial guidance on the identification, assessment and statementing processes which the agencies involved cannot ignore. It will cover the role of the health and social services agencies in those processes, including the assessment of and provision for children who may have emotional or other behavioural problems and on which I shall say more in a few moments.
52
As I said in Committee, the code will firmly address the issues of proper and effective co-operation between local authorities and the health and social services agencies. Therefore the code which your Lordships agreed will be subject to the affirmative procedures of Parliament will be applicable to district health authorities in so far as they are assisting local education authorities to carry out their functions under Part III of the Bill; in other words, in all aspects of the identification, assessment and statementing processes. The code will help parents understand what they can expect of all the agencies concerned with children with special educational needs and should therefore both improve practice and enhance accountability. If parents are dissatisfied with provision made by the health service, they should of course use the rights of redress set out clearly in the Patient's Charter.
I want to give an example of a further important aspect of the guidance in the code of practice where the co-operation among the various agencies is particularly needed. That is the importance of early identification of a child's needs, including the fundamental role of the health authorities in the early stage of a child's development. It is to the child's lasting benefit that his or her needs are identified as early as possible, and this applies very much to those who may have emotional or behavioural problems which are a particular concern of my noble friend Lady Faithfull.
Such early identification can alleviate greater problems at a later stage. It is also more conducive to the efficient use of the substantial resources available for children with special educational needs. I believe that an increasing trend towards more effective early identification of a child's needs resulting from proper co-operation and action by all the agencies involved will be a major improvement resulting from Part III of the Bill.
I mentioned that we would be issuing new guidance. Close contacts between my department and the Department of Health will themselves become increasingly important over the coming months. We shall be co-operating as regards drawing up guidance for consultation. We shall be consulting on guidance which will cover a range of related issues. They include the difficult question of advising schools in their dealing with disciplinary problems; the effective operation of the new duty on LEAs to provide education otherwise than in a school where necessary, with the aim of returning the child to school as soon as is practicable; and the effective and sensitive care of children who are being looked after by local authorities, in the light of the recommendations of the Warner and Utting reports. Those will be complementary to our code of practice which, as I said, will cover guidance on all aspects of identifying and assessing children with special educational needs.
This debate has drawn out the difficult issues which lie behind the amendment. Those issues are particularly complex when dealing with children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, as my noble friend said, and she has been supported in that by other noble Lords.

53
I suggest that the amendments before us do not go as far as the Government's own proposals in directly addressing the challenges which face the various agencies involved in assessing and providing for children with special educational needs. Our aim is to help those bodies on how they can best exercise their functions for the benefit of all children with SEN. I believe that the extensive guidance in the code which will apply to the agencies involved, together with the additional substantive guidance that we are developing, will be far more effective in fostering genuine co-operation and a problem-solving approach.
We should not ignore the fact that there are already good examples of well-managed and negotiated co-operative arrangements among the various agencies around the country. Nevertheless, when we debated this issue in Committee I said that we were aware that many respondents to our consultative document on the SEN legislation, Access to the System, saw the need for greater assurance about the effective operation of those co-operative processes. I said in Committee that the Government accepted that view in principle, and that the Department of Health was therefore conducting a consultation exercise on how best to give that assurance.
There were two issues on which suppliers and other interested bodies were consulted: how health authorities and sccial services departments could ensure that their contributions to assessments and the preparation of statements were made in a timely and efficient manner; and how the same levels of co-operation among health, social and education services in supporting children with special educational needs could be achieved as are provided for in other circumstances under the Children Act.
The consultation exercise conducted by the Department of Health, on which I promised to report, elicited a wide range of responses. There was a variety of views as to the best way forward towards the commonly agreed aim of ensuring closer co-operation between agencies concerned with children with special educational needs. My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Health are considering with colleagues the extent to which it would be possible to bring forward an amendment at the next stage. If that does prove possible, we shall do so.
As we have seen, my noble friend Lady Faithfull is particularly concerned for her amendment to ensure the proper identification, assessment and provision for children who have emotional difficulties and those who demonstrate disruptive behaviour. There is absolutely no difference among us in our desire to ensure that such children get the proper help and provision they need If I may, I should like to add my own words of appreciation for the professionals who teach and care for these children. It is one of the most demanding and challenging jobs in the field of education. I am well aware also that those children can be among the most demanding group of children that teachers and carers have to work with. Many who have not had first-hand experience of such children may find it difficult to appreciate just how difficult the handling of these children can be, and I know how
54
much dedication and experience is called for. I pay warm tribute to all who have dealings with those children.
I suggest to your Lordships, however, that here too the action the Government are taking in this Bill and propose to take over the next year will prove more effective for these children than my noble friend's amendment. The Bill does not refer specifically to pupils with emotional or behavioural difficulties and I think that is right. It does not refer to any particular group of children or to any specific need but to all children who have some special educational needs. The children that we are discussing fall clearly within that group. Therefore, they will benefit from the strengthened provision for children with special needs generally.
As with other aspects of special needs provision, the code of practice will cover the role of schools, LEAs, health and social service agencies in assessing and providing for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. In addition to the code, as I informed the Committee on 29th April, my department, together with the Department of Health, will over the coming months issue for consultation draft guidance specifically on the provision for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. I know that your Lordships will welcome the appearance of such guidance and will welcome opportunities to comment upon it. The guidance will be based on a clear understanding and recognition of the difficulties which face such children, their families and those who make provision and care for them. We shall seek to emphasise the role of the family and the need to strengthen and reinforce family structures wherever it is possible and sensible to do so. Nevertheless, the guidance will recognise that the family structure alone will, in many cases, be inadequate, even with support, and will offer ways forward to help the child. The guidance will also help schools in the teaching and handling of such children, and offer guidance on intervention strategies.
The guidance will complement the code of practice in relation to children with emotional or behavioural difficulties who need a statement. Together they will address the placement of such children, including circumstances where a residential placement should be considered.
My noble friend's amendment includes a role for central government in the funding of such placements. Residential placements for those children are a matter for the LEAs, social services departments and, of course, district health authorities, which should be involved from the outset in any case where the health of a child is an issue. All those authorities are funded to meet their respective responsibilities. They must also act responsibly in using those public funds. The provisions in the Bill, and guidance which I have foreshadowed, will clarify the agencies' responsibilities in respect of children with special educational needs. They will, therefore, make them more accountable to parents and to those involved in caring for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties.
Mention was made of the funding of special placements and of the assisted places scheme. Again,

55
the assisted places scheme makes provision for parents to send pupils to independent schools of their choice where they could not otherwise pay the fees. That is not a parallel to the situation of parents with children who have a statement of special needs. We have strengthened the rights of parents to make representations about an independent school placement. If the local authority agrees, the local authority must pay all of the fees and also, where necessary, board and lodging. However, where the local authority does not agree, it must, nevertheless, make provision appropriate to the needs of the child. On an appeal, a special needs tribunal may direct the LEA to name an independent school or non-maintained special school. Again, the local education authority would have to pay all the fees and the board and lodging where necessary.
I turn now to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about improved collaboration and better use of resources. I absolutely agree with him. It is my view that the requirements of the Bill ensure that all the agencies actually work together and think about the child with special needs; for example, the social services, with their responsibilities, spending their little pocket of money, and education, with its responsibilities, spending another pocket of money. It makes a good deal of sense for them to come together in the interests of the child. Where it makes better sense to have a residential placement to address the needs of the child, both educationally and emotionally, the framework of the Bill, underpinned by the code of practice, may well enable precisely that kind of provision to be made. I believe that there are better prospects for collaborative working and funding under the Bill as currently set out than is the case under the present arrangements which, as we all know, are wholly inadequate.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I should especially like to thank my noble friend the Minister who has obviously given great thought to the matter. Nevertheless, I remain deeply worried. Many of the points made by my noble friend are structural; for example, the question of assessments, parents and appeals. They are structural matters which will not affect the children, the type of child or the behaviour.
Various provisions put forward by my noble friend the Minister may well apply in two to three years' time. However, they will not apply for some considerable time. There is a real problem in the country at present, not only in connection with the Department of Health and the Department for Education but also in connection with the Home Office in relation to the number of juvenile delinquents.
As regards the question of costs, one has to face reality. I agree with my noble friend the Minister that it is the role of the local authority to pay. However, if the local authority does not have the money, how can it pay? That is the problem. As I said during the last stage of the Bill, one place has already closed in Birmingham. It was very good; indeed, it was absolutely splendid. It was run by a voluntary
56
organisation but it had to close because the local authority withdrew the grant which meant that it could not continue.
I still believe that the amendment meets the conditions that prevail here and now. It may not do so in one, two or three years' time when the Bill comes into operation; but that will be too late. Such places will have closed by that time. We shall then find ourselves in real difficulties as regards the children and the parents and financially as regards the local authorities. For that reason, I must test the opinion of the House.
5.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 244D) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 120.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Airedale, L.

Judd, L.

Annan, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lockwood, B.

Aylestone, L.

Longford, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Meston, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milne, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mottistone, L.

Cross, V.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Northbourne, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Parry, L.

Eatwell, L.

Peston, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Faithfull, B. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falkender, B.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fitt, L.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Guildford, Bp.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hamwee, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hanworth, V.

Thurlow, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wharton, B.

Hooson, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wise, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Aberdare, L.

Aldington, L.

Arran, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Astor, V.

57

Barber, L.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Borthwick, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Brentford, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cadman, L.

Marlesford, L.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Moyne, L.

Chalfont, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Nelson, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Norfolk, D.

Clark of Kempston, L

Norrie, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Orkney, E.

Colwyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cranborne, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Peel, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Davidson, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denham, L.

Quinton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Reay, L.

Dudley, E.

Rennell, L.

Eccles, V.

Renton, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renwick, L.

Ellenborough. L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elles, B.

St. Davids, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Salisbury, M.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gainsborough, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Goschen, V.

Savile, L.

Haig, E.

Seccombe, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Strange, B.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Hives, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Suffield, L.

Hood, V.

Teviot, L.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howe, E.

Torrington, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kimball, L.

Ullswater, V.

Knutsford, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Lindsay, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Liverpool, E.

Wynford, L.

Long, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.53 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 244E:
Before Clause 219, insert the following new clause:
("Co-operation between authorities
.—(1) Where it appears to a local education authority that any authority mentioned in subsection (3) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) The authorities to whom subsection (1) applies shall be determined by the Secretary of State and shall include—

(a) any local education authority

(b) any local authority

58

(c) any health authority or National Health Service Trust.

(4) Regulations shall determine—

(a) the means by which the authority shall co-operate in assessing the special educational and non-educational needs of the child where the local education authority is making an assessment under section 160 or making or maintaining a Statement under section 161,

(b) the grounds on which a decision shall be made as to what needs shall be described as educational and what needs shall be described as non-educational.

(5) A Statement made under section 161 shall—

(a) give details of the authorities assessment of the child's non-educational needs,

(b) specify in terms of type and amount the non-educational provision which the authority either intends to make under section 161(5) (a) (ii) or is satisfied will be made available by a district health authority, a social services department or some other body and of which, in their opinion, advantage should be taken if the child is properly to benefit from the special educational provision specified in section 161(3)(b).

(6) In respect of either educational needs as detailed in section 161(3) (a) or non-educational needs as detailed in subsection (5) (a) of this section the Statement shall state which authority shall make the provision to meet those educational or non-educational needs.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 244D which we have just discussed, but I still wish to speak to it as it is a slightly wider amendment. Amendment No. 244E seeks to ensure that authorities co-operate with each other in meeting the social and special needs of children. The first three subsections of the proposed new clause set out a duty on statutory agencies to co-operate with the local education authority, as the lead agency, in carrying out its duties towards children with special educational needs. The wording echoes that of Section 27 of the Children Act 1989 where health and education authorities are required to assist social services departments in carrying out their duties in respect of children in need.
But there is a clear need for increased co-operation between agencies in the following areas: the early identification of young children with special educational needs by health or social services departments and the early notification of such children to local education authorities. I speak with special feeling on behalf of health visitors. They are somehow rarely mentioned and they provide splendid services to young children. Often health visitors' views are not sought and there is not often a channel through which their views can be given. GPs also have much to give in this area but they often take little part in the matter, not because they do not wish to assist but because the structure to enable them to do so does not exist.
We have already spoken about joint funding with regard to education authorities and social services departments. Therefore I need not elaborate on that. The previous amendment was particularly concerned with children with emotional difficulties. However, we must also consider physically handicapped children and those with medical needs. We must consider the provision of speech therapy, physiotherapy and occupational therapy for children with special educational needs. Often those therapies are not taken into account and are not even thought about. There

59
must he a structure to allow those therapies to be taken into account. There is a clear need for clarification of duties in respect of that matter.
Following recent court cases and the publication of the addendum to Circular 22/89, there is, if anything, increased confusion, in particular as regards whether health or education authorities should provide speech therapy. Clause 161(5)(a) makes it clear that there is a duty on local education authorities to make special educational provision for a child, and a power to make non-educational provision. Following recent judgments, most speech therapy is now technically deemed to be educational provision. Yet the clear perception of most authorities is that the health service is funded to carry out this work, not the education service. Indeed this was recognised in the Audit Commission/HMI report entitled Getting in on the Act. That report was published last summer. While there is any room for uncertainty we face the continuing unedifying spectacle of children going without speech therapy while health and education authorities each wait in the hope that the other will provide something.
At this juncture I should also speak about the child guidance clinic service. That was a wonderful service which made splendid provision for education authorities, social services departments and health authorities. A child guidance clinic consists of a social worker employed by a social services department; a psychologist who is employed by an education department; and a psychiatrist who is employed by a health authority. Those services have decreased and in some parts of the country there are no child guidance clinics at all. That must be a great loss especially when it comes to assessing children who have special educational needs.
An important aspect of provision to meet special educational needs concerns low-incidence disabilities. It often makes sound economic sense for services to be based on an area which is larger than one local education authority and which might include three or four local education authorities where that makes geographical sense. I feel very strongly about the matter because, as a director of social services, I had to contact more than one district health authority and more than one regional health authority. It was very difficult to get them to co-ordinate the provision of the necessary services for the physically handicapped and those with low-incidence disabilities.
The problem is recognised in the current GEST-funded arrangements for provision for dual sensorily impaired children (deaf-blind children) under which consortia of LEAs receive supported grants to enable them to develop their provision. The ability of a local education authority to call on another local education authority to assist in meeting a special educational need is therefore an important measure. The effect of subsection (4) would be to clarify which agency would provide which service.
I could go on, but I shall not. I believe that provision must be made not only for the emotionally
60
disturbed children we have been talking about but also many others with physical and sensory disabilities. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I found the speech of my noble friend the Minister in response to the previous amendment utterly convincing. When I heard it I realised that so much was being done, with the code of practice (which will now have legal efficacy) and guidance circulars, and that my noble friend had considered in great depth the practical problems involved. That was why I supported the Government on the last Division, although such was not my intention. For the same reason, and because of that explanation, I would not be able to support the present amendment.
I should like to raise one point which worries me. I take the point of my noble friend the Minister that she is concerned about all children with special educational needs, without categorisation. I agree with that point. However, I am very worried about speech therapy, which has been mentioned. Can my noble friend the Minister say something about the shortage of speech therapists, the provision of their services, and so forth?
Baroness David: My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment and I should like to support it. However, I should like to follow up immediately what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said about speech therapy.
As I was driving to London this morning I heard that there were half a million children needing speech therapy. That statistic was produced by AFASIC, which is the society which deals with speech-impaired children. Such children are not receiving the treatment they need because of the lack of co-operation between the education and health services. That is an extremely important matter and we ought to take note of it.
The noble Lord also said that a great deal could be included in codes of practice. The National Association for Special Educational Needs—which was constituted in 1992 following a merger of the two leading professional bodies in the area of special educational needs and is the largest professional body in this field—says that:
"An important—indeed central—consideration is whether the necessity for appropriate and effective collaboration between the relevant authorities should appear in primary legislation or should simply be a matter for the Code of Practice".
That association, which is a strong professional body, believes very firmly that the principle involved should be a matter for primary legislation. It endorses the approach taken in the Children Act 1989 that, wherever possible and practicable, central and essential features of good practice should be enshrined in legislation. Therefore, I believe that we should take note of what the association says, because it has wide knowledge of the field.
In so far as concerns delays in the assessment and statementing process which may be attributable to delays in the submission of health or social services' advice, the Department of Health states that there is

61
no evidence on that point. On the other hand, anecdotal evidence which the association has received from its members in particular areas in response to previous DfE consultations, emphasises that problems of this nature exist. That is an important matter. If statements are held up it means that there is a delay in providing children with the education that they need.
For those various reasons I support the amendment of the noble Baroness very strongly.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I put my name to the amendment because I was worried particularly about the issue of early identification of young children with special educational needs. In her reply to the previous debate the noble Baroness covered those issues very fully in terms of a code of practice. The only point on which I remain unhappy is whether local authorities will spend the money which is necessary to fulfil their obligations under the code of practice. My impression of local authorities is that, being highly politicised as they are, they are much more interested in spending money on street lighting and items which are vote-catchers than on financing very expensive provision for children with special educational needs. Perhaps the noble Baroness can give some comfort on that point.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the name of my noble friend Lady Williams is attached to the amendment. We on these Benches support the amendment and the approach it proposes. I should like to add my personal support to this very worthwhile amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I recognise that there is anxiety that responsibility for the delivery of some services should be clarified and that there should be greater assurance of co-operation between the agencies involved. In relation to the previous amendment, I outlined the measures which the Government are taking to ensure that co-operation and to ensure that it takes place.
There are more complex issues than the amendment might suggest. It is simply not feasible for a local education authority to be expected to have the necessary expertise to make professional judgments about a child's medical needs. That is why we have to involve the health services. Of course in many cases those needs impinge on the child's special educational needs. That is why the health service's input to the assessment process is so important. To answer specifically the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, in many cases a child with special educational needs may have medical or other non-medical needs which are well beyond the competence of an education authority to assess or reach professional decisions concerning appropriate provision.
Existing regulations made under the 1981 Act make it absolutely clear that an LEA should always be satisfied that non-educational provision will be delivered when that provision is specified in a statement. I do not see how the proposed new clause of itself will address the difficult issues which we have discussed in relation to determining and subsequently
62
arranging the proper provision, educational or non-educational, to meet the specific needs of an individual child.
I believe that the Government's proposals face those difficult issues. In short, we can and will take steps to ensure that all agencies concerned co-operate to the closest possible extent in identifying, assessing and providing services for children with special educational needs. The code of practice will give guidance as to when a service is educational, which is the specific point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, although the final decision—as I hope he will agree—in a particular case must always be taken by qualified professionals on the ground. We shall ensure that parents who are dissatisfied are made fully aware of the means of redress open to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was concerned about whether LEAs would spend the money necessary. One of the strengths of this framework is that there are requirements on local authorities to provide for all children, particularly children with special educational needs. Therefore, unless the provision they make is appropriate and consistent with the needs of the child, there are a great many sources of redress, including the tribunal for statemented children and other forms of redress for children, short of statements.
It seems to me that the system is now more exposed and the framework makes clear the position of all the agencies within it. It is my view that they will not be able not to spend the money if the provision they make is inconsistent with the needs of the child.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, we hope that this matter will be included in the code of practice. That being so, I recognise that it will be difficult to work out the structure with so many different departments involved. I did not mention the DSS which comes into this matter, although that is seldom realised. Under the circumstances, as this matter will be in the code of practice, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 244F:
Before Clause 219, insert the following new clause:
("Welfare of the Child
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and of the funding authorities, local education authorities, and the governing bodies of grant maintained schools and of voluntary schools in the exercise of functions conferred upon them by or under this or any other enactment to ensure in any decision concerning a child that the welfare of the child shall be a primary consideration.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment requires that the welfare of the child shall be a primary consideration. If there is a class of children, one of whom is difficult while the rest want to learn, it is difficult to think of the one child having primary consideration. If that requirement were to be written into the Bill it would be a simple small clause which would merely underline the necessity of considering the importance of every child, however difficult or whatever that child's problem. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness yet again whether she is linking this amendment with Amendment No. 244H which is in the grouping, or is she taking them separately?
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am taking them separately.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment because—if my noble friend the Minister will bear with me for a moment—it is relevant to the argument on parental veto which took place on Clause 154. I believe that it was the noble Baroness, Lady David, who was concerned primarily with that matter. If, as I am led to believe now, Clause 154 does not involve a parental veto—notwithstanding certain legal opinions to the contrary—if one looks at Clause 154(2) one sees that it provides certain safeguards for the child. Those safeguards would be made far more effective if the amendment were accepted. It squares with the requirements of Section 1 of the Children Act 1989. Therefore the requirement should be on the face of primary legislation, because it does two things. First, it makes the welfare of the child a primary consideration, which marries with the requirements of the Children Act. Secondly, it saves a submission being made—I have done it myself and heard it done—"Oh, but this is all subject to Section 1 of the Children Act; the primary consideration is the welfare of the child". That is a safeguard which it is proper to import into this legislation.
If my noble friend the Minister cannot find her way to incorporate it in the legislation—it would be useful to resolve the doubt about the parental veto which has arisen—then my hope would be that it could be incorporated in the code of practice. It is a matter of principle which should be dealt with somehow. That is why I support the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, my name is again attached to the amendment which I support. The importance of a best interest principle has been recognised widely in child welfare legislation. The Children Act places courts under a duty, when considering any issue relating to a child's upbringing, to give paramount consideration to the welfare of the child. Local authorities and social services departments are under a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children in their area who are in need. That principle is central to the philosophy of the legislation, and to its recognition that children and their interests must come before all other considerations.
It is accepted that there is a need for a framing principle within which all decisions relating to children are taken. The amendment does not ask for paramount consideration; it asks for a primary consideration. We have done that because the LEAs, governing bodies and head teachers are often faced with the task of balancing the needs of the individual child against those of the rest of the children in a class or in the school as a whole. It is for that reason that the wording of the new clause requires that the welfare of the child is the primary and not the paramount
64
consideration, as under the Children Act. The wording ensures that the interest of the child must be considered in all circumstances, and recognises that there will be occasions when the best interests of an individual child cannot be met without damaging the interests of other children. I hope that it can be taken into account that the framing principle should be embodied in the Bill. I hope that the Government will support the amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the welfare of the child being a primary consideration is a longstop that should be included in the Bill at some point.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should first like to consider Amendment No. 244F. I assume that my noble friend will be moving Amendment No. 244H separately.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, yes.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 244F requires the welfare of the child to be a primary consideration in any decision affecting that child. The education system of course aims to provide for the educational needs of all children, but it is not appropriate for the Bill to extend the role of the education system to embrace all aspects of children's welfare. Children's welfare is already fully covered by the provisions of the Children Act which deals with parental responsibility, care orders, fostering and so on. The education service and the Bill are concerned predominantly with meeting children's educational needs.
The Education Bill includes provisions to ensure that parents play an active part in choices about children's education. This autumn the department will be issuing a revised and updated Parent's Charter setting out the many ways in which parents can work as active partners with schools to obtain the best education for their children. In that sense, we are very concerned about meeting children's needs.
The Government are committed to ensuring that parents have all the information that they want and need about their children's education. That includes the right to choose the appropriate school, and, beyond 16, to choose the best course of education or training at school or college. Where a child has special educational needs, the child has a right to education to meet those needs and the Bill contains important changes which will benefit such children and their parents.
Improvements are being made in the way appeals are made. Appeal committees on admission and expulsion cases will include an independent member as well as those chosen by the local council or governors. That will ensure that parents obtain a fair and independent hearing about their child's case.
Parents also have the right to complain if they believe that their child is not being taught the national curriculum as required. If the head teacher decides that the child should not follow the national curriculum for the time being, and the parents disagree, they can appeal against the head teacher's decision. Parents can ask for the school's support in

65
querying examination results which seem not to do justice to their child's ability. Those rights all centre on the best interests of the child.
I recognise that what underlies my noble friend's concern is that in all cases the full needs of the child are given a prime place when considering the provisions for their needs. The whole Bill, but in particular Part III, is concerned exclusively with meeting the needs of the child. The role that we have given parents and local authorities and the requirement we have made under the Bill are designed so that they all collaborate in the interests of the child. I believe that what we have in place will meet those needs and will allay the fears of my noble friend and other noble Lords who have put their name to the amendment. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sorry that she cannot accept the amendment. It would cost only a few extra words in the Bill, or in the guidance to teachers and all those dealing with such children. However, I shall not press the amendment. I hope that the spirit of the amendment will be reflected in the guidance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 244G:
Before Clause 219. insert the following new clause:
("Notice of intention to close School
.—(1) Where subsection (2) below applies to a school, the governing body or, as the case may be, the proprietor shall give the Secretary of State not less than three months notice in writing of any intention to close the school.
(2) This section applies to—

(a)an independent school approved under section 180 or

(b)a non-maintained special school

which provides accommodation for any child.").
The noble Bareness said: My Lords, I refer your Lordships to Amendment No. 244D which was lost on the Division. Amendment No. 244G costs nothing. It seeks from the Minister the exact duties of Ofsted and its inspectors. When they inspect, are the inspectors looking at standards? Do they believe that it is their duty to support and help schools which need support, help and guidance? Do they believe that it lies within their role to ensure that the schools sustain their numbers?
I have tabled the amendment because the Ofsted inspectors inspect schools only every four years. I believe I am right in saying that, but the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. Inspection every four years does not keep the inspectors in touch with those schools. I refer to an independent or non-maintained school run by a charity which finds itself in financial difficulties and now has to close. Four have had to do so. Would it not have been better for them to have informed the Department for Education that that would occur so that advice and help could be given? The schools might not—I do not say would not—have had to close. Knowing the situation in the country, would not the inspectors be able to help the staff and governors in keeping such schools open?
It is a small amendment, but it would greatly support schools run by charities that are non-maintained and independent. We might not then lose valuable resources which we now have. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me, is she speaking to Amendment No. 244H, which is before Clause 219?
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I moved Amendment No. 244G.
Baroness David: My Lords, I asked the noble Baroness whether she was speaking to Amendment No. 244H with Amendment No. 244F. She stated that she wished to move it separately.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I express some anxiety about the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I fully understand the intent. However, I have recently been associated with an independent school which had to close. It cared for people with special needs. The prospect of having to give three months' notice with no guarantee of any financial support from anywhere could leave the school footing bills for staff and other costs, which can mount up rapidly. Had such a provision been in force at a time when the specific school that I have in mind was closing, the financial consequences would have been even more disastrous than they were. That is my anxiety. I hope the noble Baroness will take it into account when she replies.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment. It is the mandatory "shall" which is impracticable and could work to the injustice to which the right reverend Prelate referred.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. I knew that the two previous amendments were disaggregated but I had forgotten that another amendment had slipped into the middle. Please forgive me.
The right reverend Prelate makes an important point on flexibility. I believe that existing regulations already make adequate provision for the Secretary of State to be notified of closures.
Notification of the closure of any independent school is covered by the Education (Particulars of Independent Schools) Regulations as amended by the Education (Particulars of Independent Schools) Regulations 1991. Those require the proprietor to give written notice forthwith to the Registrar of Independent Schools if at any time a registered school is discontinued.
Any decision to discontinue a non-maintained special school is a matter for the governors, not the Secretary of State who must withdraw his approval of the school if the governing body requests him to do so in writing.
The regulations do not require the governors of a non-maintained school or the proprietor of an independent school to give the Secretary of State any period of notice of an intention to close the school. I

67
do not think that it would be necessary or helpful to include on the face of the Bill a provision which requires a specific period of notice to be given.
Those schools have chosen to be autonomous. They are operating out in the market and we are not going to impose extra restrictions or controls on them by means of provisions in the Bill or by regulations. We believe that when such schools decide that closure is unavoidable they should not be subject to more controls than they are at present.
A period of notice could prove unnecessarily restrictive, as we have already heard. Schools close for a variety of reasons. They may be financial, or because of falling standards, or serious child abuse. In different circumstances, a period of three months' notice could be either too long or too short. For arranging alternative placements for pupils it could be too short. On the other hand, the governing body or the proprietor of a school might need to close a school without delay for financial reasons or because of child abuse. I do not think that their right to decide on the future of their schools should be restricted in the way proposed in the clause. They are responsible for running the schools and should not be subject to such a condition.
Once a decision has been taken to close a school by those responsible for running it, a delay of three months could create problems. If a school were in serious financial difficulty such a delay could drive the school even deeper into debt, as the right reverend Prelate said. There would be no question of any government funding if, for example, any one of those schools were on the verge of bankruptcy.
As regards the transfer of pupils to other schools, it is their responsibility to inform parents about closure. It is also their responsibility to inform local authorities and social service departments about closure so that those authorities can make suitable alternative arrangements.
In cases of child abuse which are so serious that closure is inevitable, a delay of three months would be unacceptable. Local social service departments can take swift action to ensure the welfare of the pupils and placing authorities might need to seek alternative arrangements as a matter of urgency.
I understand the anxiety again underlying the amendment of my noble friend Lady Faithfull who wishes local authorities and parents to be given as much notice as possible so that adjustments can be made. However, I hope that for the practical reasons given she will not press the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. Perhaps I may say to the right reverend Prelate that I understand his point on timing. I sought to make a strong plea that there should be a good relationship between the Ofsted inspectors and all those running residential schools. At one stage I was worried about a school for which I am responsible. I had great difficulty in obtaining an inspection of the educational side, which worried me. A school might be enriched and helped by inspectors visiting and forming a good relationship with the school. The inspectors might see where matters are
68
going wrong, and that might save the school. However, I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 244H:
Before Clause 219, insert the following new clause:
("Pupils' views
The governing body of schools and local education authorities shall use their best endeavours to secure that—

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

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

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

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to come before Clause 10 and my name was put to the amendment. Unfortunately, the noble Lord was not in the Chamber to move the amendment and it has been reinstated at the beginning of Part VI, which deals with miscellaneous provisions. That is an equally sensible positioning. Last week the noble Lord, Lord Elton, gave the Minister a copy of an opinion by Allan Levy QC, so I hope that she is in a position to respond.
The amendment is a less prescriptive version of the duty that is imposed on the local authority social services under the Children Act to ascertain and give due consideration to the views of children in their care. The amendment does not seek to empower children to determine every aspect of their education, nor does it seek to place a duty on schools to discover the views of children on every matter that affects them. It requires schools and LEAs to use their best endeavours to consider any views expressed by children, where it is reasonable to ascertain those views and to give them an opportunity to be heard in any administrative proceeding—for example, an appeal against an exclusion.
The purpose of the amendment is twofold. First, it would bring UK legislation into line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Government are committed to implement, and, secondly, it would create more effective schools. Article 12 of the UN convention provides:
"States parties shall assure to a child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child".
At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Elton, moved a similar amendment and asked about the relevance of the UN Convention. The noble Lord, Lord Henley replied:
"My advice is that there is no conflict between the Education Bill and the UN convention. Article 12 of the convention states that the child shall in particular be provided with the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child. We believe that the provisions of the Children Act should cater for that. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend's amendment is unnecessary to bring us within the ambit of article 12". [Official Report, 20/4/93; col. 1547.]
Allan Levy QC is a very well known expert in children's law. In his Opinion, he makes it clear that

69
the Children Act does not cater for most administrative proceedings in education, nor does it govern the action of schools or LEAs. He states:
"For the reasons set out below I am firmly of the view that the Children Act 1989 does not provide for Article 12 to have effect in respect of any of the relevant education matters."
The Government have indicated in the White Paper Choice and Diversity and in their commitment to writing the principle into the codes of practice on special education their support for the principles that are set out in the amendment.
The amendment does not place onerous or all-embracing duties on schools or LEAs. It reflects existing good practice; that, if children speak on matters affecting them, they have a right to be listened to; that reasonable attempts should be made to discover what they think and that their views should be heard in any administrative proceeding. Unfortunately, in many schools those principles are not respected: the schools should be reminded that those principles are a part of effective education. A brief mention of the principles and guidance relating only to special education procedures is not sufficient. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we all wish pupils to be properly treated at school and for there to be even a sense of justice. However, we should bear in mind that the amendment would apply to the whole of school life, to everything that could happen in a school. I am doubtful whether writing into the statute the need to provide an opportunity for the pupil to be heard at any administrative proceeding affecting the pupil, either directly or through a representative, is necessary or wise.
In any good school there must be discipline. The pupils must learn to obey authority. I doubt whether to give an almost continuous opening to every pupil to—if I may use a rough expression—bellyache, and to be supported by statute in doing so, would be conducive to either the benefit of the pupil or the good of the school. Although only a minority of pupils might take advantage of the situation, it could become a troublemakers' charter.
If there is a difficulty in the school, if any pupil feels that he is not being treated properly, his parents will hear about it soon enough. I agree that a pupil may not be courageous, strong minded or self-confident enough to complain within the school, but it would be best for those kinds of matters to be dealt with in the future as they have in the past, for the most part effectively. I should be most surprised if my noble friend Lady Blatch thought it wise or sensible to accept the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is advisable arid sensible to consult the pupil in appropriate cases. It is much less advisable or sensible to clutter up the statute book with instructions about such matters. In appropriate cases, obviously, a pupil should be given the opportunity of expostulating before, say, he or she is expelled from school, but not if he or she is told to change his or her shoes. There must be a limit to the statutory enactment of a series of instructions to grandmother on how to suck eggs. I deprecate, with great respect, such administrative admonitions.
70
Reasonable people must be left to act reasonably. If they cannot act reasonably, they should not be in charge of a school, either as teachers or as a local education authority. I hope that the noble Baroness, having made a convincing case that, in appropriate cases, the pupils should be consulted, will not press the amendment.
Lord Parry: My Lords, yesterday afternoon, by a curious irony, television presented "The Winslow Boy". I hold the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in great respect. They have spoken with deep conviction. They could have appeared for the prosecution.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the amendment has my name to it. It asks that account be taken of pupils' views on administrative procedures.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, spoke about discipline. It is often stated that rules and regulations are made to be broken. That is said because they may have no relevance and no one can see the point of them. That is why they are broken.
We are talking about young adults. Teenagers can impose a great deal of stress on everyone concerned with them; they are not quite sure whether they are adults or children. If they are totally restricted in relation to a decision-making process, more trouble will be created. If there is an inflexible limit against a door, when pressure is put on it that door will either stand firm or burst and cause trouble on the other side. If there is a little valve by means of which people's views are heard and pressure is released, more tension will be relieved than will be created.
Baroness Young: My Lords, in moving the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady David, said that it was based on good practice. I believe that to be the case. Where such matters are being considered, a wise person, if appropriate in a particular case, will consider the pupil's view. I very much share the views that have been expressed by both my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that this would not be a sensible or wise provision to put on the face of the statute.
I believe that evidence will come—and I regret to say this—that the law has in some respects swung too far in supporting the child. There have been cases where children have brought allegations against teachers which have subsequently been shown to be completely false. We must be careful to recognise how important it is to maintain discipline in the school and the support of the teachers in all matters; otherwise no one will learn anything.
The other point I wish to make is that many schools have internal arrangements for consulting pupils over a whole range of matters—perhaps a school council or something similar. Those organisations are much to be welcomed. They give pupils the opportunity to express their views about all kinds of matters going on in the school and it is useful to hear what they have to say. I am not at all against that; it is a good idea. However, to put the proposal on the face of the Bill

71
could make things difficult for schools, and not necessarily benefit the child. For those reasons, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I support my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. In many cases in universities, where action is being taken against students arbitrarily, without giving them an opportunity to express their views, the courts have found that it was against the principles of natural justice. It would be exactly the same in the schools. We do not need anything extra; the remedy is there for anyone who has been treated unjustly.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I wish to make two points. It is always wise for the child to be consulted, and that is the case under the Children Act 1989. I once took a child to court when the mother was asking for the child to be returned to her. The child was not heard and she said, "It's my life, why can't I be heard?" It transpired that the mother had a mental illness which was not known to the court nor to me, and the child wanted to tell somebody. Under Part III of the Bill, the child should be heard. That is not to say that the child's views need necessarily be accepted, but at least they should be heard.
Secondly, I agree with my noble friend Lady Young. The all-party parliamentary group for children asked representatives from eight schools to give evidence on the matter at one meeting. We found that six of the eight schools had set up councils so that staff and children could consult and discuss administrative procedures. I therefore support the spirit of the amendment, but I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that it might be more effective for it to be in the code of practice than on the face of the Bill.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, that the world has moved on considerably since the time of "The Winslow Boy". Certainly, the law on the protection of children has made great strides.
Amendment No. 244H aims to incorporate the requirements of Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into the Bill. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that we have now seen the opinion of Allan Levy QC, and we do not disagree with what he says. The primary purpose of Article 12 is to ensure that the child or his representative shall be afforded the opportunity to be heard in any judicial or administrative proceedings which affect the child, consistent with the procedural rules of national law. In the United Kingdom, that provision already exists in education legislation which enables children or their parents to play an active part in choices regarding their children's education.
For example, we have long exhorted local authorities to take into account the wishes of the child when carrying out their duties in respect of his special educational needs. Circular 22/89, which we issued jointly with the Department of Health, stated that:
72
"The feelings and perceptions of the child concerned should be taken into account, and older children and young persons should be able to share in discussions on their needs and any proposed provision".
Where a child's age and understanding make it possible, his attitude to the choice of school—be it special or ordinary—is a very relevant consideration. But that does not mean giving the child a veto over a particular course of action. The present circular offers guidance. Clause 151 requires the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice giving practical guidance to local authorities about the discharge of their functions in respect of children with special educational needs. That will differ from our current circular in that the Bill will give it statutory backing.
More generally, as I indicated in my comments on Amendment No. 244F, parents also have the right to say which school they would like their child to attend and to appeal to a separate appeals committee if the local council or school governors refuse the school place of their choice. Parents also have rights of complaint on the teaching of the national curriculum. If the child is permanently excluded from school, the parents or the child—if he is 18 or over—can appeal against that decision.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, about the importance of understanding the needs and feelings of the child and allowing opportunities for the child to express them. As my noble friend Lady Young said, that can be done in an informal setting, which is often the best in terms of eliciting the real feelings of children. However, I do not believe that the proposal is appropriate for the face of the Bill and I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am glad about one thing: that the Minister agrees with the opinion of Allan Levy that the Children Act does not cover the education Acts.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, originally put down this amendment and moved a similar amendment at Committee stage. He conducted an inquiry into discipline in schools and it was part of his recommendations that the views of children should be heard more often. The amendment simply asks the schools and LEAs to use their best endeavours to consider any views expressed by children and, where reasonable, to ascertain those views and give them an opportunity to be heard.
I am sorry that we in the House today have not taken a more modern view; it is a disappointment to me. But in view of the opinions which have come from all parts of the House, I should not be wise to press the amendment. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 244J:
Before Clause 219, insert the following new clause:
("National Curriculum Testing
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State in the exercise of the functions conferred upon him by this or any other enactment to deliver the requirements of the National Curriculum to have regard to the principles of national curriculum testing described in this section.

73
(2) The principles of national curriculum testing are that—

(a) the tests assess pupils' progress in English, Mathematics and Science against nationally agreed attainment targets;

(b) the tests, based on materials produced by teachers, support teachers' continuous assessment and are carried out when a teacher judges the pupil to be ready;

(c) the arrangements for testing give schools as much flexibility as possible in choice of content, application and timing as is consistent with an effective system of testing which does not put pupils under undue pressure;

(d) the tests are selected, administered and marked by the teachers themselves to ensure that they are an integral part of the teacher's professional judgement of a pupil's progress;

(e) an individual pupil's performance in the tests is communicated only to the pupil and the parent, and recorded in the Pupil Progress Report.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish in advance to apologise to the House because in the interests of expediency, in trying to accommodate rapid progress through the night's business, I have favoured large groupings. There are a number of amendments in this grouping to which I must speak. I shall therefore have to speak for slightly longer than I had wished and I hope that the House will bear with me.
First, I wish to address Amendment No. 244J. It deals with the principles of national curriculum testing. Perhaps I may start with a quotation:
"Assessment is the means of obtaining information which allows teachers, pupils and parents to make professional judgements about pupils' progress. The starting point for this is the curriculum and the processes of learning and teaching. Although assessment has many facets, its essence is determining what a pupil is actually achieving in relation to expectations of attainment and drawing conclusions from that comparison…
"National tests are part of the overall 5–14 assessment strategy. Teachers will report on pupils' progress and attainment across I he whole curriculum, using their professional judgement and the evidence available to them from their own continuous assessment throughout the year. National tests will provide an additional and important source of evidence about pupils' attainment in Reading, Writing and Mathematics in relation to nationally agreed and understood standards. Teachers will use the tests to check their own assessments and to ensure consistent interpretation of what the levels of attainment described in the 5–14 guidelines mean in practice …
"The headteacher should provide teachers with clear advice on assessment and determine when and how assessment information will be collected, and how it can be used most effectively at whole school level. Effective assessment policy and practice in each school will improve the quality of learning and teaching. These guidelines are designed to help schools produce effective policies and develop good practice, in assessment".
The Minister should recognise the opening words of this speech. They were not written by me; nor indeed were they written by Labour Party researchers—although I would wholeheartedly endorse them. They were not written by teachers' unions, although they are supported by the major unions in England, Wales and Scotland. They were written by the Government themselves in Curriculum and Assessment in Scotland—National Guidelines in October 1991 which was published through the Scottish Office Education Departrnent.
This amendment almost exactly mirrors Section 3 of the Scottish Examination Board 5-to-14 units, the "framework for national testing"; namely, the system
74
of assessment agreed by the Government for Scotland. The key points of that system are these: the curriculum areas in the Scottish curriculum guidelines are assessed by teachers using their own professional judgment and the evidence available to them from their own continuous assessment throughout the year; each curriculum area has five levels of attainment; the working definitions of levels are that most pupils are expected to achieve the next level once every two years; national tests in reading, writing and mathematics are selected, administered and marked by teachers themselves; they are used when the teacher's own assessment indicates that each pupil is ready and if the teacher deems them appropriate; the tests are flexible and easy to use, and are written by groups of teachers; teachers choose test units from an external bank or catalogue of tests to suit the topic area of the curriculum that they may be working on; teachers provide evidence of attainment to senior staff in the school and to parents; neither test results nor continuous assessment results in the curriculum areas are published; there is national monitoring of standards by the Scottish examination boards of 5-to-14 assessment units; there are special arrangements for the tests for pupils with special educational needs involving head teachers, parents and class teachers.
We simply do not understand why, if this system is progressing and developing so well in Scotland, the same principles cannot be applied in England and Wales. We have heard no rational explanation for that.
That brings me to Amendment No. 254, which deals with what have been described as the draconian powers of the Secretary of State. Clause 229 significantly extends the Secretary of State's power over national curriculum, assessment and testing exactly at the time when such powers should be held in abeyance prior to the results of the review of the national curriculum and assessment being conducted by Sir Ron Dearing. The use of the powers outlined in the Bill would exacerbate an already inflamed situation.
That the Secretary of State intends to press ahead with such powers at an early stage is characteristically indicated in a letter to local education authorities dated 20th May last. The letter says:
"Subject to the agreement of Parliament to the Education Bill which is currently before it, the Secretary of State would intend to make use of the powers sought in Clause 227 of that Bill to specify arrangements for verifying assessment standards—whether by external examining arrangements or an external audit—and to make explicit the duties of local education authorities, governors and headteachers in this regard".
The new subsection in the Education Bill provides what have been described as draconian powers for the Secretary of State. He will be able to target governors, local education authorities and head teachers, in general or individually, for direction in terms of assessment arrangements should he so choose. In addition, as we argued at Committee stage, the assessment audit arrangements have been tightened to the point of absurdity. The auditor will have statutory powers to enter the premises of a school, to stand behind the teacher while the tests or SATs are taking

75
place, and to take away any material that the auditor chooses. This gives the auditor the status and powers of an Ofsted inspector. However, Ofsted inspectors and registered inspectors have to go through rigid procedures of consultation before they are able to enter schools. The auditor, in contrast, will have "lightning, flying squad" powers which will only serve to alienate schools still further.
It must be emphasised that the Secretary of State has chosen wilfully to misread the anger of the profession over the current national curriculum assessment arrangements. In teachers' eyes the excessive workload has been caused by the removal of teachers' professional judgment over assessment and by the fact that the assessment load occurs in a few short months at the end of Key Stages 1 to 3. The introduction of external auditing or examination boards further removes from teachers' professional discretion the use of assessment and, as such, further de-professionalises the work of teachers. Rather than using these draconian auditing powers and thereby undermining teachers even more, the answer is surely to introduce an assessment system which allows teachers' professional discretion and accountability to parents; hence the relevance, as we see it, of the experience in Scotland. Such a system already exists over the Border, where teachers are able to use external tests in mathematics and English when they deem each pupil is ready, and the tests are used to validate teachers' own assessments. Such tests are also, as I have said, written by the teachers themselves.
The 1988 Act currently reads:
"An order under subsection 2(c) above may authorise the making of such provisions giving full effect to or otherwise supplementing the provisions made by the order as appear to the Secretary of State to be expedient; and any provisions made under such an order shall, on being published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, have effect for the purposes of this Chapter as if made by the order".
While these powers are, in themselves, too general, the practice that the Secretary of State has adopted for consultation on each year's assessment order is one that has the broad agreement of the consultees, even though they might argue that the Secretary of State does not always seem to listen to what they have to say.
The Secretary of State intends to drop the specific requirement for consultation on the draft assessment orders for 1994 because, in his view, Sir Ron Dearing's recommendations will be enough. That is not, in our view, acceptable as it stands. The Secretary of State could introduce new controversial assessment arrangements for 1994 without any consultation whatever, claiming that they will be in line with the Dearing recommendations but in fact interpreting those recommendations in a way that will not encourage a consensus on assessment among teachers, parents and governors.
Perhaps I may briefly move to Amendments Nos. 254B to 254J. The effect of these amendments would be to replace the proposed fixed three-year life of the provisions as described in the Government's new clause as set out in Amendment No. 254A with a one-year term, renewable for a maximum of two
76
further one-year terms by affirmative order. The temporary provisions of the Government's new clause are said to be needed to give rapid implementation of recommendations from the Dearing review. But it is still wholly unclear why such a waiver of normal consultation arrangements should persist for three years. It appears to us to be excessive. Such a power to bypass normal consultation arrangements for a prolonged period gives rise to reasoned fears that the recent habit of order and counter-order will continue unchecked.
We believe that sound arguments in favour of the principle of the new clause are based exclusively on the advisability of rapid implementation of the new consensus which it is hoped will emerge as the outcome of the Dearing review, precisely so as to achieve a period of stability and calm. Nevertheless, there might perhaps be an exceptional case that deserves to be heard and the amendments therefore offer affirmative order procedure to cover that (arguably unlikely) exceptional case. The consequential amendments—those between the first and the last of the group—merely aim to preserve the sense of the existing drafting where in accordance with the new subsection (4) the provisions expire before 1st September 1996.
While dealing with these amendments perhaps I may raise one supplementary point. The meaning of subsection (3) seems unclear. It covers consultation on matters already in hand when the fast track provisions lapse. The point of uncertainty is whether:
"arrangements under this section for consultation about the proposals were made before that date"
means either cases where substantive consultation on written proposals had started or, in addition, cases where the Secretary of State had only announced his intention to consult. It would be helpful if, when replying, the Minister could confirm that its effect is limited to cases where consultation is solidly in hand rather than in prospect.
In conclusion, I must speak to Amendment No. 256A. The National Association for Gifted Children argues very strongly that it should be incumbent upon schools to publish their policy of provision for the brightest 2 per cent. to 5 per cent. of pupils whose needs may be as specific as those pupils defined as having special educational needs. Indeed, that percentage includes a core of exceptionally able children whose needs are extreme.
It seems to be the case that all relevant literature, including the Scottish Inspector's report, indicates that the best way to obtain proper provision by schools is to have those children named. It is a whole school policy that is called for, not one which depends upon the goodwill of individual teachers alone.
Many of the issues which give rise to concern were raised during the debate in Standing Committee in the other place on 26th January last, when considerable sympathy seemed to be expressed by Members of all parties. Nevertheless, the reference in the White Paper to the particular needs of exceptionally able children are still not clearly translated into this Bill. The frequently repeated comment of the Department for

77
Education is that the national curriculum will meet the needs of gifted children. However, we should all note the NCC's advice to the Secretary of State that:
"depth of learning is being sacrificed in pursuit of breadth and the lack of rigour and challenge is not resulting in the necessary improvements in standard … At Key Stage 2, teachers consider that the collective weight of content in subject Orders is leading to superficial teaching".
Where teachers interpret too literally the obligation to guarantee all children the same body of essential knowledge, understanding and skills, the curriculum becomes a reason for not finding time for high ability children. That prevents the individual strengths of teachers being used fully. The publications of the levels reached by children at Key Stage 1 demonstrates clearly that attention is concentrated on the average. That was a fear expressed by the NAGC in its submission to the Secretary of State on the initial consultative document on the national curriculum:
"A major concern, from bitter experience, is that many teachers make a generalised provision for classes aimed at a theoretical "average" child within an age-locked system. Such provision rarely provides a suitable challenge to the very able. Nor does it present opportunities for failure, which are very important for the psychological and moral welfare of the gifted".
Tests of attainment alone may have very little value in motivating bright children if their ceiling of attainment is too low. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I support the amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and myself. I shall not detain the House for very long. I believe that in many ways the amendment is at the heart and core of the Bill. Your Lordships have already spent a great deal of time on the Bill and it is growing quite late in the evening. However, I believe that this clause and the amendments to it deserve very careful attention. They concern not only the needs of children and the education system of the United Kingdom. I believe that the effects of subsection (4), which the amendment seeks to remove, will be extremely serious in terms of beginning to destroy the whole basis of education by consent in this country.
The clause deals with the very heart of education—what long ago used to be called "the secret garden". It deals with the issue of the national curriculum, its core and foundation subjects. It deals with the issues of how one tests and assesses the achievements of children and how teachers are to be involved in those tests and assessments and in the national curriculum. I believe that teachers have become profoundly concerned about the present Secretary of State. If we do not amend this part of the Bill, they will become yet more concerned, since their ability to be consulted on these crucial issues will be largely withdrawn as a result of the clause. We need a way out of the quite desperate confrontation that we now see in front of us.
The first of those major issues concerns the national curriculum. I believe that it was right to move towards a national curriculum. When I was Secretary of State we talked about a core curriculum and issued a Green Paper along that line. The Secretary of State for Education, Mr. Kenneth Baker, moved towards a
78
national curriculum. He had a great deal of cross-party support in moving towards a national curriculum, although many people felt that it went a little too far and left too little flexibility for teachers to feed in their own creativity and for schools to meet their own needs. Nevertheless, it commanded a very wide degree of consensus.
Testing and assessment handled in a sensitive way might also carry behind it quite of wide level of consensus. But there were two great problems. The kind of testing and assessment to which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred—that carried out by teachers in the light of their own personal knowledge of pupils at a time when the child should be assessed because of his or her development—is wholly desirable. The imposition of formal testing and assessment, crudely applied without consultation with teachers, indeed without even listening to their experience and knowledge, can be very dangerous. But when that emerges in the form of raw data, unaffected by the background, experience and family structures of those children, it is not just dangerous: it could be destructive of the self-confidence that children need to develop.
Children who come from socially disadvantaged homes—perhaps from the inner cities, broken homes or families where there is a single parent at the head. where there are few advantages and few books at home or parents who work long hours and can give the children very little attention —achieve a remarkable amount by being able to learn the basic subjects of education at the age of eight or nine years old when a child from an advantaged background would have reached the same standard at the age of seven or even six years.
There is evidence from the Government's assessment of Stage 1 in 1992 of the key testing system to show that children who come from a disadvantaged background start much further back in the race. Raw data that simply distinguish or compare one child with another, without the slightest regard to that background, are of no benefit at all. They wholly discourage the struggling child, who is trying to overcome major difficulties, from attaining some kind of reasonable educational standard. One only has to read the publication of the Church of England, Faith in the City, to see the kinds of disadvantages that children in some parts of our cities are still struggling against. They need encouragement, not the discouragement that goes with the publication of raw league tables which compare one school with another.
The proposals made by the Government in the 1988 Act, which I have in front of me, at least recognised the crucial role of the teachers in being consulted on these sensitive and indeed critical matters. Section 20 of that Act refers to the fact that the National Curriculum Council (as it was then called) should afford a reasonable opportunity of submitting evidence and representation from the wide number of bodies to be consulted: local education authorities; school governing bodies and organisations representing school teachers. All of those are listed in the 1988 Act. Furthermore, at that time the Secretary of State went on to set out in great detail how his own opinions

79
should be published and the consultations conducted. He even went so far as to say that the results of those consultations should themselves be published to enable due consideration to be given to his proposals.
The 1988 Act is to be replaced by the Education Bill that we are presently discussing. The Education Bill contains a very different set of words. Section 4 will refer to the right to confer or impose such functions upon the governing body and head teacher in the case of maintained schools. It goes on to speak about specifying assessment arrangements as may for the time being be made by a person specified in the order. It also refers to the imposition of duties and gives the auditor the right to enter the premises of the school, observe the implementation of the arrangements and inspect and take copies of documents and other articles. Having spent a good deal of the past two years of my life in Eastern Europe, I have to say that the role of the auditor in the Bill is not very different from the role that was given to party secretaries in that part of the world. It is a very strong phrase to use but I ask noble Lords to read for themselves the role of the auditor, who has to pass through none of the examinations or requirements that members of Ofsted are required to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that in Scotland, which had witnessed the same kind of uproar that had taken place in England and Wales in the past few months, an attempt had been made to reach a consensus between the Government and teachers. Your Lordships will know well the dramatic background. Ninety-six per cent. of the National Union of Teachers, 88 per cent. of the National Association of School Masters and Union of Women Teachers (not a very radical union) 82.7 per cent. of the ART, and 64 per cent. of parents in an NOP survey all rejected the present proposals for assessment and testing.
Also, despite what was said by the Secretary of State, the NOP survey made it plain that the great majority of parents rejected the testing of children at seven years and feared the publication of league tables. It went further than that. It went to such unexpected quarters as the Independent Schools Association, whose chairman referred at a conference earlier this year to the fact that in his view the Secretary of State's proposals were too prescriptive, too overloaded and too simplistic. He went on to say that testing of seven year-olds was utterly odious. One of the members of that association—a headmistress, Miss Norma Williams—referred to the insensitivity of the Secretary of State. There can have been few occasions when such a wide spectrum of opinion has been so forcefully expressed on matters of this kind.
I come back to the precise provision suggested by Her Majesty's Government in respect of Clause 229(4). I have already quoted some parts of the legislation and the extraordinarily prescriptive powers given to the Secretary of State. Those powers cannot now be altered by consultation for three years because the Government have chosen to remove the safeguards of Section 20 of the 1988 Act by their proposal that the safeguards should be suspended
80
until 1996. The amendment put down by myself and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, proposes, modestly enough, that that suspension should be for one year only and that it should be able to be extended only by affirmative order one year at a time, not, sweepingly, for three years all at once, because we are frightened of the consequences of not consulting teachers on those issues that lie closest to their hearts.
I quote two speeches that were made in the 1988 debates, one by the Minister of State, Mrs. Angela Rumbold, and the other by the Secretary of State, the right honourable Kenneth Baker. In speaking about the curriculum, the Minister of State said:
"The Secretary of State will look at that advice and will publish draft orders showing how he intends to proceed. He will allow for another period of consultation before the orders are laid before Parliament. That seems to be a sensible way to proceed". [Official Report, Commons, 12/1/88; col. 404.]
Those were the words of the Minister of State in the debates on the Education Reform Bill only five years ago.
I conclude with perhaps the most disturbing quotation of all. I refer to the words of the then Secretary of State, Mr. Kenneth Baker. In responding to Opposition challenges about whether there would be adequate consultation on the national curriculum, he said that it would not be the Baker curriculum. I ask noble Lords to listen carefully to the next sentence:
"I would find it constitutionally unacceptable for the holder of my office to impose his own national curriculum. The Bill builds in the essential checks and balances. Only after the most thorough statutory consultation … will the new arrangements be introduced into the schools". [Official Report, Commons, 28/3/88; col. 799.]
This evening we are discussing the removal of that statutory consultation. We are discussing what the right honourable Kenneth Baker himself described as constitutionally unacceptable. I beg to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has spoken eloquently to my amendment but I have not spoken to it and presented it to the House for discussion, perhaps I may speak to it now. As regards the new clause introduced by the amendment, our intention is to substitute temporarily simple statutory requirements for public consultation on proposals for the national curriculum. The Statement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State of 11th May—which I repeated to this House—announced the Government's intention to suspend for a period the two-stage consultation procedure specified in Sections 20 and 21 of the Education Reform Act. This would allow my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Wales to adopt a less complex consultative procedure where they considered it appropriate. This reflects our concern that we should be able to respond quickly and positively to recommendations arising from Sir Ron Dearing's current review of the curriculum and testing arrangements and the concerns of teachers.
The amendment preserves during the interim a duty on my right honourable friends to consult about changes but is designed to enable them to proceed to

81
make changes after a single stage of public consultation in cases where the need for change is widely recognised and the changes themselves are the product of extensive prior debate. Without this amendment we would not be able to respond as quickly as we would wish to teachers' real concerns about the curriculum. A practical effect of the two-stage process required by Sections 20 and 21 is that. even if it takes only a month or two months for a one-stage process, that extra month or two can result in a year's delay in the implementation of a new curriculum order. This is because new curricula can be introduced only at the start of a new school year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, overstated her case. It is inconceivable that coming before this House for affirmative resolution could be an order for modification of the national curriculum which had been the subject of no consultation whatsoever. I believe that she has scaremongered in the extreme. What we said at the time of the Statement and have said since is that, together with the teachers, we have come to believe that there is a need for modifications. Sir Ron Dearing is carrying out a review at the moment. The intention is to obtain the widest possible consensus for changes. There is to be extensive consultation. Indeed, Sir Ron Dearing is in the process of talking to thousands of teachers. He will bring together all the expertise upon which he can call in that process.
There will therefore be considerable prior consultation. When that talking stops, he has to convince my right honourable friend to accept any modification that he recommends. Even after that there is no question of no consultation. Once the formal procedure starts, we are saying that we will allow the flexibility for one round of consultations. If that is considered to be enough, and if the timing is important to have it implemented in schools, then atleast we will have the flexibility to curtail the consultation—but not to eliminate it completely.
The noble Baroness, also in speaking to my amendment, talked of children who came from disadvantaged homes and made the important point, which I have no difficulty in accepting, regarding the importance of education for those young and vulnerable people. She scoffed, I think rather disparagingly, at raw data. Raw data is the starting point for knowing what it is that children have learnt. It is that data which forms the database. As a child progresses it will be possible, by recognising and recording the progression of young people, to determine how much value has been added to a child's educational achievement.
I make no apologies for repeating, because I believe it so fervently, that it is just as important to recognise and record the progression of pupils whether they start at the bottom or the top end of the ability stream. It is patronising in the extreme to speak of all such children as though they are incapable of making considerable educational progress. We know, from the results that we have seen so far, the remarkable work done by schools and the remarkable learning
82
achievements which have been recorded of children in the most difficult of circumstances. If we are about anything at all, it is to see that that continues.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask what in my speech led her to think that I do not believe that children are capable of advancing and achieving great educational progress because they come from disadvantaged homes? I am sure that when she reads Hansard the Minister will see that nothing bears out her comments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness by saying that I took that view because the noble Baroness dismissed the importance of raw data. Raw data has to be the starting point. Without that we cannot build up the recording and progression of young people.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that of course we must have raw data. But it does not need to be published for all to see without making allowances and adjustments for the different starting points in different schools. That has been the complaint all along. It is a statistical nonsense to publish raw data in different schools without making the proper adjustments. If those adjustments could be properly made and the proper estimate of the value added, it would be a different matter. But nobody so far has said that that is what they intend to do unless the Minister is now going to tell us that they have discovered a way of doing it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that we are out of order, but with the leave of the House perhaps I may respond to that point also.
I have lived through the time with all of my children in the state system where we were denied contextual information. There is no question of child-by-child publication of results. We have not done that, nor will we. We are publishing school-by-school information. It is important for me as a parent to know how my child fares in relation to others in his class; in relation to the department; in relation to others in the school; and how the school that I have chosen for my children compares with other schools in the area. It is that kind of data that builds up. The raw data forms the basis for that information.
As that data builds up it is possible to be able to say, in a more sophisticated way, the value added by a school that starts with children lower down the ability stream compared perhaps with less progress made by schools which start with children higher up the ability stream. All I am saying is that there is a real place for raw data in the system. Without it I suspect that we will have doctored information which would not give a true reflection of what was happening in our schools.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, perhaps I may at last speak briefly to Amendment No. 244J moved by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. The amendment seeks to entrench a specific view of the testing system, which is

83
not only inappropriate in a Bill dealing largely with structure, but which is also something which many of us would not accept.
Fundamentally, the amendment seeks to destroy any chance of using the national testing system for the purpose of making schools answerable to parents and the taxpayer for their academic performance. That is its whole purpose. For example, tests are to be based on teachers' materials and carried out whenever the teachers want in whatever time period the teachers choose. Tests are to be selected, administered and marked by the teachers and, of course, the results are not to be published.
I accept that there are many things wrong with the national testing system as it now is. I have been a strong critic of that system. It is over-centralised and excessively bureaucratic. I hope that, as a result of the fundamental review which the Government have started and which in fairness it must be said was the result of the teachers' boycott, a much leaner, more manageable and more coherent system will emerge. But I have always stuck by the principle that schools must he accountable for their performance and that testing is one of the chief instruments for making them so. It is precisely that which the noble Lord's vision of testing is designed to destroy. There cannot be any return to the 1970s when much of the school system effectively escaped from accountability for its academic performance to the wider community.
The noble Lord referred to Scotland. I suggest that the confidence in the Scottish system has never declined to anything like the same extent as did confidence in the English system because Scottish teachers were never so subject to the intellectual fads and fashions which swept through many English schools in the 1960s and 1970s.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, referred to teachers' concerns about government policy. However, I emphasise parents' concerns about teachers' policy, which has triggered much of the move towards a national curriculum and testing system—a move which would not have been necessary were it not for a widespread public perception that schools were not doing the job that parents wanted them to do.
I wish that I could feel that I could entrust my child to a teacher's professional judgment. I hope that in due course that might again be possible, but experience has taught me that that is not the present situation. A major exercise in retrieval has been made necessary by educational folly and that exercise in retrieval is still taking place. Until there has been a clear retrieval we need an externally robust testing system. For that reason I hope that the amendment will be either withdrawn or rejected.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I speak briefly to Amendment No. 244J moved by my noble friend Lord Judd. My contribution is in the nature of a query to the Minister.
The noble Baroness may recall that when she repeated the Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State in regard to testing—it had arisen because of the controversy relating to the teachers'
84
unions—I asked what would happen if, as would seem likely at that stage, the teachers refused to conduct the tests. At that point two or three of the major unions had refused, by conference decision, to undertake them. The National Union of Teachers, the biggest union, had not done so but did later.
The Minister's answer was that the tests must be organised and conducted by the governing body and the head teacher. The House may recall that I raised the matter again at Committee stage because it seemed obvious at that stage that few of the tests had taken place. I say that because of the massive publicity which accrued at the time in newspapers, on television, radio and so forth. At that stage the noble Baroness's answer to me was that she did not have the figures. Presumably that was a reasonable answer because she did not have them at the time, even though it seemed as certain as anything can be that there had been very few schools which had undertaken the tests.
So I ask again: how many schools did take the tests? I hope that the noble Baroness has the figures now because it must be three or four weeks since the events I have described took place. My reason for asking is this: I think we must accept at this stage that few tests were taken. Do the Government intend to introduce any legislation either in this Bill, under the amendments which have already been tabled, or in the content of the Bill and, if not, in any other Bill, to deal with this fundamental matter?
All speakers have said how important the teachers are. They are crucial in so far as they have to organise the tests and do follow-up work on them. I believe that everyone in your Lordships' House will agree that unless we get the co-operation of the teachers then the tests will not take place, or what does take place will be of very little value. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with that specific point when she replies.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is very important to remember the background to these particular amendments. It is very helpful to have heard from my noble friend the Minister in discussion on both Amendment No. 244J and her new amendment. As my noble friend Lord Skidelsky pointed out, the fact is that teachers have been given more freedom in Britain than in any other industrialised country in the world. The tragedy of it all is that so much in the 1960s and 1970s crept into the curriculum which was really extraneous and contentious that the Government were forced to look both at the curriculum and at testing to get some kind of measure—particularly teacher accountability—as to what they were actually doing.
It is a matter of great regret to me that there has been confrontation with the teachers. I do not believe that that is helpful to the pupils or the education system. I share many of the doubts which have been expressed about some of the tests that are currently taking place. I have looked at the test papers myself and I can see the difficulties. It is no use people complaining about the tests without saying what they would put in their place. That is what the noble Lord,

85
Lord Judd, has done for us. He has put down what he would like to see. But what does it mean? Subsection (2)(b) of the new clause states,
"the tests, based on materials produced by teachers, support teachers' continuous assessment and are carried out when a teacher judges".
What is that going to measure? The very bright will take A-levels and will get into university. So they will have an objective measure. But that will mean that the average, and certainly the less average, will not have an objective test at all. No one will know how they are progressing. No one will be sure at 16 that they are capable of getting a job. It is not in the interests, particularly of the average and less average pupil, to have an assessment of that kind. Indeed, the tests are selected, administered and marked by the teachers. There is again no objective standard to say whether the tests are valid and good. One has different standards in different schools. Unless there is some cross-referencing so that all schools are obliged to publish their results, they will be absolutely meaningless.
I believe it was the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who said that parents had rejected testing. Yes, I have seen the published figures which she has seen. But when the surveys were done I wonder how much the parents really understood on how important all these matters are for their children. It is very easy to be frightened by the teachers saying "You are going to be published in the press. I can tell you that if your child does not do well everybody will know about it". That is not what is going to happen. What is going to be shown up by the tests is what the child is able to do. It is in the interests of parents and of people who really care about education to make that point to parents.
Amendment No. 256A is quite interesting. It is concerned with high ability pupils. I was not quite sure what that meant, but it struck me as introducing a form of selection into the local authority schools. They would have to pick out those whom they thought were of high ability and give them something special. That is probably a very desirable thing to do, and I am very pleased to think that the party opposite might agree.
What is very important is what my noble friend said in moving her amendment. Extensive consultation is now going on under Sir Ron Dearing. It is very important that some agreement is reached on modification of the tests to try to get a version on which there can be agreement. However, the Government must stand firm on the question of accountability and objectivity. That is absolutely essential—curiously, not for the very bright children because they have their measure—but it is essential for the average and less average. In all these matters we should be thinking of all the children and what is in their best interests.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I wish very briefly to say that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will not press his amendment. It would be extraordinary to replace months of consultation with many thousands of people with an hour's debate in your Lordships' House. I am delighted to see Amendment No. 256A and also to have confirmation that all sides of the
86
House agree how important it is to look after the more able pupils. But ability is very wide. We should not think of it in narrow academic terms. Many children have individual, exceptional abilities and it is important to nurture and to value them all.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I deal first with Amendment No. 244J. I cannot accept that we should move away from a system of national testing at fixed ages. Of course, teacher assessment is important, but testing at fixed ages based on nationally devised materials allows us to have confidence that the judgments arrived at are consistent right across the country.
Arrangements in Scotland reflect the different traditions and the differing statutory provision. As my noble friend Lord Skidelsky said, they start from a very different standpoint from that which applies in England and, in addition, they do not have a national curriculum. What is in common is the need for assessment. But there is no argument for dispensing in England and Wales with a system related to the national curriculum and with the advantages that it brings.
We accept that the present system of testing needs refinement and slimming down. That is the purpose of Sir Ron Dearing's review. We do not accept that the system is flawed and needs wholesale replacement. Amendment No. 254 seeks to remove subsection (4) of Clause 229 from the Bill. This subsection is designed to clarify the Secretary of State's powers to specify appropriate assessment arrangements and, in particular, the arrangements which may be made to verify the results of assessment and testing. There is nothing new or controversial here.
Local education authorities, governors and head teachers have a duty to secure the implementation of the national curriculum. The arrangements for the verification of results are a necessary part or the assessment process. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment No. 254.
Amendments Nos. 254B to 254J seek to change two aspects of government Amendment No. 254A. Amendment No. 254C would leave in place the more complex consultation procedures for amendments to Section 3 of the Education Reform Act relating to foundation subjects and key stages. The other amendments would limit the suspension until 1st September 1994, while allowing for an extension of that period by orders subject to the affirmative resolution procedures. I have to say that we would almost have to have reported Sir Ron Dearing's conclusions yesterday in order even to achieve the date of September 1994.
The remit to which Sir Ron Dearing is working is a wide one. It is essential that we are ready to respond to the recommendations which he makes, and if such recommendations include amendments to the foundation subjects required at particular key stages and command the support of teachers, we should be able to respond quickly and effectively. Of course, such changes would be important matters, but they would result not from a whim but from extensive prior consultation with teachers. For that reason, it is

87
entirely appropriate that orders made under Section 3(4) of the Education Reform Act should be included within this suspension.
Amendments Nos. 254B and 254D to 254J would limit the suspension of the two-stage consultation process to 1st September 1994, subject to resolutions of Parliament to extend that date by up to a further two years.
I understand noble Lords' concerns that full consultation should take place, but the changes which we are discussing will follow extensive consultation with teachers.
We must plan for changes over an extended period. Schools should not be expected to take on large-scale change across the whole curriculum all at once. That is why we should allow for a longer period of suspension, and I ask the noble Lord to reconsider his amendment.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not in his place, but in Amendment No. 256, which has been spoken to in passing by other noble Lords, he raised a question of the balance to be struck between matters of principle and matters of detail in legislation. This amendment seeks to shift the present balance in respect of assessment orders made under Section 4(2)(c) of the Education Reform Act. The assessment orders are concerned with detailed and technical matters such as the balance between teacher assessment and national tests, the means of arriving at an overall subject result and arrangements for pupils who do not take a test paper. They do not address the nature of the tests themselves—their format and the style of questions they use. I do not see that Parliament needs to concern itself with scrutiny of operational decisions of this sort. Parliament has had no control, for example, over public examinations such as the GCSE and A-levels which are at least of equal importance to the pupils taking them.
There is a further reason for rejecting this amendment. The effect of subsection (1) would be that the tests themselves could no longer be published separately but would have to form part of the order itself. That is simply unworkable. The tests need to remain confidential until taken by pupils. To include the tests for each subject as part of the order would put them in the public domain. It would also make the order a remarkably unwieldy document.
Amendment No. 256A should enable all pupils, including the brightest, to develop their full potential. The national curriculum will play a crucial role by ensuring that all pupils have specific goals at which to aim at each stage of their career. It is right that, within this statutory framework, schools should think carefully about the education of children who demonstrate high ability and that parents should know broadly what steps will be taken to ensure that these pupils receive appropriate challenges and development.
It would clearly not be appropriate to go into such detail on the face of the Bill. These issues, and the need to publish policies, is a matter which should be addressed through guidance from the Department for Education to local authorities. The department and
88
Ofsted plan to hold two national conferences during the autumn on the subject of education for particularly able children to which local authority representatives, teachers and other professionals will be invited. In the light of the discussion at the conferences, we expect to publish guidance on the key issues and good practice which will be circulated to all local authorities. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
As a tailpiece to that, perhaps I may comment on the importance of identifying ability. There is no agreement among professionals about what is and what is not high ability. That is a difficult issue to deal with on the face of the Bill. It can much more appropriately be dealt with on the back of the national conferences, by talking to professionals and then developing guidance.
Finally, as it relates to schools, the new clause is wholly unnecessary. Prospectuses have been required by law in maintained schools since 1980. The initial requirements for the content of prospectuses, set out in 1981, have been added to gradually over the last few years, and most recently by the School Performance Information Regulations.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 426. This is finally, finally. This amendment seeks to prevent the publication of annual tables of performance information for all the schools in each locality. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, having failed in his previous efforts to alter the scope of the tables, and the type of information which must be published in them, is now trying to get rid of them altogether. I have to tell him that we in Government are proud of our achievements in making more information available to parents and the wider community about the standards attained in our schools, and the work which goes on within them—nor do I think he would find any public support for this Luddite measure. The 1992 school performance tables were extremely popular: nearly 1.2 million copies of the tables have been distributed to date, and we are still receiving requests for them.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, asked for some information. I have to surprise him by saying that I do not have that information, but we do know that there was very widespread—and I mean very widespread—testing at Key Stage 1 for seven year-olds. We do not know how much of that will be reported—there is a responsibility to report it—but we do know that there was extensive testing in those schools. The testing has only just finished, so we do not have information for other schools. On his final question, I am not prepared at the Dispatch Box, on demand, to speculate about future legislation.
As I have said before, information about the achievements of an individual child is information for the particular parent alone and is not for wider publication. However, public information on whole-school performance, on local authority performance and on whole-country performance provides an important context for the information that parents receive. Again I repeat—and make no apology for it—that we, as a country, cannot stand back, wringing our hands about our performance when we are told

89
that other countries are performing better than we are. Not to know what our performance is, is simply not acceptable.
I end by saying that three principal factors are absolutely crucial and are not negotiable. One is the framework of the national curriculum. The second is a system of assessment and testing; and the third is public information on performance. There is to be no return to the "secret garden" in education. My noble friend Lady Young made that point very well. However, what is negotiable is the means to those ends. We shall explode the mystique of the "secret garden". We shall put as much information out into the public domain as possible and we shall go on until we make sure that this country stands proud and can fend off all challengers when they say that we do not perform as well as our international competitors.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, perhaps I may start by referring briefly to Amendment No. 254A. I had hoped that the Minister would recognise that we were trying to be helpful in bridging the gaps that exist and in trying to ensure a smooth operation. After listening to her, I am rather concerned about the fact that she is not aware of the degree of anxiety that exists out there in the world of education—in schools, among teachers, parents and the rest. The fear is that the Dearing review will report at the end of July; that during the summer holidays the Secretary of State will set out the 1994 testing arrangements; that teachers and governors will not be consulted because of the holidays; and that consequently there is every likelihood of an unnecessary dispute about the assessment arrangements for 1994. The review will then not have achieved its purpose of settling the assessment dispute. I am just sorry that, when we tried to find a way through that tonight, the Minister was not able to respond.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, referred to Scotland. I am always perplexed by the way in which we dip in and out of Scotland. On the one hand, the noble Lord said that Scotland has a system to be envied but, on the other hand, we are told that what Scotland does is not applicable. If he had been present for our earlier debate, he could no doubt have talked about the General Teaching Council which in Scotland enhances and underwrites the status of teachers in its system. It is clear that in Scotland more confidence is placed in the teachers.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, also said that the main issue of which we must not lose sight—and other noble Lords have referred to it—is that the purpose of assessments is to make schools accountable. In fact, the test results as proved performance indicators are absolutely useless. They do not measure the child's progress from entry into the school to where he is at various points during his school career. Neither do they reflect the full range of pupil achievement.
The Government already have in force structured and effective accountability measures; those of Ofsted inspections. In mixing up crude performance indicators—the test results—with comprehensive
90
measures of school effectiveness—the Ofsted inspection results—the Government have only served to confuse parents and to anger teachers. The Government should now draw up an assessment model which diagnoses pupil achievement and gives parents valuable and relevant information. They should separate measures of school effectiveness from the purposes of assessment. They should adopt a system based on the Scottish model which would gain support from parents, teachers and governors.
Everyone with whom I have spoken is in favour of testing; it is the form of testing which is the issue. We are arguing that testing should seriously take account of the role of the teacher; it should be related to the creative, ongoing work of the teacher in the school, as has been recognised in Scotland; and it should be meaningful in the sense that it should demonstrate how the child has moved forward from the point at which he started. It is also essential that in the whole operation of the system we do not demoralise some of the most dedicated teachers in the country who are doing some of the most demanding work that it is possible to imagine in some of our most deprived inner city areas. As a result of the ham-handedness of the Administration opposite those teachers not only end up with no plaudit for their sense of service and dedication to their children but also have a published sense of failure, which is absolutely disastrous. That is why we are so implacably opposed to the position of the Government and why we are determined to pursue the amendment to a vote tonight.
7.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 244J) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Judd, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kagan, L.

Attlee, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Lockwood, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley. L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monkswell, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Donoughue, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Eatwell, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ennals, L.

Parry, L.

Galpern, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Geraint, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richard, L.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Hampton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stallard, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hooson, L.

Warnock, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Howell, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Jeger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Arran, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Astor, V.

91

Barber, L.

Lucas, L.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Blyth, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Borthwick, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caithness, E.

Marlesford, L.

Caldecote, V.

Milne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Moyne, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Munster, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Nelson, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Norfolk, D.

Coleraine, L.

Norrie, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northbourne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Crathorne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cross, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Denham, L.

Peel, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pender, L.

Eccles, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Perth, E.

Elles, B.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rennell, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renton, L.

Flather, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gisborough, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Savile, L.

Goschen, V.

Seccombe, B.

Greenway, L.

Selkirk, E.

Guildford, Bp.

Skelmersdale, L.

Haig, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hayter, L.

Stewartby, L.

Henley, L.

Strange, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Strathclyde, L.

Hives, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Hooper, B.

Teviot, L.

Howe, E.

Teynham, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kimball, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Lane of Horsell, L.

Lindsay, E.

Wynford, L.

Liverpool, E.

Young, B.

Long, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Report stage begins again at 9 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill
Report received.
Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Forth Ports plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993
8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 11 th May be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if I may, I will deal first with the orders for Forth Ports plc and Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. These two orders prescribe the rateable values for 1993–94 for the operational lands and heritages of these companies. For all other statutory dock and harbour authorities in Scotland rateable values are calculated each year by regional assessors according to a formula prescribed by the Secretary of State in an order approved in 1990. Forth Ports and CalMac are treated separately because in each case the lands concerned span more than one valuation area. Consequently, it would be awkward to have their valuations carried out by different regional assessors acting independently.
We have therefore arranged for the valuations for these two undertakings to be calculated by officials following the same method as is applied to the other statutory port authorities, then to be apportioned among the local authorities concerned and for the resulting rateable values to be prescribed by order.
The method of valuation is to assess rateable value at 9 per cent. of the relevant income of the authority. Relevant income is the total income for the year less that for certain defined activities which are not related to the occupation of property or are connected with property separately assessed. This method is the same as that used for assessing other statutory ports in Scotland and south of the Border. The apportionment of the rateable value of each undertaking among the relevant local authorities is made on the basis of its relevant income in each area.
The assessments and provisions contained in these orders have been the subject of consultations with the two authorities concerned—with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and with the Scottish Assessors' Association. I believe they present fair and reasonable assessments for these two undertakings and I commend them to your Lordships.
I now turn to the order which relates to the valuation of Alcan Aluminium UK Ltd. (formerly British Alcan Primary and Recycling Ltd.)
This order would normally have been included with the bulk of the formula valued orders which were debated and approved by this House in March. However, a change in the company's name required the original draft to be withdrawn, amended and re-laid. Notification was received too late for this order to be included with those orders.
The order prescribes the rateable value for qualifying lands and heritages of the company for 1993–94. It updates the prescribed rateable value for the defined lands and heritages for this year to take account of material change of circumstances and the revised level of industrial derating.
Prior to the 1990 revaluation, in the consultation which took place on the review of formula valuation, agreement was reached with the undertaking, with the Scottish Assessors' Association and with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, on the method by which the value should be updated in the years subsequent to 1990–91 to reflect material change of circumstances. The value in the order before you today is the result of calculations reflecting the agreed method of updating and also the reduction in industrial derating to 17.5 per cent. There is no need to apportion the rateable value as the lands and heritages are contained within a single local authority area.
This order has been subject to consultation with the company, CoSLA and the Scottish Assessors' Association and no substantive comments have been received. I believe that this order also presents a fair and reasonable assessment for this undertaking and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on llth May be approved. [30th Report from the Joint Committed]—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we are aware that the valuations have been arrived at on an agreed basis. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his full explanation of the Alcan Aluminium UK Ltd. order. I have received no comments from any source that anything has been found wrong with that order. The same applies to the Forth Ports plc valuation.
As regards the Caledonian MacBrayne Limited order, the Minister mentioned the figure of 9 per cent. of the turnover. The noble and learned Lord may remember that when the order was dealt with in another place, and particularly in Committee, there was a certain amount of anxiety that the Government had decided to look into the question of the ownership of Caledonian MacBrayne. A great deal of worry about that has been expressed in our Scottish newspapers this morning. Had that anxiety not been reiterated in the fairly serious Scottish press this morning, I should have accepted the order. However, I wonder whether the Minister has anything to add to the statements made in another place by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
That matter is causing considerable anxiety. Will the order be affected in any way by any change of
94
policy towards Caledonian MacBrayne? I wonder whether the islanders would exist without having Caledonian MacBrayne to moan about. Does the noble and learned Lord wish to add anything to what has been said in a number of places?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lord's, the noble Lord is extremely skilled and has a long experience of managing to take advantage of an order to raise a political issue of wider import. Again, I congratulate him on his ability with which he managed to move us away from a valuation order to the wider issue of the potential privatisation of CalMac.
Of course the order would not have any impact on a privatisation proposal, were there such a proposal on the table at present. Indeed, the basis for the valuation would be the same whether the company remained in the public sector or moved to the private sector.
The short answer to the noble Lord's substantial query is that, in answer to a question from the Member for South Aberdeen, Raymond Robertson, the Secretary of State for Scotland indicated that he had decided to review the present arrangements under which he provides financial assistance to maintain life-line shipping services to Orkney, Shetland, the Outer Hebrides and the Clyde Estuary. He indicated that he also proposes to review options for the future organisation and structure of Caledonian MacBrayne, including possible scope for introducing private sector participation in the provision of Caledonian MacBrayne's services. Options are to be studied and at this time that is the position. I assure the noble Lord that his agreement to the order will not influence that decision one way or the other. I commend the orders to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
8.10 p.m.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreement on Customs Union and Co-operation between the European Economic Community and the Republic of San Marino) Order 1993
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th May be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move a draft Order in Council specifying the EC-San Marino Agreement on Customs Union and Cooperation as a European Treaty under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. The procedure is necessary, as it is a mixed competence agreement requiring approval by EC member states and the European Parliament. The European Parliament gave its assent on 9th July 1992.
The essence of the agreement is the establishment of a customs union and co-operation in a number of other fields, including the commercial, economic, social and cultural sectors. The agreement was signed

95
by the European Community and the member states on 16th December 1991 and was the subject of Foreign and Commonwealth Office Explanatory Memorandum 9377/91 on 21st November 1991. The House of Lords' Select Committee on the European Communities considered the agreement, but did not report on it.
The content of the agreement falls under four headings. The first and most important element concerns the customs union between the Community and San Marino earlier established under the Interim Agreement. That is desirable, both in terms of liberalising trade fully within the geographical area of the Community, and to ensure that San Marino does not become an unregulated customs zone within the EC.
In addition to its provisions on trade, the agreement establishes co-operation between the Community and San Marino in the industry and services sector, the environment, tourism and culture. A section on social matters provides for equal treatment for workers from San Marino and from the Community with regard to working conditions, remuneration and social security. Declarations attached to the agreement deal with matters such as transport, teacher and student exchanges, services, intellectual, industrial and commercial property, recognition of qualifications and technical regulations.
The agreement is straightforward, and is based largely on the customs union with Andorra (5963/90) which was signed in June 1990 and is now in effect. The Government welcome the agreement. It sets co-operation between the Community and San Marino on a more formal footing and strengthens existing commercial, economic, social and cultural links. San Marino plays its part in various international organisations, including the Council of Europe and the CSCE and has just become a full member of the United Nations. This EC agreement will complement that by establishing the Community's relationship with San Marino on a more formal and mutually beneficial basis. I therefore commend the instrument to the House.
Moved, That the Draft Order laid before the House on 13th May be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, there is nothing controversial about the order. It is not a matter of Maastricht proportions and its provisions are not particularly profound—unless, of course, you happen to be one of the 22,000 inhabitants of San Marino for whom it does have rather more considerable interest. As the noble Baroness said, it deals essentially with a customs union. But, in addition to the provisions on trade, the agreement which lies behind it establishes a useful co-operation between the Community and San Marino on a number of matters; for example, tourism, culture, student exchanges, services and industrial and commercial property. The order will help to place
96
co-operation between the Community and San Marino on a better footing. We believe that it should be approved.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, can my noble friend remind me of exactly where San Marino is to be found?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that it is near Rimini. It has three armies, two police forces and a great many souvenir shops. It also has two presidents who do not serve for more than six months at a time because it was thought, in the original agreement, that they had not sufficient time to remunerate themselves. But, on the other hand, their neutrality was welcomed both by the British and by Mussolini during the war when they took in 100,000 refugees, which is quite a large number compared to their own population and greatly to be applauded.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Registration, etc.) Bill
8.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to the 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 Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 9 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.16 to 9 p.m.]

Education Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 245:
After Clause 220, insert the following new clause:
("Nursery education in grant-maintained schools
.—(1) No person may—

(a) publish proposals under section 46 or 47 of this Act for the establishment of any nursery school, or

(b) publish proposals under section 94 or 95 of this Act, or give notice of proposals under section 175(3) or (4) of this Act, for a school to become a nursery school.

(2) Subject to subsection (1) above, proposals under sections 46, 47, 94, 95 or 175(3) or (4) of this Act may, in particular, be made for the purpose of securing the provision of education for junior pupils who have not attained the age of five years.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Wilberforce Lord Wilberforce moved Amendment No. 246:

97
Before Clause 221, insert the following new clause:
("Corporal punishment
.—(1) Without prejudice to section 47 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, no corporal punishment shall be given in any school which is inhuman or degrading or which would constitute an interference with the physical or moral integrity of the pupil concerned.
(2) In considering whether any corporal punishment comes within the description in subsection (1) of this section regard may be had to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 269ZG and 287B which are government amendments. We are here dealing with corporal punishment in schools: a subject which was debated at good length in Committee on 10th May. I shall not go over the arguments again but I shall recapitulate the situation. When this Bill came before Parliament there was no reference in it at all to the subject of corporal punishment in schools. Therefore the position would have been that that matter would be regulated by the Education (No.2) Act 1986 which, putting it broadly, proscribed corporal punishment in the state sector while leaving it open to free decision in independent schools.
In that situation there were two new clauses introduced in Committee. The first, which was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, had strong cross-party support. It would have eliminated corporal punishment altogether in all schools, including independent schools. I then proposed an amendment which I hope I may term a three-quarter way house which did not proscribe corporal punishment altogether but proposed to do so in so far, and only in so far, as it would fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights. As I explained, that convention does not ban all corporal punishment in education establishments but only bans it if it goes beyond a certain threshold of inhumanity.
The Government opposed the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, as going too much against the principle of choice and independence. The amendment was put to a vote and was narrowly defeated on a large vote. I then proposed my amendment and the Government, in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that they were favourable to the principle behind my amendment but did not like the express reference to the European Convention on Human Rights because they do not favour the doctrine of incorporation of that convention into our law. Therefore, I said that I would try to find a formula which had the same effect as my amendment without a direct incorporation of provisions of the European convention. I have tried to do that in Amendment No. 246 which contains the words "inhuman or degrading", which come from Article 3 of the convention, and "physical or moral integrity", which come, in effect, from Article 8.
Since then the Government late last week tabled Amendment No. 269ZG. I am sorry that that amendment was not tabled earlier because if it had been I might not have included my amendment. That amendment works in rather a different way. It works by way of amending the Education (No.2) Act 1986 instead of introducing, as my amendment does, a
98
freestanding section. The Government's amendment is slightly difficult to follow as it is in the form of amendments to an existing text which your Lordships do not have.
The proposed new subsection (1A) of the Government's proposed new clause in Amendrnent No. 269ZG contains the words "inhuman or degrading". That conveys the same thought as Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The proposed new subsection (1B) of the Government's proposed new clause contains a reference to "mental and physical effects". Those latter words reflect the thought behind Article 8 of the European convention. I commend this alternative text to your Lordships as it achieves in substance, although in a somewhat different form, the same effect as I seek to achieve in my amendment.
I propose—subject to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has to say, and other noble Lords who may hold different views—to withdraw my amendment in due course and to leave the field open to the government amendments which achieve the same result as my amendment.
Finally, I find the Government's amendments slightly difficult for lay people to understand. The provision will have to be administered by magistrates and county courts. I wonder whether the Government would consider helping them by inserting a Keeling schedule which would show the effects of the amendments in one text. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for sending me such a unified text, which I found very helpful in trying to understand the effect of the amendments. Without such a schedule, if the matter were simply left to an amendment in this way, the job of those seeking to administer the provisions would be more difficult. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as my name is down to the other two amendments in this group, perhaps I may speak briefly to my two amendments. I appreciate that two noble Lords wish to speak, and I do not deny their right to come in after me. Of course I shall respond in the usual way at the end of the debate.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, stressed, during the course of the debate on 10th May I gave an undertaking to the House to consider whether we might return at Report stage with amendments which would achieve the effect which the noble and learned Lord desired. These are the two government amendments which we now bring forward.
We remain of the opinion that parental choice should be respected as concerns corporal punishment of privately funded pupils in independent schools. We are, however, prepared to take steps to ensure that any punishment given does not lead to a contravention of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The government amendment, Amendment No. 269ZG, is therefore designed to ensure that, where corporal punishment is being administered by a school, the punishment should not be inhuman or degrading—the words used in Article 3 of the convention.

99
The amendment also sets out some considerations which need to be taken into account when determining whether such punishment is inhuman or degrading. These include the reason for administering the punishment, any delay between the offence and the punishment it brought about, the nature of the corporal punishment administered, the manner and circumstances in which it is given, the persons involved and its mental and physical effects.
I referred in the previous debate to the difficulties inherent in referring expressly in domestic legislation to the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble and learned Lord's amendment does not entirely remove those difficulties since we believe that his subsection (2) still comes slightly too close to express incorporation and so does not meet our concerns of principle. On grounds of practicality we also think it more helpful to users of the statute to give direct guidance as to the matters to be considered rather than to rely on reference being made to case law giving that guidance, which may not be readily accessible to courts around the country.
I note also the noble and learned Lord's point about it being rather difficult to interpret this particular amendment as it amends further legislation. I thank the noble and learned Lord for what he had to say about the letter I sent to him, and to one or two other noble Lords, explaining how the amendment works and setting out its relationship to the other legislation. I take note of his suggestion and I shall put it to those who advise me that we bring in a Keeling schedule later to give that effect.
We recognise the need for a similar amendment to Section 48 of the 1986 Act to cover the position in Scotland. We undertake to bring back a further amendment at Third Reading for that purpose. We shall also be discussing with colleagues the making of appropriate provision for Northern Ireland in due course.
We believe that the amendment that we propose secures the essential aims of the noble and learned Lord. I therefore commend it to the House.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and others may wish to speak. I shall sit down at this stage and respond at the end of this short debate to any particular points which the noble Lord wishes to make.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and the noble Lord, the Minister for what they have said. I wish particularly to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for writing to me, and I believe to others, with her intent in regard to the amendment. It was most helpful that she gave in her letter a Keeling schedule. It helped me to find a way through the rather complex amendment, which I would not otherwise have been able to do.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said, at Committee stage I and my colleagues from all parts of the House tried unsuccessfully to persuade the Government and the House to accept the straightforward, non-discriminatory solution of extending the existing abolitionist legislation in the Education (No.
100
2) Act 1986 to cover all private school pupils. That solution would have had general support from organisations concerned with children's welfare and child protection, all of which strongly oppose any use of corporal punishment in institutions. It would also have had support from the reputable end of the independent sector which has no wish to retain corporal punishment or to have discriminatory legislation applying to it. Indeed, I gather that it is rather embarrassed that discriminatory legislation applies to it and would like to be disembarrassed of that legislation if possible. I believe that if the Government were of that mind such a step would receive a welcome from the private sector.
In addition, the amendment which I moved at Committee stage would have satisfied the spirit as well as the letter of the latest judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. In that judgment all nine judges—the majority as well as the minority—stated very clearly that:
"the Court did not wish to be taken as approving in any way corporal punishment as part of the disciplinary regime of a school".
The Government have disregarded that observation of the court. Instead of accepting that simple, popular and humane solution, as urged upon them by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, the Government have taken the minimalist approach. They have drafted a complex amendment intended to meet their commitments under the European convention.
I should like to reiterate the noble and learned Lord's plea for the insertion of a Keeling schedule so that he who runs may read. At the moment, one needs to be a retired Lord of Appeal in Ordinary to be able to understand what the Government have put in their complex amendment. I am also glad to hear from the Minister that legislation applying to Scotland will be incorporated on Third Reading.
The result is better than nothing, but only marginally. Article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights states that corporal punishment must not be "inhuman or degrading". But what of Article 8, which was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord in Committee, whose implications were also considered in the Costello-Roberts judgment? I find that an odd omission. Paragraph 36 of the judgment stated:
"The Court does not exclude the possibility that there might be circumstances in which Article 8 could be regarded as affording in relation to disciplinary measures a protection which goes beyond that given by Article 3".
To avoid potential breaches of Article 8, the amendment would need to refer to respect for the physical and moral integrity of the pupil, as did the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, in Committee. I wonder why that is not incorporated in the Government's amendment.
What of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which the Government ratified in December 1991 and which states in Article 28(2) that the Government must ensure that school discipline is administered,
"in a manner consistent with the child's human dignity and in conformity with the Convention"?

101
In conformity with the convention includes conformity with Article 19, which obliges the Government to protect children from,
"all forms of physical or mental violence".
I and my colleagues from all parties have not at this stage tabled amendments to the new clause to add respect for Article 8 of the European convention and Articles 28 and 19 of the United Nations convention, but we shall consider whether to do so on Third Reading. I hope that, as a result of the criticisms of the improved draft which the Government have put before the House, they will have second thoughts and adopt the logical approach, which is what we proposed in Committee, and extend abolition to cover all pupils. That happens to be simple, as against the complex solution which the Government have offered us, and is what the overwhelming majority of private schools want.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I regret that I was not present in Committee when the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, moved his Amendment No. 245. Unfortunately, I was sitting on the Committee dealing with the Leeds supertram at the time. I thought that it was far better to cut out corporal punishment altogether, and I regard the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord as a second-best proposal.
Most noble Lords are considerably older than I am, and so my prep school memories are much more recent and vivid than theirs. What is the purpose of corporal punishment in schools? In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested that the ultimate sanction of corporal punishment was for really serious bad behaviour. That assumes that corporal punishment deters genuinely bad behaviour. But does it? An independent school has the option to expel or suspend undesirable pupils. In that event the parents can find another school. If corporal punishment is very rarely used, for that reason alone it is degrading and humiliating. Once it is accepted as a sanction, who knows how often and how severely it will be applied? It is a secret world that no one knows a great deal about.
My greatest difficulty concerns the use of an implement for inflicting corporal punishment. In England the implement is normally a cane which is quite a vicious device. The reason for using an implement must be either to inflict more pain than can be achieved by hand alone or for the purpose of increased degradation and humiliation, or perhaps both. There are other reasons, which are even less palatable, and I shall address those later.
If the object of using an implement is to increase the level of pain over that achieved by hand spanking, weal marks will be left. If a child at a state school is found with such marks, the abuse procedure, according to DES Circular 4/88, will be implemented. That is something that has happened recently. The father concerned found himself in court, but I believe that he was acquitted. Parents have the choice of permitting that which they cannot do to their children themselves. The Minister may say that corporal
102
punishment is not so severe that weal marks will result. If that is the situation, I repeat the question: why use an implement at all?
I should like to turn to the problem of over-severe or over-frequent punishment. There is remote chance of detection by the parents or authorities. Parents may approve of such treatment, although it is unlikely; or they may fondly imagine that corporal punishment is reserved for really bad behaviour—for example, setting fire to a haystack. In fact, their little mite may be being beaten for something like lamp-posting his friend's bed. Of course, I never did anything like that when I was at school. The child will not complain to his parents because he will assume that they approve, or he may know that they approve. He may not realise that his parents would not approve of punishment of excessive frequency or severity. The child will not complain to the police because of uncertainty as to reception of the complaint, ignorance of the law or possible further repercussions at school. The child will not complain to other teachers, again because he is uncertain of the reception that he will receive and because of repercussions. When the child reaches the age of 18, he realises, as I did, what he has been put through but, naturally enough, he wants to forget about it and so he does not proceed with the matter.
I should like to refer to an unpalatable topic that has not been mentioned by any noble Lord. It is well known that their are sexual connotations to this subject. One only has to look inside some London telephone kiosks for the evidence. Any headmaster or housemaster with immoral tendencies is able to indulge himself. There have been many reports, including one last week, of men who are in charge of children abusing their position of trust.
The headmaster at my prep school was as bent as the proverbial nine-bob note. To what extent, one may ask. In my case, fortunately, it was not very great. He suffered from a wandering hand, when I was washing at the basin or drying off at the bath; but the worst time was when he was about to punish me. I lived in constant dread of his wandering hand and of being punished. What of the other teachers? Is it statistically impossible that in the five years that I attended the school, they never caught him indecently assaulting one of the boys? My parents thought that I was homesick and they never knew the situation. I do not blame them. They made their choice and put their trust in the headmaster. I have already explained to noble Lords why a child who suffers in the way that I did is unable to cry for help.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, at Committee stage, stated that corporal punishment had done him no harm. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, pointed out the arrogance of that remark. The noble Lord is a very highly respected Member of your Lordships' House. But who is to say that the offender would not be even better without the benefit of corporal punishment?
With so few independent schools using corporal punishment one has to ask why the few which do so need to. It is vicious, degrading, humiliating, unnecessary and unhealthy. It should be completely banned everywhere in the UK. We should not rely on

103
the European Court finally telling us that enough is enough. I implore the Minister to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am extremely sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was not present on the previous occasion on which we discussed the provision. We might have had his vote and he might have persuaded another five or six noble Lords to vote for the provision. We might have won, and that would have finished the matter. Therefore I regret that he was not present.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for having sent me not only her amendment but also the clause as it would stand, so that it is much easier to understand the position. I am grateful to her for that. However, I still believe that it is misguided to have followed that route. In their determination to cling on to the right of some teachers in some schools to use some level of corporal punishment, the Government have characteristically taken the complex, illogical and unpopular route. (I do hope that noble Lords on the Benches opposite are listening; it does not seem as though they are.) The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has already indicated that this "better than nothing" amendment does not even achieve its limited objective of satisfying international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The reason, we were told at Committee stage, for rejecting the simple and obvious solution of extending abolition to cover all pupils was respect for parents' rights—parents' rights to pay to have their children beaten. At Committee stage I quoted a letter from the Master of Haileybury, David Jewell, a former chairman of the Headmasters' Conference. Since that debate I have been sent a press cutting headed, "Caning for Lords' decision", in which Mr. Jewell argues that the narrow defeat of our attempt to abolish corporal punishment for all private school pupils was "a very great pity". He continues:
"I don't know of any reputable independent school that retains corporal punishment".
That surely should be the voice to which the Government listen. No reputable independent school allows parents to pay to have their children beaten.
We have not yet been told why Department for Education policy remains out of line with the established policy of the Children Act and the Department of Health that corporal punishment has no place in the child care environment outside the family home. How does the Minister explain that divergence? Allowing some level of corporal punishment to persist in obscure and isolated independent schools is a recipe for abuse. Have we not had enough scandals involving physical and sexual abuse of children in such schools to convince the Department for Education that they should stop defending this sordid practice altogether?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will reconsider the matter and will listen in particular to the reputable voices in the independent sector. They do not want
104
this last ditch defence of some level of corporal punishment. I hope very much that attention can be paid to what has been said today.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much for responding to the initiatives of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I am bound to say that I feel slightly like teasing the noble Lord, Lord Henley. In the good old days, of course before he can even remember, some of us ribald characters used to wait for the Conservative Party conference to note the response to motions of that conference to bring back the birch and, preferably, the cat if possible. I feel that something of the Old Adam is still there in the Conservative Party. There is a difference between the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and that produced by the noble Baroness. The former amendment starts by saying that:
"no corporal punishment shall be given in any school which is inhuman or degrading".
The noble Baroness's amendment suggests, however, that corporal punishment is there but, of course, it must not be inhuman or degrading. I shall let that be. I welcome the noble Baroness's amendment and very much hope that the House will endorse it.
Before concluding, I wish to draw attention to a notable example of consistency on the part of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. Some of us well remember a much-loved Black Rod, General Sir Brian Horrocks. In 1945 he was in command of 30 Corps in Germany and he issued an order that any German youths who mocked or, indeed, stoned British troops or British vehicles should be summarily caned on the spot. Two weeks later, an instruction came down to the whole of the British zone saying that we had come to Germany to institute the rule of law and that summary punishment of this kind was totally against the rule of law. It was signed by Mr. Wilberforce, the head of the legal division in Berlin.
That is what the amendment is about. However much we shy away from it, there is a rule of law which exists in the European Community. We know perfectly well that it condemns corporal punishment and it is that rule of law which we ought to accept. Having said that, I go no further and will willingly vote for the noble Baroness's amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I do not remember the Conservative Party conferences of old, probably back in the days when I was a Liberal—and look where that has got me.
I point out to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee and, for that matter, other noble Lords, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, that we had a full debate on this matter, or rather the wider matter, at Committee stage. The Committee then came to a decision, after considerable discussion and after I had said that I would come forward with an amendment on the lines of the milder version, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, put it at that time.

105
The Committee then having come to that decision, I, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, have also come forward with amendments which go some way—I appreciate that it is only some way—towards meeting some of the demands made by supporters of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
Having said that, I must point out that we had a full debate on this and we were all, to some extent, of one mind. The example given by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was not really relevant to the debate we are having today. I suspect that the examples that he was giving, examples where weal marks were left which were highly visible, would almost certainly amount to punishment that was both inhuman and degrading.
Let me also say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, for their grudging—and I appreciate in the case of the noble Baroness, Lady David, even more grudging—thanks for both the amendment and the letter which my noble friend Lady Blatch sent to them.
Baroness David: My Lords, I do not want to disagree with the noble Lord but my thanks for the letter were not grudging at all.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is not for me to say whose thanks were more grudging than others; I leave it for the HoLse to interpret the degrees of grudgingness that emanated from the mouths of both the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady David. I appreciate that our amendment does not go so far as the one which the noble Lord. Lord Henderson, moved in Committee. I do not intend to rehearse the arguments that we put forward on that occasion. I stress again that we believe that here there must be an element for parental preference where possible. The Committee, after considerable debate, decided not to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. We therefore brought forward our amendment which, as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady David, put it, was "better than nothing". That is the amendment that we bring before the House, and that is the amendment that I hope the House will accept later.
I make two further points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, asked whether we could consider a Keeling schedule, as did the noble Baroness, Lady David, in thanking us for the letter. As I said in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, at the beginning, that is certainly something that we shall consider, if it can be done and if it will be of use to those who have to interpret this new clause of the 1986 Act in due course.
As regards Article 8, I can only say that our view is that the Costello-Roberts case has left the matter unclear. Until the European Court has clarified that matter, there is in the Government's view nothing which can be usefully done to ensure compliance with Article 8 in this field.
I turn lastly to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the noble Baroness, Lady David, raised. We do not believe that this convention creates obligations as regards the use of
106
corporal punishment in schools which go beyond those imposed by the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore we see no need to amend domestic law in respect of the United Kingdom's international obligations. I wait to see what the noble and learned Lord will do. I hope very much that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I will then, in due course, move the two amendments in the name of my noble friend.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, if I thought that my amendment went any further in the way of giving effect to the European Convention on Human Rights than does the government amendment, I would certainly consider insisting upon it. But I do not believe that it does. I think it covers exactly the same ground, though in somewhat different language, as the government amendment. The only difference in language relates to Article 8. As the noble Lord has just said, the decision of the European Court is far from clear; and in any case Article 8 does not refer, as is suggested, to physical or moral integrity. It has a different language altogether of a much vaguer character. I do not think that it can be said satisfactorily or convincingly that Article 8 is reflected either in my amendment or in the government amendment, or could be reflected in any useful concrete language. I am quite satisfied that the government amendment goes as near as possible to giving effect to the European convention. I repeat that the European convention does not ban all forms of corporal punishment. The European Court has not set itself against all corporal punishment; it leaves an area open. That is the decision which the House made in Committee when it decided not to accept that whole-hogging amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I am therefore willing to withdraw my amendment. I ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 223 [Publication of proposals by the Secretary of State]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 247 to 250:
Page 138, line 22, leave out ("include particulars").
Page 138, line 23, at beginning insert ("include particulars").
Page 138, line 26, after ("school") insert ("or relate to a special school—
( ) include particulars").
Page 138, line 29, at end insert ("and
( ) if, in the case of a grant-maintained school, pupils are proposed to be admitted for nursery education, give the prescribed information").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move Amendments Nos. 247 to 250 en bloc. These were spoken to with Amendment No. 69.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 250A:
Page 138, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) Proposals made under this section shall have regard to the principle that children with special educational needs should where possible be educated in schools which are not special schools.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak to this amendment and Amendment No. 279A extremely

107
briefly. These amendments are put forward by way of probing amendments in the light of the changes the amendments to the Bill carried this time last week.
The purpose of the amendments is to see whether the Secretary of State will recognise responsibility for planning as he makes proposals for the establishment, alteration or discontinuance of schools, particularly in regard to special educational needs where the planning role in the Bill as amended is no longer important.
The Bill repeats the principle of the 1981 Act that there should be a preference for integration of the child. With this pair of amendments we seek to probe the Secretary of State's responsibilities which flow from the amendments passed last week. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support very warmly this pair of amendments. I shall not repeat the speech that I have made at least twice on this Bill about the benefits of mainstream education to the individual child with educational special needs and the spin-off benefit to the ordinary child that derives from such daily contact.
The amendments seem very sensible. Given the Government's duty, albeit a qualified duty, to secure mainstream education for the individual child with special educational needs, the LEAs and the funding authorities should think and plan for integration in general terms to ensure its maximum possible success in the case of the individual child.
I should like to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said about this amendment being linked to Amendment No. 206A, to which he spoke among a bunch of amendments last Monday. When I supported that amendment on 14th June I said:
"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".—[Official Report, 14/6/93; col. 1344.]
I hope that the Minister will agree to the amendments and perhaps feel that he can reunite them with the other one so that the triplets form part of the Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, on the other hand, hope that my noble friend will not agree. The effect of these two amendments would be to place an emphasis on integration; that is to say, for example, that mentally handicapped children would be required whenever possible to go to ordinary schools.
I apologise to your Lordships for repeating what I have said on more than one recent occasion—I speak with some knowledge as many noble Lords will know—namely, that if mentally handicapped children are sent to ordinary schools they are at a disadvantage and it can cause a psychological problem in addition to their mental handicap problem. Moreover, owing to the conscientious efforts of teachers to give special education to those who are mentally handicapped, trying to help them to catch up, on occasions it could be to the disadvantage of children who are not handicapped.
My noble friend Baroness Blatch, who possibly is not handling this amendment, knows that at Huntingdon there was a rather glaring case which illustrates the desirability of avoiding integration in
108
those circumstances. There was a special school which taught about 30 mentally handicapped young people. It was built some time ago and I remember it being opened nearly 30 years ago. The premises were very badly in need of repair. The local authority thought that they would solve the problem by simply sending all the children into ordinary schools. The parents were furious. In fact, they paraded outside the door of their local MP (noble Lords may guess who that was). I am happy to say that under persuasion the local education authority changed its decision and made other arrangements so that those children could continue to be taught together. The compulsory or probable integration by way of sending them to ordinary schools was avoided. I hope that my noble friend who is to reply will try to avoid any such situation in the years to come.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I should like to support in the strongest possible terms what has been said by my noble friend Lord Renton. I do not want to re-run all of the arguments which have been advanced at this and earlier stages of the Bill. The amendment seems to me to perpetuate the presumption in favour of educating all special educational needs children in ordinary schools. Like my noble friend Lord Renton, I have to declare an interest as the parent of a mentally handicapped child. I am absolutely sure that that presumption is wrong in the case of mentally handicapped children, and therefore I oppose the amendment in the strongest possible terms.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I do not feel that there is as much antagonism in the Chamber on this subject as would appear from most of the discussions. Surely, what is important is the best interest of the child. Does the expression "where possible" exclude the idea of the child's best interests being the overriding consideration? Perhaps when the Minister comes to answer that can be dealt with. That is probably the most important issue. Certain children with special educational needs will benefit from integration; others will not. Even in the case of those who will not benefit it will depend on the period of time that they may need to be withdrawn from and put back into the special education system. The primary consideration on every count should be the best interests of the child.
I agree with those people who favour integration. It would be beneficial if all of them could be correctly taught in the mainstream. Referring to the group I know best, dyslexics, there are certain situations where, because the mainstream has not suited them they need a period of sheltered education. This is happening in a vast variety of spheres. I have yet to be given a very good reason why somebody in a wheelchair should not be in a mainstream classroom. There is virtually no reason why that should not be the case. Perhaps the Minister can tell us exactly what "wherever possible" means in terms of the best interests of the child. I feel that that should be the starting point.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in introducing the amendment described it as a probing amendment. I find that rather extraordinary for an amendment that deals with some fairly well covered ground and has given rise to another shortish debate on the subject. As I and my noble friend have made clear on many occasions during the passage of the Bill, the Government are committed to the principle that where it is appropriate, practicable and consistent with the wishes of parents—a point that I underline—children with special educational needs should be educated in mainstream schools. We therefore have a positive and constructive policy on integration, but we recognise that some pupils will continue to need special schools; and in some cases parents of children with special needs will choose that form of provision. That must be a matter for them where it is practical and possible in line with their preference. There should be a wide range of provision in both mainstream and special schools for pupils with special educational needs. Therefore, there should be a healthy diversity.
In regard to Amendment No. 250A, Clause 223(4) makes clear that any proposals published by the Secretary of State under this provision will be accompanied by a statement describing the effect that the implementation of the proposals will have on provision at the school for pupils who have special educational needs. It is self-evident when the Secretary of State has a duty to provide such a statement, and when he has a policy to encourage integration, that he will consider in broad terms whether proposals under Clause 223 will affect such policies. We believe that Amendment No.250A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is therefore completely unnecessary.
As regards the noble Lord's second amendment, paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 2 provides in terms that the funding authority, when performing its duty to secure sufficient school places at stage 2, is to have regard to the need for securing that special educational provision is made for pupils who have special educational needs.
We have also pointed out to the House that the funding authority will, in future, have a considerable role in encouraging self-governing schools to apply for capital grants to secure better access for disabled people. That is something I made clear as long ago as Committee stage on 29th April.
Again, for similar reasons to those I have already adduced, we believe that Amendment No. 250A is superfluous. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, when I introduced the two amendments as probing amendments I went on to say that they were probing amendments in the light of the defeat of the Government this time last week; that is, to look at the planning role for special educational needs provisions. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, failed to hear me say that.
The noble Lord has not addressed himself to the intent of the amendments and we have had a mini re-run of the full debate we had last week. I do not propose to pursue the matter but perhaps I may table
110
an amendment at another stage making the intent slightly more clear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 251 and 252:
Page 138, line 31, leave out ("the") and insert ("a maintained").
Page 138, line 32, leave out from ("disregarded") to end of line 35 and insert ("and section 149(4) to (5A) of this Act applies for the purposes of that subsection as it applies for the purposes of Part II of this Act").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 251 and 252 were previously debated with Amendments Nos. 69 and 221. I wish to move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 225 [Adoption of proposals and approval of related proposals]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 253:
Page 140, line 49, leave out ("or Part II") and insert ("Part II or section 177").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 253 was spoken to with earlier amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 226 [Supplementary provisions]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 253A and 253B:
Page 141, line 14, leave out ("or implementing").
Page 141, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) Where—

(a) proposals made by the governing body of a voluntary school in pursuance of an order under section 221 or 222 of this Act are approved, or

(b) proposals adopted by the Secretary of State under section 225 of this Act have effect as mentioned in subsection (3) (a) (ii) of that section,

then, notwithstanding anything in section 13(5) of the Education Act 1980, the local education authority shall defray the cost of implementing the proposals.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are no more than minor technical amendments to explain more fully the intended coverage of this subsection of the clause. Amendment No. 253A removes a reference to the LEA reimbursing costs incurred by the governors of voluntary schools in implementing proposals made in response to a direction by the Secretary of State, and Amendment No. 253B reinserts it in a slightly different form. Amendment No. 2538 also makes it clear that if any proposals of a similar nature made by the Secretary of State after the expiry of the appropriate period are implemented, the responsibility for defraying the costs will rest with the LEA in a similar way. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, perhaps I may seek one point of clarification on Amendment No. 253A. As I understand it, the LEA has to pay for approved changes to voluntary schools. The original plan in the choice and diversity White Paper was to allow LEAs to make statutory proposals for necessary changes of character to voluntary schools. As I recall, that proposal was in the first print of the Bill. However, as the Minister indicated, it now seems to have changed.

111
Perhaps the Minister could enlighten me as to how far the LEAs were consulted and what their reaction was. I have heard reports that they were not altogether on board in the arrangement, and that would be unfortunate. It would be helpful to have further information from the Minister.
Lord Henley: My Lords, at the present time I am not aware to what degree the local education authorities or associations concerning them were consulted on these matters. Perhaps it would be helpful for me to write to the noble Lord. I was not aware that they were not "on board" with regard to the amendments.
It was always our intention that the costs of implementing the proposals would be met by the local education authority. The amendment merely makes that more obvious on the face of the Bill. The proposals in question are for local reorganisation to remedy an excess in provision and should be seen in the context of the supply of places in the area as a whole. It is right, therefore, as was our original intention, that the LEA should bear the costs.
I was not aware that they were unhappy with the amendments but we do not anticipate any frequent resort to the powers. Only where surplus places in the area are excessive and sensible rationalisation proposals have not been brought forward will the Secretary of State have to consider issuing a direction. I hope that explanation is sufficient. If it is not, it is probably best that I write to the noble Lord.
Lord Judd: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I can say that it would be helpful if he were to write to me. The point in which I am specially interested is whether the LEAs were consulted about the arrangement to which they are to be a party and if not, why not?
Lord Henley: My Lords, whether or not they were actually consulted I cannot help the noble Lord. I have given an assurance that either I or my noble friend will write to the noble Lord on that point.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 253C:
After Clause 226, insert the following new clause:
("Right to choose denominational education
.—(1) The Education Act 1944 shall be amended as follows.
(2) At the end of section 55(3) there shall he inserted "and
(b) to the wishes of a parent who, on religious grounds, desires that his child be educated in a school or institution of his denomination."").
The noble Duke said: My Lords, during the Committee stage an amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, sought to amend Section 55 of the 1944 Act. We did so because of the growing concern among the Catholic Bishops, the parents of Catholic children and, indeed, our colleagues in the Church of England in respect of their own schools that after nearly 50 years we perceived a likely erosion in the long-standing rights in the matter of home to school transport provision.
In her response, my noble friend the Minister said by way of introduction, to paraphrase the words of Huckleberry Finn: "we have been here before". We sure have.
In debating what was then Clause 53—it subsequently emerged as Section 55 of the 1944 Act, and although consequently amended, it still retains the very provision to which I am now making reference—the then President of the Board of Education, Mr. R.A. Butler, in a speech in the other place when moving a government amendment to the clause during Committee stage in May 1944 said:
"nor could I make it any clearer that it is our desire that children belonging to a particular denomination should go to a school of that denomination. That is the whole object of that clause".
Later, in response to a question, he stated of the clause:
"It is all for the purposes of enabling children to attend schools which are suited to the beliefs and desires of their parents. I can give a definite undertaking about that".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/44; cols. 1752-3.]
Noble Lords will note that I have done a lot of homework on this matter. We have moved some way from what was set out in my Amendment No. 191A. There have been some most useful exchanges and meetings with both my noble friend the Minister and her right honourable friend the Secretary of State, for which I thank them both very much. As a result, I have focused the debate expressly on the denominational provision as was so clearly the intent of the author of the 1944 Act, but in so doing I feel obliged to draw attention to the agreement or undertakings reached or given concerning the siting of so many of the schools.
It is an important point. They were sited, believing that the provision would be so and it was so, but that has now been reneged on. This amendment to Section 55(3) is, I would argue, a modest addition but one which fits well both with the undeniable intent of government when the transport provisions were first created, and with current needs. The amendment requires that a local authority shall have regard, in considering its transport arrangements, to a denominational preference, sincerely made. for a child to be educated in a school or institution of that denomination.
I should perhaps explain that, in referring to "institution", I am taking account not only of the revised wording of Section 55(1), following the passage of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, but also of the existence of the Catholic sixth-form colleges. There are some 18 such sixth-form colleges, all of which were created as a consequence of Catholic secondary school reorganisations.
The catchment areas of these colleges are much larger than those of the former 11–18 schools; but in many instances the removal of sixth-form provision from the Catholic secondary schools concerned was accompanied by an agreement or undertaking that "home to school" transport costs would be met by the maintaining authority for the sixth-form pupils thus displaced. As I have mentioned previously, such arrangements were similarly made for many of our schools.
I have not pursued the more general points I made earlier, but I would hope that my noble friend the Minister might be minded to issue a timely reminder to all LEAs, setting out again the importance which the Government attach to the preservation of such agreements or undertakings.
We are only too well aware that, as the Minister remarked on 27th April:
"Free transport does not come cheap".—[Official Report, 27/4/93; col. 335.]
The figure of £350 million was quoted, representing, I believe, something of the order of 1.6 per cent. of the total education budget. Of that £350 million, almost a third is quite properly expended on a minority of pupils—namely, those requiring special education. But I should make it quite clear that our intention here is not to increase the transport cost total; it is to preserve the existing provision. We do not wish to increase it at all; we just want to have what was previously agreed.
I would wish to make one final point, and it is this. We would hope that local authorities would continue to meet the transport needs of those genuinely seeking to secure denominational education for their children in line with the terms of this amendment, but that the holder of the office of Secretary of State for Education would, as was set out in the Board of Education's explanatory memorandum, Cmd. 3492, December 1943, and again, I quote:
"deal with any cases in which transport facilities are unreasonably withheld".
That will be the duty of the Minister for Education.
That very point was reinforced in your Lordships' House when during the Committee stage of the Education Bill in June 1944, the then noble Earl of Selborne, speaking for the Government, said:
"I would also draw your Lordships' attention … that under Clause 53 the Government, for the first time, are taking power to direct authorities to provide transport where circumstances render it appropriate".—[Official Report, 22/6/44; col. 414.]
I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, in supporting this amendment, I should like to draw attention to the fact that the references are to the amended 1944 Act—that is, as amended by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which also includes references to "institution". I do not think that I can add a great deal to what the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, has just said.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot resist the temptation of being able to stand here tonight and say that I attended every sitting in another place when the 1944 Act was being considered and heard Rab Butler say the words which my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk has just quoted. What he has said was the Government's intention then. In supporting him, I say to my noble friend the Minister that I am sure she will understand that point and that we shall have to hear from her something that will be satisfactory not only to us, but also to the House.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, while supporting the amendment generally, I hope that the Minister will comment on the transport costs
114
involved. I have received a letter from the director of my local authority, Durham, who in principle supports what is said. However, he draws attention to the great difficulties which will arise as a result of costs. He states:
"The costs of transport, particularly in a rural area such as Durham, are significant already. Durham spends over £6 million annually on school transport".
This is a serious matter. If the Government agree to the amendment, presumably the Minister will say whether extra money will be made available to local education authorities in the circumstances that have been described.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, although the issue is more for the Roman Catholic Church, it is becoming a problem within the Church of England. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendment. I am sure that she recognises that the Churches have to carry out their own strategic planning in the geographical disposition of schools, which involves transport costs. I fully take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dortnand of Easington. It is not our wish to increase these costs, although a realistic appraisal of the situation must be made. I hope that the matter can be considered positively.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk and to other noble Lords who have spoken, including the right reverend Prelate, for their diligence and forbearance with the Government on the matter of home-to-school transport to Church schools. My noble friend the Duke and his advisers have essayed various drafts of a form of words designed to capture the spirit of a policy on which we were in principle agreed. We have debated one or two of those drafts and we have discussed a number of others between debates.
I am happy to say that I can accept in principle the amendment which has now been tabled. Noble Lords will understand that the parliamentary draftsman will need to look at it. If in the light of that scrutiny my noble friend the Duke is able to table an amendment at Third Reading, the Government look forward to being able to accept it.
I should add for the record that the Government stand by the statement of policy which the department issued in its circular letter of 15th December 1981. Now, as then:
"the Secretary of State recognises that local education authorities are at present under pressures to make expenditure savings and that they are in consequence scrutinising all aspects of their provision. Moreover, since the circumstances of each authority vary widely, it must continue to be a matter for each authority to decide what policies to adopt in respect of travel to and from school."
The circular letter went on to make a point to which I know my noble friend the Duke attaches particular importance. It stated:
"Most local education authorities give assistance with transport or travel expenses to pupils attending the nearest voluntary school of the parents' denomination if it is beyond the statutory walking distance. The Secretary of State hopes that local education authorities will think it right not to disturb well-established arrangements of this kind, some of which have been associated with a local agreement or undertaking about the siting of voluntary schools. The Secretary of State attaches importance to the preservation of

115
the opportunity to choose a school in accordance with religious convictions which is provided by the presence of voluntary schools in the maintained system of education".
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, perhaps I may repeat and emphasise what was said by the right reverend Prelate; that there is nothing in the amendment that increases expenditure. It asks local authorities to think very hard when they consider transport policies, because, historically, meeting denominational choice has long been an important objective in the provision of local government transport. That is not to say that there are not tensions; there always are, and transport costs are high for local authorities. However, they have honoured the principle not just to the letter throughout the years and I believe that my noble friend the Duke is hoping that they will continue to think seriously about denominational choice.
I am happy to reaffirm the Government's commitment to the words which I quoted. I hope that, in the light of my undertaking, we can settle the issue with an appropriate amendment at Third Reading.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, the noble Baroness has made me a very happy Member of your Lordships' House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 227 [Incorporation of governing bodies]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 253D:
Page 142, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) The application of the seal of any such governing body must be authenticated by the signature—

(a) of the chairman of the governing body. or

(b) of some other member authorised either generally or specially by the governing body to act for that purpose,

together with the signature of any other member.
( ) Every document purporting to be an instrument made or issued by or on behalf of any such governing body and—

(a) to be duly executed under the seal of the governing body, or

(b) to he signed or executed by a person authorised by the governing body to act in that behalf,

shall he received in evidence and be treated, without further proof, as being so made or issued unless the contrary is shown.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 253E to 253R. The amendments are to Clause 227 and Schedule 12 and are largely of a technical nature.
Amendment No. 253D affects Clause 227. It provides a procedure for incorporated governing bodies to affix their seal to documents and thus to execute them in their corporate name. The circumstances in which the incorporated governing body of a LEA-maintained school will need to affix its seal to a deed or document will be rare. But it is right that the Bill should provide for such circumstances.
Amendments Nos. 253E and 253F are technical and simply provide for greater precision in the wording of paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 12.
Amendments Nos. 253G to 253Q also affect Schedule 12. I shall deal with them in two groups. The first group covers Amendments Nos. 253G to 253M.
116
In tabling these amendments we are fulfilling our undertaking to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford during Committee. We undertook to provide that Schedule 12 would treat land and other property of incorporated governing bodies of voluntary schools in a similar way to those of county schools. I trust that this group of amendments is acceptable to the right reverend Prelate.
The second group of amendments to Schedule 12—Amendments Nos. 253N, 253P and 253Q—serves a technical purpose. The Bill does not at present deal with the effects on land and other property, rights and liabilities attributable to governing bodies in all the various circumstances which might arise when a governing body conducting a group of schools is dissolved, or when a school leaves an existing group or discontinues but the group remains. I shall briefly outline the principles behind these amendments.
The first set of circumstances arises where a governing body of a group of schools dissolves. Land and other property of the governing body held for the purpose of a particular school will, if the school continues, transfer to its new governing body in accordance with the Instrument of Government. If the school does not continue, the Instruments of Government of the continuing schools may provide that the land and other property held for the purpose of the discontinued school should transfer to the governing bodies of the continuing schools. Instruments of Government may also provide for land and other property held collectively for all the schools in the former group to transfer to the continuing schools. Rights and liabilities will be treated in the same way as land and other property.
Where the governing body of a group of schools does not dissolve, the circumstances may arise where a school leaves the group. Any land and other property held for the purposes of that school would transfer to its new governing body. It may also happen that a school within an existing group closes. In those circumstances, the land and other property held for the purposes of that school would be held by the governing body for the purpose of the remaining schools in the group.
Those principles do not apply to property held by a governing body on trust for the purposes of a voluntary school which discontinues. Such land and other property would transfer to the trustees of the school.
I shall now turn to Amendment No. 253R on data protection and land registration. The effect of the first part of the amendment would be that existing registrations by governing bodies would automatically transfer to the new incorporated governing body on incorporation under Clause 227. The amendment will therefore obviate the need for the incorporated governing bodies of over 20,000 schools to apply for fresh registrations under the terms of the Data Protection Act.
Lastly, I should like to mention briefly the dual use of school premises provisions of Schedule 12. The Sports Council has suggested that it would be helpful to make a further amendment to those provisions, the effect of which would be to give legal effect to transfer

117
of control agreements that have been made by LEAs with the consent of governing bodies, although, through oversight, the governors may not have been a formal party to the agreements. The House should be aware that I am considering this suggestion and propose, if appropriate, to bring forward further amendments at Third Reading. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, in relation to the present group of amendments, can the noble Lord confirm that on no occasion will any property be returned to the local education authority? In other words, can he confirm that, if a local education authority has put money into a voluntary school, when such a school comes to be wound up it will not regain any of that money because it will go to the trust, the Church or whatever?
Lord Henley: My Lords, where appropriate, there could be instances where property returns to the local education authority. There is nothing in this particular raft of amendments that precludes it.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, in so far as some of the amendments do indeed meet the points that we raised with the Government, I should like to express our gratitude to them for meeting our concerns.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Incorporated governing bodies for county, voluntary and maintained special schools]:
Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 253E to 253R:
Page 212, line 54, leave out ("them") and insert ("that body").
Page 214, line 43, leave out ("them") and insert ("that body").
Page 217, line 23, after ("of") insert ("( )").
Page 217, line 24, leave out first ("school") and insert ("voluntary").
Page 217, line 25, after ("conduct") insert ("or
( ) in the case of a governing body conducting two or more such schools, the discontinuance of each such school conducted by them").
Page 217, line 28, leave out from ("are") to end of line 30 and insert ("so dissolved").
Page 217, line 37, at end insert:
("( ) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above do not apply to any land or other property held by the governing body on trust for the purposes of a voluntary school; and any such land or other property so held shall be transferred to and, by virtue of this Act, vest in the trustees of the school").
Page 217, line 38, leave out paragraph 10.
Page 217, line 47, at beginning insert ("This paragraph applies").
Page 217, line 47, leave out ("so dissolved") and insert ("dissolved by virtue of paragraph 8 above").
Page 217, line 49, leave out from ("and") to end of line 5 on page 218 and insert:
("(2) Where none of the schools in the group are discontinued, then in the case of each school formerly a member of the group—

(a) all land and other property which, immediately before the date of dissolution, was property of the governing body used or held for the purposes of that school, and

118

(b) all rights and liabilities of the governing body subsisting immediately before that date which were acquired or incurred for those purposes,

shall be transferred to and, by virtue of this Act, vest in the new governing body of the school in accordance with the order providing for the instrument of government for the school.
(3) An order made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above may provide that—

(a) the whole or any part of any such land and other property which was property of the governing body used or held for the purposes of the schools in the group, and

(b) any such rights and liabilities of the governing body which were acquired or incurred for those purposes,

shall be transferred to and, by virtue of this Act, vest in the new governing body of the school.
(4) Where not all of the schools in the group are discontinued, then in the case of each school formerly a member of the group which is not discontinued—

(a) all land and other property which, immediately before the date of dissolution, was property of the governing body used or held for the purposes of that school, and

(b) all rights and liabilities of the governing body subsisting immediately before that date which were acquired or incurred for those purposes.

shall be transferred to and, by virtue of this Act, vest in the new governing body of the school in accordance with the order providing for the instrument of government for the school.
(5) An order made by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) above may provide that—

(a) the whole or any part of any such land and other property which was property of the governing body used or held for the purposes of any school which is to be discontinued or the schools in the group, and

(b) any such rights and liabilities of the governing body which were acquired or incurred for those purposes,

shall be transferred to and, by virtue of this Act, vest in the new governing body of the school.
(6) Sub-paragraph (5) above does not apply to any land or other property held by the governing body on trust for the purposes of a voluntary school; and any such land or other property so held shall be transferred to and, by virtue of this Act, vest in the trustees of the school.
.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to the governing body of two or more schools grouped in pursuance of a resolution under section 9 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.
(2) Where one or more schools conducted by the governing body discontinue but the governing body are not dissolved by reason of the discontinuance, then in the case of each school formerly a member of the group which is discontinued—

(a) all land and other property which, immediately before the date of dissolution, was property of the governing body used or held for the purposes of that school, and

(b) all rights and liabilities of the governing body subsisting immediately before that date which were acquired or incurred for those purposes,

shall be held by the governing body for the purposes of the schools in the group.
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) above does not apply to any land or other property held by the governing body on trust for the purposes of a voluntary school; and any such land or other property so held shall be transferred to and, by virtue of this Act, vest in the trustees of the school.
(4) Where, in the case of one or more schools conducted by the governing body, new governing bodies are constituted under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to conduct those schools but the governing body are not dissolved by reason of the constitution of such bodies, then in the case of each school formerly a member of the group—

(a) all land and other property which, immediately before the date of dissolution, was property of the governing body used or held for the purposes of that school, and

119

(b) all rights and liabilities of the governing body subsisting immediately before that date which were acquired or incurred for those purposes,

shall be transferred to and, by virtue of this Act, vest in the new governing body of the school in accordance with the order providing for the instrument of government for the school.").
Page 218. line 14, at end insert:
(".—(1) Where personal data are transferred under section 227(3) of this Act to a governing body incorporated by virtue of that section—

(a) any entry made in respect of the governing body constituted immediately before the appointed day as a data user in the register maintained under section 4 of the Data Protection Act 1984, or

(b) any application for registration as a data user made by that body under section 6 of that Act,

shall have effect as if it were made in respect of or, as the case may be, by the governing body so incorporated.
(2) Expressions used in sub-paragraph (1) above and in that Act shall have the same meaning in that sub-paragraph as in that Act.
Where a transfer under section 227 of this Act or this Schedule relates to registered land, it shall be the duty of the transferor to execute any such instrument under the Land Registration Acts 1925 to 1986, to deliver any such certificate under those Acts and to do such other things under those Acts as he would be required to execute, deliver or do in the case of a transfer by agreement between the transferor and the transferee.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when I dealt with Amendment No. 253D. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 229 [National Curriculum]:
[Amendment No. 254 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 254A:
After Clause 229, insert the following new clause:
Temporary procedure for making certain orders
(".—(1) Where this section applies in relation to any proposals by the Secretary of State to make an order under section 3(4) or 4(2) (a) or (b) of the Education Reform Act 1988 (orders relating to foundation subjects, key stages and attainment targets), or regulations under section 17 of that Act (exceptions from National Curriculum)—

(a) the Secretary of State shall make such arrangements for consultation about the proposals as he considers appropriate, and

(b) sections 20 and 21 of that Act (procedure for representations in relation to England and Wales) shall not apply.

(2) Where, at any time after the commencement of this section and before 1st September 1996, the Secretary of State proposes to make such an order or such regulations, this section applies in relation to the proposals unless, at any time before the commencement of this section—

(a) they were referred under section 20(2) of that Act, or

(b) notice of them was given under section 21(2) of that Act.

(3) Where the Secretary of State proposes, at any time on or after 1st September 1996, to make such an order or such regulations. this section applies in relation to the proposals if arrangements under this section for consultation about the proposals were made before that date.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the above amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 244J. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 254B to 254J not moved.]
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 255:
After Clause 229, insert the following new clause:
120
("Sex Education
.—(1) In the Education Reform Act 1988, at the end of section 4(2) (duty to establish National Curriculum by order) there is added—
"provided that—

(a) no programme of study specified in or pursuant to any such order shall include study of any sexually transmitted disease, and

(b) if such study has been included in any such programme such inclusion shall be of no effect."

(2) in section 18 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986—

(a) in subsection (2) for "every such school" there is substituted "every primary school"; and

(b) after subsection (2) there is inserted—

"(2A) The articles of government of every secondary school shall provide for it to be the duty of the governing body—

(a) to ensure (while having regard to the local education authority's statement under section 17 of this Act) that sex education, including study of sexually transmitted diseases, forms part of the secular curriculum for the school; and

(b) to make, and keep up to date, a separate written statement of their policy with regard to the content and organisation of the relevant part of the curriculum.".

(3) In subsection (3) of that section, there is inserted at the end—

"(d) If a parent of any registered pupil at the school has strong objections on religious grounds to that pupil being taught in accordance with any programme of study included in the secular curriculum of the school pursuant to subsection (2) or (2A) of this section and requests the headteacher of the school in writing that the pupil be excused from that programme, then to ensure that the pupil is excused accordingly."

(4) In section 46 (sex education) of that Act after "sex education" there is inserted—
", including study of sexually transmitted diseases,".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the above amendment also stands in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and the noble Earl, Lord Perth. Before I begin, I should like to point out that one of the original sponsors, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has had to absent herself from the proceedings because she has been called away on a special mission to deliver a consignment of medical supplies to Nagorno Karabach. I am sure that the House will understand why she is unable to be here. Much as we would have liked to see her this evening, I believe that she is probably more needed there. We wish her God speed and much success.
Having said that, I return to the amendment. Since the 1944 Act was passed there have been 18 major education Bills. In fact, it has become the norm for all new Secretaries of State to introduce a new Bill, with hundreds of regulations and scores of secondary pieces of legislation to support it. It is no wonder, therefore, that our education system appears to be in a permanent state of confusion and frustration.
It is true that sex education was discussed in many previous Bills. However, I do not intend to concentrate on those of the past, except for those that are immediately relevant to the present amendment. As regards a little history, Clause 18 of the 1986 Act granted school governing bodies the right to decide whether or not sex education should be taught in their

121
schools and, if so, what form and content such sex education should have. Clause 46 of that Act was quite clear. It stated:
"The local education authority by whom any county, voluntary or special school is maintained, and the governing body and head teacher of the school, shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where sex education is given to any registered pupils at the school it is given in such a manner as to encourage those pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life".
The Department of Education Circular 11/87 dated 25th September 1987 gave (in paragraph 9) a right to parents, subject to the discretion of governors, to withdraw their children from any sex education to which they may have religious objections. Therefore, under the 1986 Act there was—and, indeed, there still is—some governor and parent involvement in the content, the method and in the right to withdraw.
Without exception, those provisions were working satisfactorily until, in 1988, the Education Reform Act introduced the national curriculum. Certain elements of sex education were included in the science curriculum and became compulsory. So the rights of parents and governors granted only a few months before in September 1987 were already eroded by the beginning of 1988.
In 1991 the science curriculum was again revised. Normal consultation was carried out. However, at the last possible stage, almost at the end of the consultation period when the final consultation was about to take place, the then Secretary of State made teaching about HIV and AIDS compulsory for all 11 to 14 year-old children in state education. To achieve this five words were obscurely inserted in brackets in the middle of a sentence within a bulky 40-page document. Given all the legislation and regulations that pass through Parliament it is no wonder that that provision was missed by most Members in both Houses. However, a number of Members in another place spotted it and they tried to have the matter debated but to no avail. I should have thought it is almost an abuse of secondary legislation constantly to override primary legislation, as was happening in this case. The secondary legislation of 1988 and 1991 was quite clearly overriding the firm commitments given in the primary legislation of the 1986 Act.
In March 1992 the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, raised the matter in a Starred Question in your Lordships' House. He commented on some of the material being used in school lessons. A lively and interesting debate ensued on that occasion and it was evident that many noble Lords in all parts of the House were deeply apprehensive about the fresh dangers such teaching would present to school children.
On 6th May 1992 I tabled a "Motion to resolve", calling for an amendment to the order, to provide for consultation between parents, teachers and governors and to provide for the insertion of a Christian conscience clause. After an excellent debate the Minister promised to acquaint the Secretary of State with the views expressed so that he could carefully consider the concerns that had been mentioned and how or whether they could be met. However, because of apparent inaction on the part of the department, a
122
number of honourable and right honourable Members in the other place decided to try to amend this Bill. An all-party group of Members of Parliament tabled a new clause and an amendment covering the issues raised by concerned parents, teachers and religious groups. But neither the clause nor the amendment was selected for debate. Those of us who have served in another place know that that is the end of that.
We return again to this important subject of sex education. We had an excellent two-hour debate on the subject during the Committee stage of the Bill when I and other noble Lords introduced some amendments to try to meet the concerns of many parents about the arrangements for sex education in the light of the Government's science order which made education about HIV and AIDS compulsory within the national curriculum. Since that Committee stage I have thought long and hard about whether to raise the issue again. I have decided to do so for two reasons. First, I have received a great deal of correspondence, and I have received a great deal of support and encouragement from it. Secondly, I have also received masses of recommended material that is being used in some cases in classrooms to teach sex education.
I also raise this matter again because I believe I can meet many of the concerns that were expressed in Committee and provide the Government with a better, simpler solution to this issue than the Civil Service platitudes on which the Minister largely had to rely in Committee. I should emphasise that I believe the noble Baroness is personally concerned about this issue. She has been extremely kind and thoughtful as I have made life difficult for her in constantly raising this issue over the past year. However, like all government Ministers, she is constrained by previous decisions and by her Civil Service brief.
I have also read again the Government's draft guidelines and my verdict on them has changed little. I believe they are excellent in terms of the controls they propose on the content of sex education but extremely weak as regards simple procedures and clear arrangements for governors and parents. The amendments we are now discussing seek to sort out those procedural difficulties.
First, they make sex education compulsory in all secondary schools. Sex education will, as under the 1986 Act, be under the control of governing bodies, but it will no longer be an option. Previously secondary schools could decide to have a policy on sex education which amounted to: "We will have no sex education". In future that would not be possible if the amendments are passed. For primary schools the situation will not change. Sex education will remain voluntary. I believe that that is appropriate, given the younger age of children attending primary schools.
Secondly, the amendments specifically require secondary schools to provide education about sexually transmitted diseases, but within the framework of compulsory sex education rather than the national curriculum. The important point here is that I have sought to meet the desire of many people in this House that education on HIV and AIDS in particular

123
as well as other sexually transmitted diseases should be given in all schools. My amendment ensures that that will happen but has shifted such education from the national curriculum, which many people believe is overloaded anyway, to the new compulsory sex education element of the curriculum. I have ensured that such education will have priority because it is specifically mentioned in the amendment.
Thirdly, I have established a new statutory right for parents to withdraw their children from sex education lessons. That builds on a discretionary right of withdrawal given in the old guidelines—11/87—which state that the governors:
"will also have the discretion to accept or reject requests from parents for their children to be withdrawn from any sex education to which they object. There is no statutory right for parents to cause their children to be withdrawn from sex education provision. However, some parents will have strong objections on religious grounds to their children receiving sex education and governing bodies should fully appreciate this in exercising their discretion".
That provision is already in existence. Therefore, I was intrigued that the new draft government guidelines make no mention of any right of withdrawal or even discussion of the matter. That seems strange when it has already been in existence for the past six years. I simply repeat it, in exactly the same words, while the new circular omits it. It does not seem to add up. I believe that that is so because civil servants recognise the inconsistency between having a possible arrangement allowing parents to withdraw their children from some sex education lessons outside the national curriculum and no right to withdraw them from lessons within the national curriculum. To avoid the inconsistency they decided not to mention it at all. I said at Committee stage that that was a backward step and I still believe that to be true.
I shall not go over all the arguments—although I would love to—as to why I believe a statutory right to withdraw is so important. However, I stress that by taking education about sexually transmitted diseases outside the national curriculum I have ensured that if parents withdraw their children from sex education lessons no precedent is established for withdrawal from other elements of the national curriculum. What I propose is much closer to the arrangements currently in force for religious education where the right of withdrawal exists. I support that entirely.
I am supported in my views by a letter I received this morning from the Conservative Family Campaign. I can do no better than quote from that letter, which states:
"There are deep parallels between sex education and religious education, and there can be no doubt that similar principles of withdrawal on religious grounds apply. It cannot be right that parents be forced by legislation into exposing their children to material to which in conscience they hold deep objection. This is a rare opportunity to address this scandal and I hope and pray that you and your Lordships' House will seize it, to the benefit of all our nation's children"
I simply add that I do not envisage that such a right would he exercised frequently—it has not been all the time that it has existed. However, by creating such a right we would be giving comfort to many parents who are anxious, and establishing a backstop
124
provision which could be used on what one hopes will be the rare occasions when something goes badly wrong with school sex education policy and practices.
I stress that by making sex education compulsory outside the national curriculum and increasing the importance of governors I am not removing the opportunity for standardising the curriculum on these matters. It is open to the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority to issue guidelines, after discussion, to schools about how sex education might be taught. It has that right. That could build upon the experience within the national curriculum and outside it, and ensure that such education is of a high standard. We talk about a high standard: we have been flooded with all kinds of material from various education authorities. I should love to be able to go through it all, but I shall take just one example. At age eight children should be able to talk about and discuss the following questions. There is a whole list of questions, and I am picking out just a few.
"How do you get AIDS? How do children get AIDS? Why do you need a condom? Could my mum or dad have AIDS?"
Then, when he or she is nine:
"What makes the penis go hard? What is a period? If you are HIV positive, does it mean you have to get AIDS?"
That is age nine. At 10, of course, it gets even better:
"Sexuality - what is it and what words describe it? Does sex always lead to having a baby? Discuss that question. When is it OK for people to touch me? When is it OK for me to touch other people?"
The document becomes more and more bizarre as it goes on. Then, at age 11:
"Why are girls called 'slags' and boys called 'studs'?"
I must say that I do not know the answer to some of those questions. Then:
"Can a girl get pregnant when she is having a period? Contraception: how does contraception work? Whose responsibility is it? Can you get addicted to the pill? What does the coil do? Where can you get confidential advice?",
that is, if one cannot get it at home. It goes on and on. I shall not go any further. There is enough there to give your Lordships the flavour of the material that is being recommended for teaching in schools.
I said that the SCAA should issue guidelines, but in fact that is a matter of urgency, if we, governors and parents, are to have any control over the kind of material that is being taught.
The only bright thing on the horizon comes from correspondence I received from America which says that there is a group there which has become aware of the fact that the kind of sex education that I have just read out, and which has been permitted there for many years now, is counter-productive. A new movement has sprung up and is gaining in momentum, as far as I can see. It is described as the abstinence movement. That is not a joke, because abstinence is a serious matter to most of us. It is said that:
"American schoolchildren are learning the A to V of a new kind of sex eduction—A for abstinence and V for virginity … Students are being told to 'just say no', in an estimated 5,000 of the country's 16,000 districts, according to the National Association for Abstinence Education … In California, teenagers following a course called Sex Respect chant a 'chastity pledge'—'Do the right thing! Wait for the Ring!'—while in New York the city school board, which earlier this year voted to hand out condoms in schools"—

125
something one of our junior Ministers not long ago suggested should happen here—
"has just demanded that health educators going into schools to teach about AIDS must sign a commitment to emphasise abstinence over safe sex in their classroom presentation … It teaches students that 'the only safe sex is no sex,' and stresses the fallibility of contraception and the consequent risks of AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy. It emphasises traditional family values, and the benefits of idealism and self-discipline".
We copy so much that comes from the United States, so would it not he a good idea to copy some of that instead of some of the stuff that I have read out earlier?
I therefore commend these amendments to the House. They have the advantage of simplicity and
126
ensure that no longer will there be any confusion about the responsibility of governing bodies for different parts of the curriculum. I believe that they will help schools better plan their sex education in an integrated policy. They will ensure better education about HIV and AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases by highlighting them in that way. Finally, I believe that they give additional responsibility to parents. Above all, sex education must be a partnership between parents and schools. The approach I propose in these amendments better achieves that partnership than the current arrangements. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I should like to support Amendments Nos. 255 and 289B because I am among many of your Lordships who were angered when we discovered that what we regarded as over explicit AIDS education had somewhat surreptitiously appeared in the national science curriculum for 11 year-olds. We had assumed that AIDS and the detailed sexual topics which can accompany that problem would be discussed at a somewhat later stage in the curriculum.
I specifically support these amendments this evening because I have been sent some teaching manuals other than the ones mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, which deal with sex education. I think it is worth putting on the record, by way of example, some passages of a teaching manual called Knowing Me—Knowing You, which describes itself as "Strategies for Sex Education in the Primary School". This manual was published in 1990 and was reprinted in 1991, which is an indication that it may be fairly widely in circulation. Indeed, I am advised that it is fairly typical.
The manual is published by an organisation called LDA, of Wisbech in Cambridgeshire, and I make no criticism of that organisation; indeed, from its general catalogue I would say it appears to produce some perfectly respectable teaching materials. But as regards health education, including AIDS and sex education, some of its material appears distinctly worrying. So I mention Knowing Me—Knowing You because it is very disturbing in its attitude to sex education. It reveals that there is still an element, perhaps a strong element, in our teaching fraternity that wishes to discuss some aspects of sex education with children whose age indicates that they may not be ready for them.
The manual also demonstrates a distinctly cavalier approach to the interpretation of the law on sex education. For instance, in Part 6, Clause 28 of the 1988 Local Government Act is discussed. The manual rightly draws the distinction between the promotion of homosexuality in primary schools, which is outlawed by the 1988 Act, and the discussion of homosexuality, which, I suppose, may be unavoidable. But I take issue with the manual when it advises as follows:
"Whilst the law does say that local authorities may not support anything which promotes or encourages homosexuality, this does not apply to sex education in the school curriculum. This means that teachers may give information and allow discussion about it."
The manual then goes on to show how discussion on homosexuality can get round the terms of the 1988 Act. Indeed, page 153 of the manual shows how. The manual discusses the provisions of the 1986 Education Act as follows:
"In doing this, we must be aware of the law. In the 1986 Education Act we are told that children need to be taught about sex in such a manner as to encourage those pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life.
Unfortunately, those who worded the Act omitted to go on to explain what they meant by a family. It might be comforting to have in mind the idea of a nuclear family—mum, dad and a couple of children—when we are talking about families in the classroom, but it would not be realistic and it might well be downright offensive to some. There may be a few geographical areas left where the majority of families are of the type already mentioned, but they are decidedly not
128
in the majority when we look at the country as a whole. Statistics show that one family in seven is now headed by a single parent."
I do not know what your Lordships will make of the mathematics of the authors of this paper, but the content as far as this amendment is concerned must be deeply disturbing.
I should have thought that your Lordships had precisely the normal family in mind when this House passed the wording of the 1986 Education Act and the 1988 Local Government Act—and how right you were. Much of the rest of Part 6 of the manual, which is entitled "What's Love got to do with it?", goes on to undermine the intentions of the 1986 and 1988 Acts.
It is perhaps too late in the evening to quote more of this manual, but I would be happy to put a copy in your Lordships' Library so that your Lordships may read Part 6 at your leisure. I do know that one widely used manual does not make a failing system, and I am sure we are all very grateful for that.
There is much other material in a similar vein, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has mentioned and more of which I have with me now, and other noble Lords may wish to refer to it. But I believe that it all lends support to the wisdom of these amendments and so I very much hope that the Government can accept them.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I admire the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, presented the amendment and the courteous way in which he informed me of what he was going to do, explaining his reasoning to me. However, I cannot agree with him for one simple reason. I regard the rights of young people—the pupils, the children—as being paramount to the rights of their parents. I believe that they have the right to this information.
When one makes a moral point one is immediately immoral if the other person does not share one's moral starting point. We are all waiting to hear the Minister state exactly what she believes the correct position to be. I cannot think of any excuse why children should not have the information at puberty because that is when sexuality becomes a real issue for the vast majority of them.
We have heard much about what are deemed to be acceptable standards of behaviour and, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, stated, acceptable families. Indeed, there are single parent families. I was raised in one myself. Therefore the moment we suggest certain norms that should be taught we shall offend someone. Present the facts, my Lords. The moment one starts to present opinion—be it politically correct or religiously based—one will always offend someone. One must merely ensure that those young people have the facts available to them. If the moral standpoints are present in the home they will have effect if the child is receptive to them. If they are not, the moral objections will not matter.
In our society everything from coffee to cars is sold through sex appeal. Sexuality is part of our art and culture. We cannot avoid it. Indeed, one would have to live on the top of a mountain somewhere to avoid knowing what sex is in our society. Therefore let us

129
provide the facts. We have had an example of a campaign of abstinence. That may possibly be the way in which one will be absolutely 100 per cent. safe—yes, that is true. But I cannot think of any period in history when abstinence has been the social norm. Indeed, prostitution was so common in Victorian Britain that we had to bring in the contagious diseases legislation because so many of our home-based forces were affected by syphilis. Indeed, it is difficult to find a period during which moral pressure was more strongly against promiscuity in our history than the Victorian period. We had to introduce an Act which locked up women considered to be prostitutes.
I suggest that a more realistic approach is to provide information.
10.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, at Committee stage I admired the sensitivity and care with which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, introduced his amendment on the subject. We have heard the noble Lord again today speaking with equal sensitivity, and with clarity and wisdom on what I believe is an improved amendment. At Committee stage I said that I could not support him. I do now. I still have some hesitations; I shall come to them. However, first, I wish to note the improvements. The noble Lord has pointed them out.
First, he makes sex education compulsory at secondary school level. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Addington, imply that people would not have a right to the information. They will indeed be given the information because under the amendment sex education becomes compulsory. That surely is right. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, brings all sex education together and does not leave HIV and AIDS in the science curriculum. Surely that is right. Sex education undoubtedly has roots in biological science but its tap root is in personal development and personal relationships. It needs to be taught not just in a moral context, which is essential, but also in the context of personal fulfilment.
Again, if I may be greatly daring, I wish to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, because I do not think it is true that we can have facts independent of values. The way in which we select facts indicates what we think the values are. So we would mislead ourselves if we thought that we could just put facts in front of people and by doing so are not giving them values, whether or not we are explicit about them.
I suggest that sexuality is a complex and mysterious gift. It has to be explored and understood as an element in our need to create and sustain fulfilling and deep personal relationships. That is far better done as a coherent whole than coming at it in bits and pieces through different parts of the curriculum. So to my mind the amendment achieves serious improvements.
I have to say I have some hesitations. Most of the concern about contemporary sex education centres round the printed material which is being used in the classroom. Examples of it have already been referred to. Of course, the amendment does not deal directly with that. It is no criticism of the amendment; an
130
amendment cannot do that; but I think it is one of our primary concerns and we need to tackle the issue, though not through legislation. It is quite clear that there is some unsatisfactory material about, though I add that there are also some scare stories about. We need to try to take a detached and balanced view.
Furthermore, it is no criticism of the amendment, but it does not and is not able to touch the training of teachers in handling this material. I have to say that the normal training of teachers does not necessarily equip them for dealing with this, which must he one of the most sensitive and difficult of all issues to handle in a classroom. I do not have criticisms of the amendment but I have hesitations because the amendment does not take us to the heart of our anxieties. I also have hesitations—and here I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, will not agree with me—about the right to withdrawal which is included in part of his amendment. Of course, I understand why it is there and I have considerable sympathy with it, particularly in so far as it might apply to children at primary level. But there are three reasons why I find the withdrawal provisions less than satisfactory. I recognise that it is difficult for me, because there is explicit reference in the amendment to withdrawal on religious grounds. Nonetheless, I put to the House my hesitations. First, sex education, particularly at primary level, does not necessarily happen in self-contained blocks at predictable moments in the timetable. It arises in response to events, comments, questions and anxieties. So withdrawal will not be easy to achieve; nor will it be watertight.
Secondly, if the teaching is so unsatisfactory that parents want to withdraw their children from it, then it may be better that the teaching should be criticised and improved, rather than sidestepped. We shall not improve the teaching which ought to be given if we merely pull our children out of it. We have rather to work together in order to improve it.
Thirdly, we must be realistic and recognise that however bad the teaching of sex education may be in the classroom, it will probably be better than the murky sex education of the playground. We cannot isolate or insulate our children from the stuff they pick up in the playground and behind the bicycle shed. So we cannot withdraw children from that, and withdrawal from the classroom may mislead children into thinking that everything they learn in the playground is acceptable. For that matter, withdrawing children from sex eduction in the classroom may mislead parents into thinking that their children are unsullied by the grubby half-truths of the playground.
For these reasons I have to say that I am less than convinced about the withdrawal provisions of the amendment. But on balance I support the noble Lord. If he divides the House I shall certainly vote with him—although my own preference would be for the Government to take away the spirit of this amendment and perhaps come back with an even better version at Third Reading. But I do not wish the House to be in any doubt that I am now with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I suggest that despite all the rhetoric about compulsory sex education, there is

131
one, and only one, objective in this amendment: that is, quite simply to create a framework which will allow parents to remove their children from classes on sexually transmitted diseases.
These classes are currently compulsory as part of the national curriculum. In other words, the amendment seeks to create a situation in which information which some of this country's children receive about sexually transmitted diseases—and most notably about HIV and AIDS—should be from their parents, from newspapers and from playground gossip. That is the objective of this amendment. Their information would not come from formal and informed sources at school. I believe this to be—particularly today—an extremely dangerous amendment.
Let us first consider the facts. The report of the Department of Health on HIV infection, the Day Report, published last week, raised the estimate for HIV infection in this country from 19,000 to somewhere between 24,000 and 27,000. It also confirmed the fact to which I referred in Committee that at present 28 per cent. of HIV infections in England and Wales are heterosexual.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, doubted the figures that I gave. I hope that he will now accept that they have been confirmed by the Day Report.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: No, I would not.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, in addition to the Day Report, a report presented 10 days ago by the public health laboratory service showed that rates of sexually transmitted diseases in teenagers are increasing.
Finally, another report, again from the public health laboratory service, has shown that not only do half of those who are HIV positive not realise that they are infected until shortly before developing AIDS, but that among heterosexuals who are infected 80 per cent. of them are ignorant about their infection. Ignorance was greatest among teenage girls who were infected. Let us remember that HIV infection may precede AIDS by 10 years or even more.
These three authoritative reports establish the background to our consideration of this amendment. They establish that HIV infection is still rising. Notably, it is rising in the heterosexual population. They also establish that ignorance about HIV infection is widespread. These facts mean that it would be highly irresponsible to entrust education about HIV and AIDS to those parents who withdraw their children from sex education, as this amendment does.
Let us consider the impact of relying on parents, even a minority of parents, to educate their children on the facts about HIV and AIDS. The first obvious point to make is that it is vital to society as a whole that everyone should know the facts about HIV and AIDS. A lack of knowledge is quite simply life-threatening. Let us suppose, for example, that a young person is not aware that heterosexual activity can be a source of AIDS and cheerfully informs a new partner—perhaps someone who is to become a permanent partner—that there is nothing in his or her
132
personal sexual history that could be a threat, not realising the contrary to be the truth. That is why it is vital that every child should receive a clear, accurate education in the facts about HIV infection. The health of each of our children is dependent on the information available to all our children.
My second point follows from the first one about the need for general education. In the case of some children, this amendment would place society's confidence concerning HIV and AIDS education in the hands of some parents. I have asked the movers of the amendment: "Are you totally confident that those parents who might withdraw their children from sex education are well informed as to the characteristics of HIV infection? Are you confident that they will keep themselves up to date? Are you equally confident that they will instruct their children fully and accurately?" In the current climate of fear, prejudice and misinformation, I submit that no reasonable person can hold those opinions with confidence. How could they in circumstances in which the Secretary of State for Health is reported as suggesting that AIDS is now a threat only to "target groups"?—a suggestion that the Day Report has conclusively demonstrated to be without foundation.
I am sure that everyone in this House respects the argument that matters concerned with sexual education should not only contain a clear moral dimension, but also that such matters should be closely attuned to the views of parents and families. I believe that we all support the principles of individual choice and individual responsibility in these matters. Indeed, the Government have devoted great efforts to promoting those virtues. We all know that individual choice and individual responsibility can only be exercised effectively on the basis of clear, unambiguous information.
Without information no one can make sensible choices for themselves or their families. Nor can they assess properly their responsibilities to society as a whole. That is why it is vital that the facts about HIV and AIDS are accurately presented to every one of our children without exception. That can only be done by including those facts within the national curriculum.
We owe it to our children to ensure that they are informed—accurately and fully informed—about the threat of HIV infection. The teaching of those facts to every child is not a threat to family life. It is a defence of life itself. I urge the Government to be true to their principles of individual choice based on full information and to reject this amendment.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that these amendments clarify and simplify the current sex education arrangements. They combine the best of the old and the new sex education guidelines.
Secondary schools will have to provide sex education and education about sexually transmitted diseases. They will have no option about that. That meets the concerns of those—I have some sympathy with them—who say that education about AIDS in particular is so important that schools must teach it. But such education will now be outside the national curriculum. I am sure that that is sensible and gives

133
greater freedom for schools to organise such lessons across the curriculum. It also means that an opt-out provision can be given for the few parents who would want to use it. That is very important for some parents for religious and other reasons.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, should be commended for his perseverance and flexibility. I, for one, will join him in the Lobby tonight should he press Amendment No. 255 to a Division.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I too support the spirit of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. But, like many other noble Lords, I have some difficulty with some of the way in which it is worded and the detail of what is expressed.
I spent many years helping teachers prepare themselves to teach sex education. Indeed, in the light of the discussion tonight, I am ashamed to confess that I am the author of a textbook on sex education used many years ago in schools in the 1970s. It now seems very old fashioned. I am rather proud that it does seem old fashioned. Nevertheless, I am extremely sad that we are having this debate tonight in the context of the awful feeling of failure that we experience. All who have spoken say it is important that children have as much information as possible and are protected from the dangers of ignorance but feel that they cannot trust the teachers in schools to present the facts in a way acceptable both to those who debate it here and crucially to the parents of those children. I hope that in future the main thrust will be to help teachers present the facts of sex education as well as the importance of the continuity of relationships and understanding of feelings—which after all are the most important aspects—in a way that we all seek. Surely, that should be the main thrust in future rather than an urge to give parents the right to withdraw their children.
I should very much like to know on what grounds parents were withdrawing their children and why they could not put sufficient pressure on governing bodies or LEAs to make sure that sex education was of such a nature that they felt happy for their children to be included. I would also want to know that if a parent excluded his or her child from any part of sex education the parent would be required to assure the school authorities that he or she would provide acceptable alternative ways of informing the child. As we have all agreed, the dangers of ignorance are very real.
I hope that neither the amendments nor any part of the legislation is drafted in such a way that it makes it impossible for children to have their question responded to in a natural way by teachers in other subjects of the curriculum and other discussions. Having taught in the United States, I have some experience of the situation where religious education and any discussion of religious matters is expressly forbidden by law. One finds that extraordinarily inhibiting in one's relationship with those being taught. One may have a lively and interesting discussion on many topics but as soon as anyone asks a question about religion one has to say, "I am sorry; I am not allowed to answer that". I hope that we will never put teachers in a similar situation as regards sex
134
education when such matters arise in the middle of personal and social education or a talk about history, politics or anything else.
Those are my two concerns about the wording of the amendment as it stands. Nevertheless, like other noble Lords, I feel strongly that the spirit of the amendment is right. Sad as I am that it is necessary, I support the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, is asking for.
11 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I rise to do two things. First, I am wholly behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. As he told you, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has rightly felt that she should take medical supplies to Nagorno-Karabakh. She wrote to me to say that she knew of many other valiant peers who would share her concern at Report stage. I felt that this was such an important amendment that it should not be diminished by having only three people taking part, so I put down my name. I and I am sure all your Lordships would otherwise have wished that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, was here and able to speak to it.
I need not develop the reasons for the amendment. They have been fully and very well gone into by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. I feel very strongly that the role of parents should be enshrined in the Bill.
Secondly, I should like to explain Amendment No. 289B which stands in my name and is grouped with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. I hope that it is in order for me to touch on that because it is of great importance. I know that the amendment looks extremely complicated, and indeed almost unintelligible, but its purpose is simple. I hope that in developing it I may, to a degree, answer the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who was anxious that every child should be given full educational information.
The amendment seeks to bring the Secretary of State under the same constraints as other educational bodies if, under his authority, there is produced an objectionable HIV or AIDS teaching programme. In Committee, at col. 1116, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said:
"I know—not just I believe or I have a feeling that—that some of the AIDS organisations … have been responsible for making available to schools wholly inappropriate literature which I understand has been used in the classroom—and for some children at the young age of 11 years who are studying at the beginning of key stage 3. That is not defensible".
Then she went on to say that if a complaint was pursued, it would not be upheld. I found that distressing and wrong. The amendment seeks to put that right. Therefore, under advice, I have sought to do just that.
At the same time, at col. 1117, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said that the vast majority of teachers, AIDS bodies and health authorities have behaved very responsibly, and I accept that absolutely. But what about those who do not, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. It is essential that in such cases they can be called to book I need not go into examples of what I have in mind because so many of your Lordships have quoted them or know them. I

135
only say that some teaching has been wholly wrong and corrupting, especially when it applies to the young who may be only 11 years of age.
Amendment No. 255 goes a long way to correct that irresponsibility. But I am advised that there are still gaps. The purpose of Amendment No. 289B is to stop up or fill in any such gaps and to ensure that all sex education is under appropriate constraints. The main thrust of my point is that if a complaint is pursued, it can be upheld.
I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will be able also to accept my Amendment No. 289B, because they hang together.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to make two points on Amendment No. 255, subsection (3). These points are important and should be dealt with.
In subsection (3) it says,
"If a parent of any registered pupil";
but there are orphans. Orphans have guardians, and so the words, "or guardian", should be inserted after "parent".
My next point concerns the next line, where it refers to,
"strong objections on religious grounds".
I am not an atheist or agnostic, but I can imagine that there could be atheists or agnostics who have strong objections who are qualified, experienced parents or guardians who may feel that they do not wish their child to be taught in accordance with a specific programme of study. The words "on religious grounds" limit the wise effect of the amendment and I hope that they will be taken out in any further consideration of the matter.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the Biblical text in this matter has to be Section 1(2) (b) of the Education Reform Act 1988 which requires the curriculum to prepare pupils,
"for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".
Another relevant document is the Government's recent strategy paper issued the other day along with the latest communicable diseases report (the Day Report) to which the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, referred.
The Government's paper shows that the British record in achieving a relatively low incidence of HIV and AIDS is rather impressive. The United Kingdom now has one of the lowest estimated prevalence rates in Western Europe, with around six times as many cases in France, four times as many in Spain and three times as many in Italy. This is a league table where one wants to be at the bottom and to remain there. Prevention rightly remains at the heart of government policy.
As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, mentioned, the other important point is the increasing share, as emerged from the Day Report, of HIV and AIDS cases transmitted by heterosexual intercourse. I can well understand the impassioned views of noble Lords as expressed by my noble friend Lord Tonypandy, and which I believe the noble Earl, Lord Perth, touched on, that young children should not be deprived by the
136
education system of their innocence. But quite young children who come out onto the playgrounds at primary schools have already lost their innocence through confused and mixed messages from their surrounding culture; a point which I believe was made by the right reverend Prelate. If they are to be deprived of innocence it is surely better that it should be done accurately and sensitively rather than by innuendo and hearsay.
On those grounds I voted against the previous amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and his friends at Committee stage. Noble Lords will recall that it was defeated by 56 votes to 27. I believe that this amendment has some technical difficulties which I have no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will elucidate more ably than I can. The implication that there is something called "the secular curriculum" which stands apart from the national curriculum and is not subject to the same constraints seems to me to be misleading. Indeed, the latest draft guidance issued by the Department for Education states clearly that,
"there is no statutory right for parents to cause their children to be withdrawn from any part of the secular curriculum, whether within or beyond the requirements of the national curriculum".
I think that the crunch this time round and what we have to get to grips with is that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, rather cleverly, seeks to impale us on the horns of a dilemma. He removes HIV and AIDS, and indeed all sexually transmitted diseases, from the national curriculum thus removing the statutory minimum. But he offers in compensation mandatory sex education in secondary schools qualified by his provision for an opt-out.
There is some attraction in that. Some voluntary groups and others who want mandatory sex education might accept a trade-off whereby sex education is introduced nationally, together with an opt-out, on the grounds that this would only produce some flaking off at the edges and that the package, on aggregate, will produce more sex education than at present, including HIV education.
That would seem to be the likely outcome which would be welcomed in some quarters although I am not sure that all supporters of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, want that. It must be clear, if we pass this, what we are actually doing. The 64,000 dollar question is whether the Government are prepared to accept the trade-off of removing something from the national curriculum and overturning the current non-mandatory nature of sex education in the 1986 Act in return for mandatory sex education plus a conscience clause, on the ground that sex education is so intimately linked to religious education that it should have the same opt-out. That was the point which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, was making.
I shall be completely frank. I find it difficult to choose. If we go along with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, there is the problem that no choice will be allowed to schools that do not want to go down that route. It is estimated that 4 per cent. of schools have formed a conscious policy against teaching sex education and another 2 per cent. have no plans to introduce it. It is also arguable that consultation with

137
parents in the spirit of the Parent's Charter, as recommended in the draft circular to which I have referred (paragraphs 15 and 17), is preferable to a stark alternative between compulsory sex education and voluntary withdrawal. But there is also evidence of increasing pressure against sex education owing to funding and other problems. A continuing expansion of sex education by voluntary action simply may not take place.
We have a difficult choice to make, and I await with great interest the Minister's summing up of the dilemma and her statement of the Government's view of this amendment. I listened with great interest to the right reverend Prelate and I think that he may have a point. Perhaps we have not reached the end of the road and a government amendment at Third Reading may improve on this one.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I think that it would first be appropriate from this Bench to say how much I and, I am sure, all my colleagues appreciated the way in which my noble friend Lord Stallard introduced this debate. He did so with moderation, character, integrity and sensitivity, and that has been reflected in the quality of the response and in the debate as a whole. It has been a serious and good debate.
In considering the response to his introduction, I turn first to the remarks of the right reverend Prelate. I thought that he brought to bear, in his usual way, a cool, sharp and penetrating analysis about the reality of what was being proposed. He drew attention to his misgivings about the consequences of withdrawal. He talked about the dangers of the playground and the bicycle sheds. Having listened to such a clear exposition of the dangers inherent in the amendment, I was perplexed by the firmness with which he came down in his warm but, I believe, emotional conclusion to say that he would nevertheless support my noble friend. That did not seem to me to be the kind of logic to which I have become accustomed in appreciating his contributions to our deliberations on this Bill so far.
I have been approached by a very significant number of fellow Christians working in the front line of social work and education. They have told me in very anxious terms how worried they are about the perhaps unintended consequences of the direction that might be set if this amendment were passed tonight. They have to deal every day with the realities of children often in acutely deprived areas—children who do not have the kind of parental support that we should like all our children to have and who do not have the kind of caring, loving and intelligent home environment that we should like all our children to be certain of enjoying. They have put it to me that very often teachers in the front line of that reality are looking to people like us, in this House, for our support for what they are trying to do with children on behalf of society as a whole.
In a powerful speech, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to his deep commitment to the right of the child to the facts. The right reverend Prelate took issue with the principle of facts—if I am
138
not wrong to refer to the "principle of facts". Perhaps the noble Lord would have been better to speak on the right to reliable information because that worries me most in this situation.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I say that I have been troubled by a lack of awareness in the debate about the reality of the pressures confronting so many children in our society today. They are not living in a neutral environment; they are living in an environment in which they are bombarded by advertising, videos and the exploitation of sex. Somewhere or other there is a need to shore them up, to help them to weigh and evaluate that and to see it for what it really is.
For those reasons I urge your Lordships to examine very carefully the wording of this amendment. I have heard a number of noble Lords say that they do not agree with all its wording but they will vote for it because they agree with the principle. We are dealing with grave, far-reaching and sensitive matters and the wording is significant. Therefore, I suggest that as regards an issue of so much importance it would be unwise to vote for the amendment if there were an unhappiness about the wording. If noble Lords believe that there is a need for change it would be wise to call for a comprehensive review of policy in this respect, or something of that kind, but not to vote for an amendment in specific terms about which there have been honestly expressed reservations.
I conclude by saying that if we are talking about the need to support our children in a turbulent and exploitative world, if we are really taking that issue seriously, every bit as important as sex education is education which surrounds that; the education about values, ethics and so forth. I can do no better than to conclude with the words of Cardinal Hume in his letter of June 1992 to John Patten. He stated:
"Of course the governors have the right in their statement of policy to exclude this subject altogether from the school. This is a course of action we would greatly regret in any Catholic school and we would hope that no parents, or governors, out of misplaced anxiety would regard sex education in a Catholic school as inappropriate or damaging to children.
Such education should prepare children how to respond positively to the needs of people with AIDS and should dispel myths about health and safety together with prejudices or discrimination against particular groups".
It is because of the strength of that and other messages which I have received that I, personally, am not able to support this amendment tonight, although I genuinely applaud the sincerity of my noble friend in having put forward his anxiety—
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, is the noble Lord speaking on behalf of the Labour Party or on behalf of himself?
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sorry, I hope that I heard the noble Lord correctly. I am not, of course, from the Front Bench speaking in a personal capacity; I am speaking for the official position of my party.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps the House will forgive me if I speak now. We have been discussing this amendment for an hour and seven minutes and it

139
might be helpful if noble Lords will hear me out. I have made clear on many occasions that the Government fully understand—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that if she makes her speech now, under the rules of order it will not be possible for any other noble Lord to speak after her? This is the Report stage.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that that is true. I am in the hands of the House as to whether I should now sum up on the amendment.
Noble Lords: Yes.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I said, I have made clear on many occasions that the Government fully understand and appreciate the nature of the concerns about sex education and education about HIV, and why some parents consider education about HIV to be inappropriate to the needs of their children.
Sex education is a sensitive and often difficult issue for parents and I have much sympathy with the views of those who argue that parents should have the option of deciding whether their children should receive teaching at school about HIV. As I understand the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. he is putting HIV, as a disease of the body, into mainstream sex education under the 1986 Act along with other sexually transmitted diseases. He intends to remove the right of governors to determine whether or not sex education will be taught in schools.
He is also making sure that sex education is a compulsory subject in the curriculum. Further, he introduces the right for a parent to withdraw a child from sex education. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, concluded his speech on the amendment by saying that he wanted to see individual choice based on sound factual information. I believe that that is what is behind the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard.
I have listened carefully to the arguments put by all noble Lords this evening and I am convinced that parents should have the right to withdraw their children from sex education in much the same way as they have the right at present to withdraw them from religious education. Therefore, the Government accept in principle the thinking behind the amendment and I shall bring forward on Third Reading an appropriate amendment to put those principles into effect.
Perhaps I may refer to three points which have been raised in the course of the debate which are important. Reference has been made by my noble friend Lord Renton to the issue of "parent or guardian". I should say to my noble friend that, as I understand it, a guardian is a parent for the purposes of the education Acts. Section 114 of the 1944 Act defines a parent to include any person who has parental responsibility. Therefore, that point is well covered.
The other point which was raised to which I should like to give more thought is the grounds on which a parent may exercise that right to withdraw a pupil. Religious grounds are named in the amendment but
140
the point was well made by my noble friend Lord Renton and others that there may well be people with strongly held beliefs, whatever they may be, who feel that they have a case to apply for a child to be withdrawn from sex education.
I wish to conclude by saying that I believe the amendments recognise the importance of the subject of sex education. I believe that he addresses the issue of compulsion—in other words, that it should be a compulsory subject—in the curriculum. He makes a serious suggestion of placing sex education together with sexually transmitted diseases, which subsumes HIV education, within mainstream education as a subject in its own right. I believe that to be right. The noble Lord also introduces parental choice.
Moreover—and this has not been mentioned this evening—the noble Lord resolves the issue of having two pieces of legislation which are in conflict with each other: the 1986 Act and the 1988 Act. If noble Lords will allow me to address the principles in an amendment tabled on Third Reading, I shall do so.
As regards Amendment No. 289B, I appreciate the thinking behind it. It is designed to counter the situation which I described in Committee on 10th May in referring to the use in the classroom of inappropriate materials in the teaching about HIV. At col. 1117 I said:
"I am sad to say that if a complaint was pursued it would not be upheld because it is permitted under HIV education in the science curriculum".
There is a difficulty in this regard because if there were a complaint about the suitability of the literature referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and my noble friend Lord Pearson, it would not be upheld because it deals with HIV as a subject. Therefore, it might be difficult to make a complaint. Nevertheless, having looked closely at the complaints procedures provided for under Section 23 of the 1988 Act, I am advised that sufficient mechanisms and safeguards exist to ensure that if any complaint about inappropriate instruction or the use of inappropriate materials were made, it could be the subject of a complaint to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, whether or not the subject was part of the national curriculum.
Of course, a complaint that there was teaching about HIV as such would not be upheld because the science order requires that there should be teaching about that topic. Indeed, if it is not in the science order under these amendments, it would still be compulsory under the other part of the curriculum.
I should like to take the opportunity to clear up a confusion which appears to be creeping into common parlance: a distinction is being drawn between sex education provided under the national curriculum, and any additional sex education provided as part of a school's wider programme of personal, social or health education. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. The latter is being described as part of the secular curriculum, and the former is assumed not to be. In fact, both are part of the secular curriculum, the only difference being that the aspects under the national curriculum are statutory and any additional sex education provided is at the discretion

141
of the school's governing body under the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 which would change under the amendments.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has no powers to prescribe precisely how teachers should teach particular subjects, how classes should be organised or what teaching materials should be used. Those are matters for individual schools to determine. But parents should pursue with the head teacher or governors of their children's school any anxieties they may have about what is taught, or the form in which it is to be taught. In the event that parents fail to obtain satisfaction by those means, it is open to them to pursue matters through the complaints procedures established under Section 23 of the 1988 Act, first of all with the LEA, and then, if needs be, with the Secretary of State. The fact that HIV education is part of the statutory national curriculum does not guarantee a school's immunity against a complaint, if one were brought, about the use of inappropriate materials or inappropriate instruction.
We have stressed in the draft revised circular on sex education the duty laid by the 1986 Act upon governing bodies, head teachers and their staff to ensure that sex education is given within a clear moral framework. It is for governors and staff to consider in that light what materials they should use. Indeed, we emphasise in the draft circular that, in considering the school's choice of teaching materials from the wide range available, governors should satisfy themselves that those selected are of high quality, are appropriate to the needs and ages of pupils, and conform with the overall requirements in Section 46 of the 1986 Act relating to moral values. Governors should also determine how parents should be given opportunities to see for themselves teaching materials before they are introduced into the classroom, together with explanations of the way that it is proposed they are to be used.
In that way, I believe that we shall have sensitive, factually and morally based sex education which will reduce the numbers of parents who will use the right to withdraw their children from sex education lessons. Nevertheless, the safeguard of a complaints procedure is already in place if parents' anxieties are not allayed, in the first instance, through discussions with the governors and head teacher. With that reassurance, I hope that noble Lords will agree to withdraw the amendment and await my amendments on Third Reading.
11.30 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps she can clarify a point. In relation to my amendment, can she confirm that if there is a complaint, it can be pursued and that that is a new consideration of the department, whereas earlier the probability was that it could not be?
Baroness Blatch: Yes, my Lords. A complaint can be pursued. However, the local machinery would first have to be exhausted before it would come before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. But, in relation to a complaint, I believe that there will be
142
considerable debate about what is inappropriate. There are many views about what is inappropriate when teaching sex education and particularly when teaching about HIV and AIDS.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend give the House an assurance that when the Government's new propositions come forward, she will perhaps first take the opportunity to consult with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and others, who have conceived the present amendment so that the main points are incorporated in the Government's amendments which are to be tabled on Third Reading? Can my noble friend confirm that she will do so?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that I covered that aspect when I replied. It will be very difficult to do so because there are so many interested people. However, I shall talk directly with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, those who attached their names to the amendment and key Members from each of the Benches in the House. I shall rely upon those people to disseminate it among their own Members.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I shall have to study it in detail, including the assurance that the noble Baroness just gave to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. I am grateful to all those who have participated in the debate irrespective of the angle from which they spoke. I await with interest the Minister's amendment on Third Reading. For the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments. Nos. 256 and 256A not moved.]
Clause 231 [The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority]:
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 256B:
Page 145, leave out lines 33 and 34 and insert:
("(4) In appointing the members of the Authority, the Secretary of State—

(a) shall include persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of education or to have held, and to have shown capacity in, any position carrying responsibility for the provision of education, and

(b) shall include persons who are currently engaged in the provision of—

(i) primary education, or

(ii) secondary education.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, after the excitements of sex education it is not surprising if the temperature in the House goes down a little bit, but nevertheless I hope that we can keep our concentration to study the next item on the agenda which is an important one. In the grouping that we have here I am speaking to Amendment No. 256B only. I put forward a fairly similar amendment in Committee, which was eventually not moved. The reasoning behind it was that the SCAA was a, if not the, crucial body in the field of primary and secondary education, the place where it all starts in terms both of teaching and testing. In a field where, unfortunately, there is at present much conflict and suspicion, and where the political pendulum is all too likely to swing vigorously on any

143
change of government, it is doubly important not to leave the authority's membership to chance. We owe it to future generations of children and teachers to get this right, in providing for proper levels of experience and capacity in the councils that matter.
The other day, when speaking on an amendment to which I had put my name, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, commented that the phrase we had used about the need to have
"experience of local education authorities"
was so imprecise as to be almost worthless. The more I thought about it, the more I agreed with him. I feel that subsection (4) in Clause 231 has something of the same drawback: it is not really specific enough for the important task that this clause must do. The words,
"relevant knowledge of or experience in education"—
and please note that it is "or", not even "and"—require a bit more fleshing out. Even funding bodies under other Acts, as well as the FAS under this Bill, are more precise about their educational membership.
In Committee my amendment had another sub-sub-clause (c) to it requiring the Secretary of State to consult over further appointments to SCAA. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, who was replying, did not much like this suggestion but he did say,
"I freely acknowledge that we have no particular problems with paragraphs (a) and (b) of the amendment".
He went on to point out that subsection (4) as drafted had the words "shall include" in it, as distinct from my own milder
"shall have regard to the desirability of including"
under the then paragraph (b). I hope that I picked up his hint correctly in omitting the "desirability" phrase and strengthening somewhat my present paragraph (b).
Recognising the importance of the role of the new authority, and the need to give to all those in the world of education what I described last time as a,
"healing signal in a time of strife",
I sincerely hope that the Government can accept the modest but sensible provisions in Amendment No. 256B. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 256B, 257, 258ZA, 258ZB and 257A. I wish first to address Amendment No. 256B. The Secretary of State has conceded that the new SCAA should have at least one head teacher and one teacher on the SCAA council. This House during the Committee stage inserted new clause 2(3) (c) which stated that the funding agency should include persons with "experience and capacity" in special educational needs. Here and in the Secretary of State's concession, important precedents are being set. In the Secretary of State's case, he recognised that the SCAA should be representative of the head teacher and teacher constituencies. In the case of the funding agency membership, this House recognised that the funding agency ought to have a representative of a very important constituency on its body. There is now a necessity to outline the constituencies that make up the SCAA.
The current councils of the NCC and SEAC have been constructed on the basis of the personal will and political inclination of the Secretary of State. There
144
has been no way of balancing out the shape of the council so that the balance of representatives from the entire service could give the DfE and Secretary of State a clear perspective on each issue.
The Dearing review may yet yield recommendations which gather the support of the constituencies which make up the educational community—for example, parents, teachers, governors and LEAs. No one hopes more than I that that will be the case. However, those recommendations will be meaningless if the community does not own the subsequent changes arising from that review. A SCAA council which is more representative of those constituencies would help to prevent a repetition of this summer's national curriculum testing crises. Therefore, I am glad to support that amendment.
Turning to Amendment No. 257, since the 1988 Act, the Government and their agencies—SEAC and the NCC—have never, so far as I know, asked the fundamental question: "what is assessment for?" At various times it has been asserted that national curriculums are diagnostic, that they can contribute to national standards and that they can give information about school performance. Giving the three tasks to the current tests, which in themselves simply give a numbered subject level as a result, has led to tests which are flawed as diagnostic measures, cannot determine national standards and produce crude, ineffective and discriminatory measures of performance.
The issue of defining effective schools and publishing information about them is a separate debate and in no way should be connected with the issues of how to develop an entitlement curriculum or how to construct appropriate forms of assessment.
The Education Bill should focus on putting in place an assessment system which can raise standards. If national standards are to be raised, then there has to be in-depth national research into the causes of educational under achievement. Crude, aggregated subject level assessment results, either at school or LEA level, indicate little about standards.
As a way of evaluating school effectiveness, test results tell parents nothing about the range or extent of pupils' achievements from the point at which pupils enter school—a subject we dealt with earlier this evening. Neither do they take into account background factors. For example, the National Union of Teachers and Leeds University research, Testing and Assessing 6 and 7 year olds: The Evaluation of the 1992 Key Stage 1 National Curriculum Assessment, provided significant evidence that social deprivation, class sizes, nursery education and whether a child was a summer- or winter-born child influence significantly such outcomes.
It is essential that the Government state what testing and assessment should be for. Assessment should recognise the positive achievements for pupils, allow for appropriate next steps to be planned and diagnosed and analyse learning difficulties so that appropriate individual help and guidance can be provided. Above all, it should provide full information to all concerned with the pupils' education, especially parents.

145
Turning to Amendments Nos. 258ZA and 258ZB, the credibility of the Secretary of State for Education surely depends to a great extent on the independence of the new School Curriculum and Assessment Authority. The current situation, where he has had to review radically the national curriculum and its assessment arrangements as a result of parent and teacher pressure, arises from the fact that both he and his predecessors have refused to listen to the view of parents and teachers to the extent that they should have done. The role of the SCAA must be to act as a conduit for those views and it must also be able to conduct research and development which provides a sound basis for future decisions by the Secretary of State in this area.
Clause 232, as it currently stands, prevents the SCAA from carrying out research unless the Secretary of State requests it. There is abundant evidence from the Secretary of State's recent relationship with the NCC and SEAC which demonstrates the need for the SCAA to have an independent research role. Some of that evidence indicates that, for example, a positive initiative by the NCC in 1990 led it to review the introduction of the national curriculum core subjects in schools. That exercise was never continued. As a consequence, teacher opinion, now so vital to the Secretary of State's review of curriculum and assessment, has never been consistently recorded.
Controversies over the revision of particular subject orders could also have been avoided if the National Curriculum Council had been able to commission independent research. One good example is research into the implementation of the English order. Warwick University conducted such research for the NCC but was prevented from publishing its research results. As a result of that lack of public scrutiny, teachers were unable to evaluate the validity of that research and subsequent proposals for English from the Secretary of State have been met with implacable hostility.
Research conducted by Leeds University into the 1991 Key Stage 1 standard assessment tasks was delayed by government for over a year. Researchers and SEAC members were forbidden to discuss its content.
The evaluation of the 1992 2 per cent. pilot for the Key Stage 3 English tests has never been published, even though the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, chair of SEAC, felt able to quote selectively large chunks of it in a copy of a speech which he sent round to all secondary schools.
It would have been immensely valuable for all the Secretaries of State, since the Education Act 1988, to have been able to rely on research commissioned by the NCC and SEAC, however politically uncomfortable that research might have been at the time, in order to inform government policy on curriculum assessment. It must be emphasised that the amendment does not prohibit the Secretary of State from asking the SCAA to conduct research. Neither does it allow an open-ended research budget commitment. The Secretary of State will have
146
legitimate requirements for research. The remainder of the budget outside the Secretary of State's requirements will be defined for SCAA purposes.
The amendment to Clause 232, page 146, line 26, which leaves out paragraph (a) is also about asserting the SCAA's independence. As it stands, the current line in the Bill
"comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State",
is both unnecessary and completely undermines the SCAA's independence. The SCAA is not the Department for Education. DfE officials would, of course, have to comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State; that is their job. The SCAA's role is to carry out the requirements of legislation such as the 1988 Act and, when it receives Royal Assent, the Education Act 1993.
There are plenty of examples of the NCC and SEAC having had to alter plans which had the consent of the profession as a result of interventions by the Secretary of State. For example, pupils with learning difficulties will not be able to take the GCSE because the Secretary of State has only allowed the GCSE to be assessed from levels 4 to 10 inclusive. Had SEAC been able to develop a proper relationship with schools, assessment at Key Stages 1-3 would have proceeded in an entirely different way, and yet still have retained the Secretary of State's criteria of rigour and accountability. For example, neither the NCC nor SEAC has initiated school or LEA-based research into alternative methods of assessment, although Section 16 of the 1988 Act allows both authorities to suspend 1988 Act curriculum requirements for such research.
Clause 232(3) (b) provides adequate political parameters for the relationship of the Secretary of State to what should be an independent advisory body.
The amendment to Schedule 13, page 220, line 43, which leaves out subsection (1), is also a vital amendment which would contribute to the independence of the SCAA. The DfE's role is to present a range of policy options to the Secretary of State. The role of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority is to carry out the requirements of agreed legislation. Where there are situations where the role is blurred—for example, where DfE officials have a right to attend every SCAA meeting—then the Secretary of State will not be clear where defined sets of advice are coming from.
It should be a matter of course that, in the normal run of things, the SCAA invites officials from both organisations to its meetings since both office and department have invaluable advice to offer. However, there may be situations where the presence of DfE officials will inhibit or obstruct the SCAA council from discussing frankly advice on curriculum and assessment.
Because of the hour, and not least because I see that our Chief Whip is anxious about time, and rightly so, I shall leave it with those three amendments. However, I take the opportunity formally to commend Amendment No. 257A, which on page 145 at line 39 inserts:
"undertake consultation with OFSTED, local education authorities and those organisations considered to represent

147
parents, teachers and governors and other appropriate bodies to determine measures of school effectiveness and the publication of information on schools",
because, of course, as we have emphasised several times during the debate, consultation is the key to the success of it all.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 256C, which is included in this group of amendments. It replaces amendments that were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and myself at Committee stage, which were discussed but not voted upon. The general object of the amendments was to give the new School Curriculum and Assessment Authority more of an arms' length status vis-à-vis the department and the Government.
Clause 231 gives the Secretary of State power to appoint all of the members of that body—not less than 10 and not more than 15 members. The Secretary of State not only appoints the chairman, but he can appoint a deputy chairman if he so wishes. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and myself felt that that situation put an excessive curb on the activities of the new authority. Perhaps I may use an equestrian analogy. As the Secretary of State not only appoints all the members but is then able to insist on who may attend to represent him. he is using a double bridle on its activities; that is to say, a snaffle and a curb. We contended that it was not necessary to have both a snaffle and a curb. Our intention was that a representative of the Secretary of State would be entitled to attend by invitation of the chairman of the authority, and that the same situation should apply to a representative of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector and to the chairman of the Curriculum Council for Wales: in other words, they should not be able to attend as of right but only by invitation of the chairman of the authority, either to a full meeting or to a meeting of any of the committees.
I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give me some comfort on the matter. If she will not remove the curb entirely, can she at least remove the curb chain? I look forward to hearing her response.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I trust that noble Lords will allow me to speak to my amendments in this group. It is a very large group: Amendments Nos. 256D. 258ZD to 258ZH, 271F, 288A and 289A. They are government amendments and technical amendments which confirm the status of the SCAA and the Curriculum Council for Wales as exempt charities. They allow for the orderly transfer of NCC accommodation and some other property via the Secretary of State to the Funding Agency for Schools, without delaying the winding-up of NCC. The Government's amendments also bring the functions of' the Welsh curriculum body into line with the functions of the SCAA.
I should also like to signal that we may have to return to the matter of charitable status at Third Reading in respect of a minor technical query that has arisen over the charitable status of grant-maintained schools. We are considering whether recent changes to charities legislation, specifically the Charities Act 1993, have had an unintended effect on the status of
148
those schools. If that is the case the Government will seek to rectify the situation at Third Reading by tabling an amendment to ensure that there can be no doubt as to the charitable status of grant-maintained schools. Such an amendment would do no more than preserve the existing arrangements as set out in the Education Reform Act 1988. I shall speak first to Amendment No. 256B, which deals with membership; moving on to Amendments Nos. 256ZB and 256C, relating to the attendance of non-members at meetings of SCAA. Finally, I shall consider the group of amendments to the functions of SCAA; that is, Amendments Nos. 257, 258, 257A, 258ZA and 258ZB.
Noble Lords may remember that Amendment No. 256B was tabled as part of a more far-reaching amendment during Committee. At that time I acknowledged that I had no particular difficulty with adopting the proposed wording, which is similar to that used in the section on membership of the Funding Agency for Schools. I do, however, believe that Clause 231(4) makes the same point more succinctly. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the wording of subsection (4). It states that,
"The Secretary of State shall include among the members of the Authority persons with relevant knowledge of, or experience in, education."
Given that the authority's predominant concern is with the education of pupils in schools, I cannot imagine that any Secretary of State would fail to have regard to the desirability of one or more of these members being currently engaged in primary or secondary education. The amendment therefore strikes me as unnecessary.
I shall now address Amendments Nos. 256ZB and 256C. The question of the attendance at meetings by representatives of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, the chairman of the Curriculum Council for Wales, and, in particular, the Secretary of State, is one that has been discussed at some length during Committee. Amendment No. 256ZB focuses on the Secretary of State alone, and seeks to remove his entitlement to send a representative to meetings of the authority or its committees. I have no intention of tiring your Lordships by rehearsing in detail the same arguments as have been heard before. I must nevertheless repeat our conviction that the free flow of information between the authority and the Secretary of State, and mutual understanding about the conduct of business, are essential to a productive relationship. The best way of achieving that is to provide for the Secretary of State's representative to be a regular attender at authority meetings. Our experience with the predecessor bodies has served to reinforce that view.
Having said that, I would like to emphasise that it is not the Secretary of State's intention to prevent the authority, or one of its committees, from ever meeting in private. I do understand that, perhaps particularly where advice is being contemplated but has not been explicitly requested by Ministers, the authority or a committee might want to meet privately and less formally in order to discuss the way forward. So I am happy to give the House an assurance now that the Secretary of State would not unreasonably withhold his consent if the chairman of the authority indicated

149
occasionally that it would be useful for the authority or one of its committees to meet privately and less formally.
Turning briefly to Amendment No. 256C, it is already the case that no one other than the representatives of the Secretary of State, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector and the chairman of the Curriculum Council for Wales can attend unless invited or authorised by the chairman of the SCAA. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that we should not alter that position, but, since it is already the position in law, the amendment is not needed.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 257 and 258, concerning the role of the SCAA in reviewing assessment procedures. As your Lordships are aware, the Secretary of State has set up a review headed by Sir Ron Dearing to consider the curriculum and assessment framework. The review will include consideration of the purposes of assessment. It would be quite wrong for us to anticipate the conclusions of the review, as the first amendment proposes to do, by requiring now that the assessment system should cover all aspects of a subject, or that it must be formative as well as diagnostic. If we arrive at that conclusion after the review is completed, and all necessary consultation has taken place, there is nothing to prevent the making of the orders to put that conclusion into effect, and directing the SCAA accordingly. Indeed, the thousands of teachers who have been consulted at present would take a very dim view if we at this Dispatch Box tonight pre-empted the work of the Dearing review.
There is no need to circumscribe the functions of SCAA in the way proposed. In reviewing assessment procedures the authority will wish to take all kinds of considerations into account. Clearly the SCAA will wish to ensure that national curriculum assessment is soundly based and provides a good means by which to judge pupils' abilities accurately and fairly. We need national curriculum assessment for several reasons—to help the individual child, to allow teachers to spot any weakness and to promote the accountability of schools. Assessment under the national curriculum must relate directly to the subject orders for each subject. It therefore already serves the purpose of informing and supporting teaching and learning.
Turning to Amendment No. 258, nobody would wish to suggest that SCAA ought not to consult, or to commission research, before it gives advice to the Secretary of State. The history of the NCC and SEAC shows a very close concern with consultation and research, and those of us who are following Sir Ron Dearing's work upon his review will have noted his personal commitment to widespread consultation. But it is for the SCAA itself to decide how best to consult, and when it wishes to commission research. This amendment will unnecessarily tie the SCAA's hands, and may delay the timely provision of advice on curriculum change.
Amendment No. 258ZA also addresses the question of research. If I may draw noble Lords' attention to paragraph 2 of Schedule 13, which sets out the powers of the SCAA, they will see that this section empowers the SCAA to undertake such
150
activities as it thinks necessary for the discharge of its functions, including entering into contracts. Noble Lords will understand from this that we do not need any amendment to empower the SCAA to do research or to commission research.
I now turn to Amendment No. 257A. I have to say that this amendment is totally misconceived. The primary purpose of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority is to advise on the curriculum and assessment. It would have to be staffed quite differently, and given a far wider remit, if it were to have a duty laid on it to deliver advice on measures of school effectiveness, or on what information about schools ought to be published. School effectiveness is not just a matter of curriculum. It includes questions of the use of capital and recurrent resources, of standards of behaviour and discipline, of truancy, of the quality and appropriateness of buildings and equipment. I will not bore noble Lords with a full list but there is a great deal more. The Government are quite prepared to consider whether an independent body such as the Audit Commission, or Ofsted itself—both of which have previously been mentioned in this context—might in future be made responsible for devising and publishing comparative tables of information about schools. But SCAA would not be a suitable candidate for that function.
There is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State from seeking SCAA's advice on aspects of this matter. But it would be a nonsense to lay down a duty for it to take the lead on the question. I must ask the House to reject the amendment.
The final amendment of this group is Amendrnent No. 258ZB. Clause 232, which lays down the functions of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, includes a requirement for the SCAA to comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State. The amendment would release the authority from this requirement.
As I have said at the Committee stage of this Bill, it is not our intention to set up a free-standing body which can ignore the national priorities signalled to it by the Secretary of State. If the SCAA is released from the requirement to comply with directions given by the Secretary of State then it will be free to do as it pleases without reference to any authority and free also not to undertake work which the Secretary of State wishes it to undertake. This is surely a recipe for chaos. The Secretary of State needs this clause to require the SCAA to operate effectively and to ensure that Parliament's wishes are fulfilled.
I consider these amendments to be either unnecessary or inappropriate. I ask the House not to accept them if they are pressed.
Midnight
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder whether she could clarify one point in respect of my Amendment No. 256B. Could she tell me whether it would make any difference if I undertook to change back (b) to read: "shall have regard to the desirability" and therefore to soften the wording slightly? Would that affect her view of the amendment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have learnt of the dangers of trying to interpret legislative drafting on the hoof and I shall not do it tonight. I shall think about what the noble Earl said and write to him.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful for that, but I must say that from the Minister's response I am rather disappointed as regards the comeback on this. When we discussed it in Committee, there was no feeling or argument from that side that this was an unnecessary amendment. The words were something like, "We have no problem with it" or "We have no difficulty with it". I must say that that led me to suppose that if we put something very much in line with what the Government had no problem with, it might be acceptable. I still think that it ought to be acceptable because I am worried about Clause 231 which seems to pose no problems to the noble Baroness. I still do not feel that it is man enough for the job. It says:
"The Secretary of State shall include among the members of the Authority persons with relevant knowledge of or experience in education".
That means that the whole of the SCAA could be composed of people who had no experience in education but who simply had relevant knowledge of it. The word is "or" not "and" and that is distinctly worrying.
Nevertheless, having made that point—and I think it is an important point—I do not see any future in pursuing this at this particular stage and, regretfully, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 13 [School Curriculum and Assessment Authority]:
[Amendments Nos. 256BZ and 256C not moved.]
Clause 232 [Functions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.256D:
Page 145. line 36, after ("shall") insert (",so far as relevant for the purposes of advancing education").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was debated with Amendment No. 257. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 257 to 258ZB not moved.]
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 258ZC:
After Clause 232, insert the following new clause:
("Scope of religious teaching
The Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority shall ensure that the number of religions studied at each stage in the religious education curriculum shall he at least three.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that at all stages of the curriculum, including GCSE, at least three religions are studied.
The amendment, if accepted, would halt the proposed limiting of GCSE religion to the study of two religions alone—a proposal which has alarmed quite a number of people as we have come to hear about it. Clearly one of those religions would be Christianity. Since it would be difficult to study Christianity without studying Judaism, that would in all probability be the other. It would therefore be impossible for some children to study GCSE religion
152
in the context of their own religion. Surely this is something which, in a religiously tolerant society, none of us would want to happen.
I do not believe that it is necessary to say more than that, except, if I may, to conclude by making these observations about the study of religion in our schools. On this side of the House—and I would have thought that this view was shared equally warmly on the other side—we would like the principles to be: inclusiveness, not exclusiveness; breadth, not narrowness; truth, not dogma; perspective rather than myopia; understanding rather than indoctrination. Above all, we would like to see religious studies in our schools based on a manifest spirit of tolerance suitable to the excitement of living in a multi-cultural society such as the United Kingdom. For these reasons we believe that this small amendment is relevant and timely, and we hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. Many of us must be aware of the anxiety felt by the Moslem community that its particular interests and concerns are not adequately covered. This would at least be some contribution in that direction.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, speaking entirely in a personal capacity, I shall not oppose the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Judd. But I would like to say that there should be no restriction at all on teaching of religion. Whatever one does, one marginalises all the other religions—and there are many of them. As we get into the European Union (as we now have to call it) the problem will get worse and worse. I do not think there should be any restriction at all.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I do not disagree with the principles which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, put forward. But I would want to use a slightly different perspective, and some different words. It is not a question of breadth or narrowness; it may be a question of superficiality or depth. I have to say that the Church of England Board of Education, when consulted by SEAC about the criteria for GCSE syllabuses, indicated that in its view not more than two subjects should be studied—precisely because, if one asks people to study more than two religions, one risks a superficiality and a drift towards a general study of world religions.
Furthermore, in a statement which I understand is probably being published during the time that I have been in the House, the Church of England Board of Education has put out a general statement that it recommends that no more than three religions should be studied at any one key stage. Again, that is in the interests not of narrowness but rather of the depth of study.
I take the House back to the point raised in Committee, when this issue was raised on the basis of an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I said that a parallel could be taken in the matter of languages. If one tries to study a multitude of languages, one ends up speaking a kind of Esperanto

153
and not able to communicate thoroughly in any one language. However, if one studies a limited number of languages in depth, one picks up a facility for other languages.
I do not believe that our purpose or intention differs. But I would want to put more emphasis on studying any two religions in depth. If not more than two religions are studied at any one key stage, it is possible for children over a period of time to study a number of different religions and in that way gain an understanding of the diversity of different religious traditions. I myself cannot agree with the precise proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I endorse what the right reverend Prelate has said on this subject. In Committee we talked a little about a mishmash of religions which meant that pupils would not get a thorough grasp of any religion at all. To me it is important that they obtain an understanding—I pick up that relevant word used by the noble Lord, Lord Judd—of both the Christian faith and the other faiths relevant in that area.
I should be very happy for pupils to learn up to three faiths. But I do not believe that it would be right for them to be taught a mishmash of half a dozen faiths. That seems to me to be very superficial, as the right reverend Prelate said. Therefore I should like to endorse what he said about the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, when we discussed the amendment of my noble friend Lady Cox in Committee, late at night on the 10th May, we considered the question in relation to the locally agreed syllabus, as had already been suggested, for religious education, which sets out the RE curriculum for children in county or equivalent self-governing schools. Although not altogether clearly formulated, the noble Lord's new clause appears to touch partly on that same issue.
I said then that the Government were committed to the position of religious education as a subject for local determination. Local agreed syllabus conferences should enjoy flexibility in drawing up a syllabus that best meets the needs of their local community. The requirements of the 1988 Act with regard to content complement that local flexibility. As well as securing the place of Christianity, the 1988 Act required that local conferences should take account of the practices and teachings of the other principal religions of this country in drawing up a syllabus. That is an important requirement. It ensures that, in the spirit of this country's belief in religious tolerance, all our schoolchildren are able to learn and appreciate something of each other's beliefs in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Depending on how one reads the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I believe that it covers more religions than the original amendment.
At present the law requires syllabuses to include all principal religions. An agreed syllabus should ensure that by the time children reach the end of their school education, they have at least a basic knowledge of all the major religions, with a greater knowledge of Christianity, which lies at the heart of British culture.
154
As I said in Committee, I accept, however, that at any particular stage of education it may be appropriate for children to concentrate on fewer religious traditions. That seems to me more likely to ensure that they will learn about each religion as an integral study, rather than acquiring undifferentiated notions about all religions but being unable to distinguish between them. In the two years available at Key Stage 1, for example, a syllabus conference may decide, on these educational grounds, that only two religions ought to be covered. Again, depending on how one reads the amendment, there is no differentiation between syllabuses, other than a reference to three religions being covered at each key stage.
I have not changed my mind that we should not restrict local autonomy more than is necessary by specifying the maximum or minimum number of religions to be covered in a syllabus. That is not an appropriate matter for legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, also raised the question of the number of religions to be studied in relation to the School Examinations and Assessment Council's criteria for GCSE religious studies. These criteria are currently decided by council and will in due course be a matter for the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority. Indeed the right reverend Prelate has already suggested how the SEAC went about its work in preparing advice to give to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. GCSE religious studies are distinct from the statutory religious education which all pupils must study. It provides an opportunity for those pupils who choose to do so to pursue the subject as an academic discipline. The question therefore is one of the rigour of the qualification. The SEAC has considered this question carefully and advised that, in order to avoid the superficial study of religions, GCSE courses should be limited to the study of two religions. I am pleased to note that that was supported by the right reverend Prelate's colleagues in the Church. I am content with their decision, as is my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. This clause is an unnecessary restraint on the authority which will draw on such professional experience and expertise as it needs to decide these matters for itself. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and the spirit in which she made it. I do not believe that there is a yawning gap between us. I am sure that together we can work out a satisfactory common approach.
However, the point I emphasise is that it seems to me that the study of religion, particularly in our secondary schools, should above all be an understanding of the complex nature and diversity of religion. This is no longer simply an international matter but something that goes to the very heart of our society. I believe that, unless we have that as a primary objective in the syllabus, we will be sending our children out into the world ill-equipped to live positively and fully in a multi-cultural society.

155
It is in that spirit that I ask the right reverend Prelate, whom I greatly respect—we have been privileged to have him constantly with us in our deliberations on the Bill—to ponder his own remark about depth and superficiality. There are different ways to look at depth and superficiality. I argue that to send youngsters into the world unaware of the complexities of religion and the passionate sincerity and different experiences of people in their own society is a superficial approach to education. If we take the question of depth seriously we must give the understanding of religion as a whole a very high priority. I understand that in that sense the Minister is not against that objective and will be looking for ways of pursuing it. Taking her words in that sense, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 234 [Transfer of property]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos.258ZD to 258ZG:
Page 147, line 6, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1) above").
Page 147, line 9, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1) above").
Page 147, line 11, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("(4) Where immediately after the end of the period within which an order under subsection (1) above may be made any property, rights or liabilities remain vested in the National Curriculum Council or the School Examinations and Assessment Council, they shall forthwith vest in the Secretary of State.").
Page 147, line 13, at end insert:
("(5) The Secretary of State may by order provide that there shall he substituted for the period mentioned in subsection (2) above such shorter period as he may specify in the order, being a period ending no earlier than the day on which the order comes into force.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 235 [Transfer of stuff]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.258ZH:
Page 148, line 3, at end insert:
("(8) The Secretary of State may by order provide that there shall be substituted for the period mentioned in subsection (6) above such shorter period as he may specify in the order, being a period ending no earlier than the day on which the order comes into force.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.258A:
Before Clause 241, insert the following new clause:
Duty to reconvene conference on agreed syllabus of religious education
(".—(1) Within six months of the commencement of this section the local education authority shall reconvene any conference—

(a) which they have convened for the purpose set out in paragraph 1 or 12 of the Fifth Schedule to the Education Act 1944 (procedure for preparing and bringing into operation an agreed syllabus of religious education) or section 11(8) of the Education Reform Act 1988 (standing advisory councils on religious education), and

(b) to which subsection (2) below applies.

(2) This subsection applies to any conference—

(a) which has not made a recommendation under paragraph 9 or 13(2) of that Schedule, and

(b) in respect of which the authority have not made a report under paragraph 10 or 13(4) of that Schedule.

156
(3) Where a conference is convened (or reconvened) after the commencement of this section, paragraph 2 of that Schedule shall have effect as if at the end of the proviso there were inserted "and the number of persons appointed to any committee under that sub-paragraph to represent each denomination or religion required to be represented shall, so far as consistent with the efficient discharge of the committee's functions, reflect broadly the proportionate strength of that denomination or religion in the area".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 258A, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 258B, 258C and 259A. I promised to give further consideration to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Cox and other noble Lords and to return to them if necessary at Report stage. Amendments Nos. 258A and 258B will put into practice the principle that faith groups on local bodies concerned with religious education should be represented in broad proportion to their local strength. Amendment No. 258A amends paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to the Education Act 1944 and changes the way in which the other denominations and faiths committee of an agreed syllabus conference is selected. Similarly, Amendment No. 258B amends Section 11(5) of the Education Reform Act 1988, which deals with the way in which the same group on a Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education is selected.
Currently, the law requires LEAs to appoint members to those groups and committees so that they,
"appropriately reflect the religious traditions of the area".
Under these amendments the members of the group or committee will be selected in broad proportion to the strength of a particular religion or denomination in an area.
It is clearly desirable that local bodies concerned with the vital subject of religious education, along with collective worship, should reflect the composition of the local community. I am aware that, in some areas, the present composition of the group does not sufficiently reflect the proportion of non-Anglican Christian denominations and other religions in the area.
In framing the amendments, we have had three purposes in mind. First, to ensure that all relevant groups are represented. Secondly, to ensure that the number of representatives of each group are broadly in proportion to the strength of that group in the local area. Thirdly, not to require arrangements which would make those committees unmanageably large.
At the same time, those bodies will become still more accountable to the community they serve if their meetings are open to the public. That is dealt with by Amendment No. 258C. As I explained when we debated my noble friend's amendment on this point, while we were sympathetic to the aims of the amendment, we were not sure that the detailed provisions of Part V of the Local Government Act 1972, which the amendment applied to those bodies, were appropriate to local bodies whose members are unelected. The amendment gives powers to make regulations governing those matters, rather than setting out the detail on the face of the Bill. That is appropriate since we are essentially dealing with administrative matters.
I can, however, give the House an indication of what we would expect to require under such

157
regulations. First, that all meetings of SACREs and agreed syllabus conferences, and sub-committees or sub-groups of those bodies, should generally be open to the public and press. Secondly, we would describe those occasions when this provision was not to apply. Generally, that will be occasions where the meeting is dealing with confidential matters. Thirdly, we would expect to provide for similar requirements as to notice of meetings as are set out in the Local Government Act. Fourthly, we would expect to require copies of agendas and papers for meetings to be available for inspection by the public, and for arrangements to be made for copies of such papers to be made available at an appropriate fee.
Amendment No. 259A, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd—if I may anticipate that amendment to save time at this hour of the night—seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State is satisfied that sufficient funds are being provided to LEAs for SACREs and agreed syllabus conferences to carry out their functions.
When we debated this matter in Committee on 10th May, I made the following important points that we must revisit. It is already the case that the various duties of local authorities are taken into account when their standard spending assessments are calculated. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for the Environment must already satisfy themselves that sufficient resources are available for local authorities to carry out all their functions, including their duties to provide for SACREs and agreed syllabus conferences.
The duties of an LEA towards its SACRE and its syllabus conference will remain, along with other residual duties, even when the Funding Agency for Schools has acquired responsibility for school provision in an area. Those duties will continue to be taken into account in calculating SSAs for local authorities.
But the precise relationship between LEAs and their own bodies is, quite rightly, a matter for them. I understand the wish of the noble Lord to see that those vital local bodies remain financially secure. I am confident that the current position adequately covers that. SACREs and agreed syllabus conferences are local bodies, charged with local duties. It is appropriate that they are catered for at local level. As LEA bodies, the onus is on the LEA, and will remain with the LEA, to ensure that they are properly financed to fulfil their duties.
The aim of the government amendments in this group is to ensure SACREs and agreed syllabus conferences are more representative of, and more accountable to, their local community. I am confident that the current position adequately provides for those bodies to be properly funded by their LEAs. I therefore cannot accept amendment No. 259A. However, I commend Amendments Nos. 258A, 258B and 258C to the House.
I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for anticipating his amendment, but he now knows what I would have said to him had I heard his presentation of the amendment in the first place. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me when I say that I rather feared what she was going to say in answer to my amendment even before she said it and before I moved my amendment. That is the difficulty of this kind of proceedings.
Before I move my own amendment, perhaps I may say a word or two about Amendment No. 258A. In the limited amount of time which has been available for proper consultation, I gather that these amendments are not being universally welcomed. For example, it may not be possible to complete an agreed syllabus revision within six months. That provision will require a new one to be started which will be costly on the time of people participating in the syllabus and on the finances of the LEA.
The proportionate strength restriction will, for instance, prevent Jewish participation in most RE agreed syllabus conferences although Judaeism is vital to the understanding of Christianity and Islam. This issue was raised previously by noble Lords opposite in our proceedings.
As it comes before my amendment, perhaps I may say something about Amendment No. 258C. There is a good deal of anxiety about that amendment. It has been very well summarised in a letter, a copy of which I received from the Reverend Professor Marratt on behalf of the Free Church Federal Council. Perhaps I may quote from it because I believe that it is important that such a representative body, if it has views, should be heard in this House:
"The education committee of the Free Church Federal Council is completely opposed to any legislation of the above kind which would make such an action mandatory upon every LEA. A decision on any such action should be left in the hands of each local conference or committee.
"We fully support proper accountability for, and the full reporting of the work of, these two bodies (i.e. ASC and SACRE), but the detailed and sensitive discussion on matters of pupils' education and development at local level should not he conducted in the glare of a public gallery, with all the consequent temptations to adopt intransigent positions or to make statements for public consumption, which could he designed to champion causes rather than deal with complex issues. These two bodies should be left free to use the best means possible to foster mutual concern for the highest and deepest in the Religious Education of pupils at school, and to seek, by discussion, honest objectivity and personal commitment, the most effective curriculum, methods and means to achieve such Religious Education.
"There might be occasions at the end of, or even during, such a process when one or other of these bodies would find it useful to meet the press, but we are convinced that such a decision should be left to those who have the responsibility on behalf of the constituencies which they represent, to achieve agreement and action to meet the religious, moral and spiritual needs of pupils".
I turn very briefly to my Amendment. No. 259A with which the Minister has dealt, as I feared she might. As we have said so often, if we will the ends we really must will the means. There is genuine anxiety up and down the country about the available resources. The Minister will recall that during Committee stage I mentioned the demands of the national curriculum and the way in which our religious education is being squeezed. I gave the example of a grant-maintained school in a South-West LEA which has gone from 70

159
candidates for GCSE to zero in one year because pupils can now choose only one subject from a huge option list.
I also gave other examples of how syllabuses are being produced on a shoestring. One such example was that of a northern LEA which had seconded an A-allowance teacher for one year, with no budget, to be administrator to an agreed syllabus conference. She had been asked to set up and resource from scratch. In one northern secondary school with more than 1,000 pupils the religious education teacher was given an initial capitation of £900 for the year but then had £300 clawed back part-way through the year. That allowance had to pay for exercise books, photocopying, textbooks and so on.
The point is that out there in the schools the evidence of sufficient resources is just not available. There is already real hardship. We need more reassurance on this than the Minister has been able to give us this evening. In that spirit, I hope that the Minister will take the amendment seriously although I shall not pursue it tonight, and shall beg leave to withdraw it.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 258B. It is disappointing once again not to see any provision to consider the views of those who do not have any religious faith. In fact, we are talking not so much about religious faith as about the type of faith or the lack of it. It surely cannot be disputed that there is a substantial number of atheists, agnostics, humanists—whatever they choose to call themselves—in the country. Indeed, there may be a majority of non-believers. It is difficult to ascertain whether that is true, but for my part, I remember about a year ago an opinion poll on religious beliefs (about the only one that I have seen) which said that 39 per cent. of people did not have any religious faith. Admittedly, that is a minority, but I think that your Lordships will agree that it is a substantial minority.
One could comment on the great decrease in church attendance over recent years, on the number of closed churches and the number of churches which are now supermarkets, minimarkets, takeaways or factories. But the central issue is that our children ought to know that a large number of people do not and cannot accept the fact that there is a supernatural being whose existence cannot be proved. A comprehensive and honest religious education curriculum would include accounts of the cruelty, killings and torture which have taken place over the centuries in the name of religious faith. Unfortunately, those terrible acts still take place in many parts of the world. That fact, in all truth, would need to be taught, as would the undoubted good which has been brought about by religious teaching and religious faith. I find it inconceivable that such serious and fundamental matters are not brought to the attention of school children.
It may be argued that humanism is not a religion and cannot therefore be included in religious
160
education. I would say at once that that is probably the case, but I also have to say that I think that that is a very narrow view indeed. If that is accepted, it then has to be asked: if not in the religious education curriculum, where can it be placed? In my view, the incontrovertible point is that it ought to be in some part of the curriculum.
Subsection (2) states:
"'and the number of members appointed to any representative group under paragraph (a) of that subsection to represent each denomination or religion required to be represented shall, so far as consistent with the efficient discharge of the group's functions"'—
and the following is the important part—
"'reflect broadly the proportionate strength of that denomination or religion in the area"'.
I have argued that there is at least a substantial minority of people without a religious faith—perhaps more than those who profess to some of the recognised religious denominations. I hope that their representatives can be included in the new Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education. It is an appropriate occasion to recognise at long last that many people base their lives on what might be called the "Christian ethic"—although I recognise similar phrases in other religions—without accepting the whole of any faith.
I am fairly sure that the Government are not too sympathetic towards the view of people like myself, but I have to say that it seems to be the view of an increasing number of people in the country. In something as important as education, provision should be made to ensure a balanced view, especially when, as I say yet again, so many people take that view.
My noble friends and I have not tabled amendments in respect of this issue because we believe that they should come from the Government. If any sympathy were shown perhaps we should take action. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, following that speech it would be wrong for me to gild the lily on the importance of recognising the human approach to ethical problems. Nevertheless, I support my noble friend wholeheartedly. I was dying to speak in an earlier debate today in respect of which my forecast came true. We spent an hour and a half on the subject and at the end of the day the amendment was withdrawn, as I had forecast. Exactly the same happened on the previous occasion that we debated this issue. I said that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, would withdraw her amendment and that subsequently the Bishops would bring forward another amendment. I have no objection to another amendment being brought forward after careful consideration and therefore I shall address myself to the government amendment and deal with the words which we have heard.
The amendment refers to:
"the proportionate strength of that denomination or religion in the area".
That seeks to find a way of determining what kind of religion or non-religion should be taught in our schools.

161
The Minister shakes her head. That may not be in words but it is implicit. Perhaps I may put the matter this way; the Minister may not believe it to be so, but I believe that in a democratic society it is implicit that if a certain proportion of people indicate that they do not want something in their schools it is right that they should be listened to and taken notice of. There is nothing wrong with that; no one is quarrelling with it or shaking their head.
Having seen the amendment for the first time today I sought to propose an amendment to it, which would have been in manuscript form. I took advice and was told that that would be unfair. I was told that it was not fair to expect a department to answer quickly like that. In complete knowledge of where the Minister comes from, I said that I was sure that she would be able to answer off-the-cuff.
My questions are, first, will the Minister tell us unambiguously how we, the Government, the governors or the committee responsible are to determine:
"the proportionate strength of that denomination or religion in the area"?
Secondly, what is the area and does it have any relationship to electoral boundaries, county borough boundaries or any other boundaries? When I hear the explanation and the definition of how it will be done I will then be able to give some thought to tabling an amendment on Third Reading.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I rise to comment briefly on the amendment and in some measure I have been provoked by one or two of the previous speeches. I have some sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. I recognise the strength of the humanist tradition; in fact, many of us would call ourselves Christian humanists, if not secular humanists.
However, I would not wish the noble Lord to go far on the statistics of the number of churches which have been closed and are now supermarkets because I can assure him that more new churches have been opened than old churches have been closed. There is a movement of population and to that extent that particular statistic may be misleading. I recognise that there has been a decline in church attendance. The Churches are sensitive to that issue and have no wish needlessly to thrust, as it were, their own convictions down other people's throats. Furthermore, we are well aware that the history and tradition of the Church is not impeccable and are aware of certain such elements of history—for example, the Inquisition and the crusades. People need to be taught about that and about the failures which resulted. Nevertheless, because of the power of religious conviction, it is important that people should have an understanding of its force.
I turn specifically to the amendments. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Judd, say that the effect of Amendments Nos. 258A and 258B might be to exclude Jews from membership of agreed syllabus conferences or SACREs. That is not my understanding of the amendment because it says those bodies shall reflect the proportionate strength of the denominations or religions in the area. Therefore, if
162
there were Jews in the area, the expectation would be that the local authority would appoint them to the appropriate group or committee.
Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. This amendment merely reflects the wording of the 1988 Act, which requires that a local authority should appoint members of those groups which will appropriately reflect the principal religious traditions of the area; that is, the area of the local authority concerned.
There is a difficulty in that regard and a difficulty in the amendment; but I cannot suggest anything better. The amendment refers to the "proportionate strength". I see that there will be difficulty in multi-ethnic areas if the predominant religion is Islam but there are also Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Christians present. If all those are put in a Christian and other denominations group, it may he necessary to add in a rather high proportion of Moslems in order to achieve that proportionate strength. I am not sure that that would contribute to the aims of the amendments. For that reason, I was glad to see the phrase—and I imagine that that is what the Minister will use—which states:
"so far as consistent with the efficient discharge of the group's functions".
Therefore, I hope that the idea of proportional representation in that strict sense of the word will not be carried too far to its logical conclusion.
I express some anxiety also about Amendment No. 258C. I listened carefully to the assurances which the Minister gave but I was not altogether encouraged by what she said. It must be said that in some areas the SACRE is the only effective place where people of different faiths meet together in mutual understanding. If that meeting must take place in public, there will be a risk that the people there will not be able to explore one another's hopes and fears. They will feel at risk that others are noting down what they are saying and perhaps exploiting their comments elsewhere. Negotiations are often best undertaken away from the television cameras and the shorthand writers. There should be occasions when people who have work to do in these sensitive areas are left free to meet away from public scrutiny.
I recognise of course that there are occasions when SACREs and agreed syllabus conferences are accountable, when the members should own their statements and agreements and, therefore, the meetings should be public. But I think there needs to be a rather more subtle distinction than that which the Minister gave us when she indicated the broad lines that she was expecting to use. If too much is required to take place in public, participants start saying things for the record, as we know only too well in this House. We start saying things to achieve political ends. We start saying things to make debating points and to satisfy our supporters. All that becomes a risk if we are overmuch required to meet in public. Therefore, I hope that when the Minister responds she will say that before issuing the regulations, she will consult with the principal religious traditions concerned in order that the regulations which are issued will have as great a consensus as possible.

163
I have considerable sympathy for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I recognise that it is indeed the duty of the LEAs to ensure that those matters are properly funded but that we have good evidence to think that the funds are not there or, if they are there, are not being made available. That is a area of concern. I am glad, therefore, to know that he is pressing the case, although I recognise that that particular amendment is unlikely to find its way on to the face of the Bill.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, will he accept that the point about Jewish representation is that there will not be sufficient Jewish population to ensure representation and yet understanding Judaism is vital to an understanding of Christianity and of the Islamic religion? Therefore, it will be unfortunate if there are not representatives of the Jewish community present to develop the syllabus.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I certainly accept that if there are no Jews in the area it could be that a SACRE or an agreed syllabus conference would he impoverished. To that extent, I agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I support the right reverend Prelate in what he said about meetings in public. For all the reasons that he outlined, that provision causes me considerable concern.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as regards the point made about Judaism by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I should like to point out that there really is no reason—that is, even if there was no Jewish representation in an area—for a SACRE not to select Judaism as one of the principal religions to be studied. It is just that the people deliberating about such matters should reflect the religions of a local community.
While I respect absolutely the seriousness with which the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, puts his points, I have to tell him that we are talking about religious education. Atheism, agnosticism and humanism are not religions. Therefore, it would be very difficult to include them in proportionate representation on the SACRE committee or, to include any of them as one of the principal religions to be studied.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, asked how we could possibly determine the proportionate strength of religions in the area. It will not be easy. It will, of course, be for local authorities and their SACRE committees to know their local area. They know those areas best; they know whether there are groups of religions; they know where the Churches and the meeting houses are; they know who the local Church leaders are; and, indeed, most local authorities have very good relationships with faith leaders in their areas. We would expect them to use their best endeavours and local information in order to get representation on those committees.
I turn now to the point about open government. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne,
164
and the right reverend Prelate are saying. However, I remember the same arguments being deployed in local government when we were told that all our committees had to be open to the public. To some extent, some of the things we were warned about did come true. For example, there was a great deal more playing to the gallery as is the case now in another place because of television coverage. I believe that—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister especially at this time of night. However, I was most interested in her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, in which she said that humanism and agnosticism could not be included. It is not proposed that we study religions in the sense of propagating a faith; we are studying them—are we not? —as religions. That must surely involve criticism of them and challenges to them. It must he essential to introduce the attitudes of humanists and others who do not accept religions. Otherwise, it is indoctrination and not, as I understood it, religious education; that is, an academic study of religions. Am I wrong in that assumption?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding—which may he simplistic—is that we are talking about religions and not about "isms" of all and sundry; for example, not about humanism, agnosticism, atheism, communism, fascism or anything similar. We are talking about religions and about gaining an understanding of the different religions (the principal religions) and the bringing together of representatives of particular faiths in a local community who reflect the local community to make judgments about how the religious syllabus should he compiled. But it is religious education, and humanism is not a religion—
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I have been very patient tonight and I do not see why anyone else should not be. How can we study the Christian religion without studying the formation of the Christian Church when the issue to be debated concerns which kind of religion was accepted as the state religion of 300AD? How could one possibly discuss the Christian religion without realising that its antithesis is paganism?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the study of Christianity would involve the birth of Christianity. I am not going to stand here tonight and go through the syllabus for studying Christianity. But clearly we are talking about religious education and that is education that seeks to expand young people's knowledge not only of their own heritage religion—that is Christianity —but also of other principal religions of the country and in particular of local areas.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is Report stage—
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, my name was mentioned in the debate. That is why I am standing up now—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, it is no good noble Lords shouting "order". This is a debate on religious education. If the noble Baroness will listen to what I have to say, perhaps she will not shout "order". The Minister will recall that in my contribution I recognised that humanism was not a religion. I said that that implied there was a weakness in the case we are discussing. But what worries me is where will this substantial body of opinion appear? For example, it might appear as part of the history curriculum, but I think the noble Baroness would agree that it would not be relevant to a large part of that. Where it would be relevant is—I am glad to have the support of the noble—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sorry—
Lord Dormand of Easington: No, my Lords. I must finish.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the noble Baroness—
Baroness Trumpington: Please sit down.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, with great respect, the noble Baroness has no more authority in this House—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness to sit down. I shall be finished very shortly and then she can make her point.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord is out of order.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the noble Baroness has no more authority in this House than I have. I have a great personal regard for her and I ask her to let me finish my point and then she can comment. I have almost finished.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the noble Lord asking a question?
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am asking a question.
Baroness Trumpington: You are asking a question. Very well.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am asking for clarification from the Minister. If we do not include a provision on humanism in the present amendment—I recognise the problem on that—where would we put it? I referred to the difficulty with the history curriculum. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us whether the Government would be sympathetic to an amendment at Third Reading which would seek to include a provision to suggest that the point of view which my noble friend and I and a number of other noble Lords hold, could be discussed?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that intervention was out of order. The noble Lord made his point very clearly when he spoke the first time. He said he held
166
very strong views on humanism and he felt that, although it was not a religion, it had a place in education. Today I am addressing amendments on religious education. I do not regard humanism as a religion and therefore it should not be related to these amendments before the House this evening.
I turn again to the points that were raised in the course of the debate on open government. As I have said, I remember these same arguments being deployed when it was proposed that local government committees should be open to the public and when it was proposed that the business of this House and another place should be televised. I understand what the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, have said, but the important point to remember in all of this is that the work of SACRE impacts on the lives of all the children in an area and indeed on their families. I believe we should do away with secret gardens and open up healthy debate and allow local people to know what is being deliberated in their name. I hope that my amendments will be accepted and that these points will be no more than noted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 258B:
Before Clause 241, insert the following new clause:
Duty to constitute new standing advisory council on religious education
(".—(1) Within six months of the commencement of this section the local education authority shall constitute a new council under section 11 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (standing advisory councils on religious education).
(2) For the purposes of the constitution required by subsection (1) above (and of any subsequent constitution) that section shall have effect as if at the end of subsection (5) there were inserted "and the number of members appointed to any representative group under paragraph (a) of that subsection to represent each denomination or religion required to be represented shall, so far as consistent with the efficient discharge of the group's functions, reflect broadly the proportionate strength of that denomination or religion in the area".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 258C:
After Clause 242, insert the following new clause:
Access to meetings and documents of standing advisory council and conference on agreed syllabus of religious education
(".—(1) This section applies to—

(a) any conference convened for the purpose set out in paragraph 1 or 12 of the Fifth Schedule to the Education Act 1944 (procedure far preparing and bringing into operation an agreed syllabus of religious education) or section 11(8) of the Education Reform Act 1988 (standing advisory councils on religious education), and

(b) any standing advisory council constituted under that section of that Act.

(2) Regulations may make provision—

(a) for meetings of conferences or councils to be, subject to prescribed exceptions, open to members of the public,

(b) requiring conferences or councils to give notice, in such manner as may be prescribed, of the time and place of such meetings, and

(c) requiring conferences or councils, at such time or times as may be prescribed,

(i) to make available for inspection, or

(ii) to provide on payment of such fee as they think fit (not exceeding the cost of supply),

167
copies of the agendas and reports for such meetings to members of the public.
(3) Regulations made under subsection (2) above may apply to—

(a) committees appointed by local education authorities under paragraph 2 of the Fifth Schedule to the Education Act 1944,

(b) sub-committees appointed by conferences under that Schedule, and

(c) representative groups on councils appointed under section 12(4) of the Education Reform Act 1988,

as they apply to conferences and councils.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 259:
After Clause 242, insert the following new clause:
Inspection of religious education
(".—(1) Section 13 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 (religious education) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsections (1) to (3) there is substituted—
"(1) It shall be the duty of the governing body of—

(a) any voluntary school, or

(b) any grant-maintained school,

in which denominational education is given to any pupils to secure that that education is inspected under this section.
(2) It shall be the duty of the governing body of—

(a) any voluntary school, or

(b) any grant-maintained school falling within subsection (3) below,

to secure that the content of the school's collective worship is inspected under this section.
(3) A grant-maintained school falls within this subsection if—

(a) it was a voluntary school immediately before it became grant-maintained.

(b) it was established in pursuance of proposals published under section 47 of the Education Act 1993 and either any trust deed relating to the school or the statement required by paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to that Act makes provision as to the religious education for pupils at the school, or

(c) it is a school in respect of which proposals for the required provision for religious education to be provision for religious education in accordance with the tenets of a particular religion or religious denomination are approved under section 96 of that Act.

(3A) In this section—

(a) "denominational education", in relation to a school, means any religious education which—

(i) is required by section 2(1) (a) of the Education Reform Act 1988 to be included in the school's basic curriculum, but

(ii) is not required by any enactment to be given in accordance with an agreed syllabus,

(b) "the required provision for religious education" means the provision for religious education for pupils at the school which is required as mentioned in paragraph (a) (i) above, and

(c) references to collective worship are references to collective worship required by section 6 of that Act."

(3) For subsection (7) there is substituted—
"(7) It shall be the general duty of a person conducting an inspection under this section—

(a) if the inspection is conducted by virtue of subsection (1) above, to report on the quality of the denominational education provided by the school for pupils to whom denominational education is given by the school, or

168

(b) if the inspection is conducted by virtue of subsection (2) above, to report on the content of the school's collective worship,

and any such person may report on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at the school."").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is not to speak to the amendment on inspection of religious education perhaps I may say on behalf of the Church of England that we are very grateful to the Minister for arranging the amendments, which meet many of the anxieties which we expressed and which were discussed at some length in Committee. I was very grateful that the Minister said then that she was prepared to take the matter away and to bring it back at Report stage. That is precisely what she has done. I do not need to trouble the House with the details, but I am grateful to her.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am commissioned to say from the point of the view of the Roman Catholic Church that we are most grateful for the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for those comments. The amendments are a direct response to anxieties expressed about Section 9 and 13 inspections.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 259A not moved.]
Clause 243 [Arrangements for admissions]:
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 259B:
Page 151, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 259B I shall address also Amendments Nos. 259C to 259H. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the local education authority has a common admissions policy, with the Secretary of State's approval.
The issue was debated at Committee stage, when I moved an amendment that the local education authority should make arrangements for coordinating the admission of pupils to all schools in its area rather than the Secretary of State having that responsibility. In proposing the amendment I noted that the LEA had been responsible for co-ordinating admission arrangements for county voluntary schools for nearly 50 years and that that had been done successfully on the whole, with over 90 per cent. of parents achieving their first choice of secondary school. The creating of the grant-maintained sector had produced unfortunate consequences, such as occurred in Bromley and Hillingdon last summer when children were offered places at schools often many miles from home when it was likely that a place would eventually be found at a much nearer grant-maintained school.
In replying the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that as a result of the problems in Bromley and Hillingdon valuable lessons had been learnt. She said that the Government preferred the idea of voluntary arrangements with the Secretary of State having the power to impose arrangements as a last

169
resort. She criticised the proposed amendments because they would remove all the Secretary of State's powers relating to co-ordinated admission arrangements and would transfer them to the local education authority. (Col. 1169 of Hansard for 10th May.)
The amendments now proposed would deal with that problem as proposals by the local education authority would require the Secretary of State's approval or modification so that there would be no question of removing the Secretary of State's powers. The amendments would introduce a sensible system with a co-ordinating role for the local education authority. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in supporting the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, perhaps I may underline one point which he made.
There is no substitute for the degree of local knowledge which is required for a common admissions policy. Quite often the department is too far removed to know local details as fully as it should. Given that the noble Lord has responded to the point made earlier by the noble Baroness regarding the problem of cutting out the Secretary of State by recognising that he or she would have to approve any modification, the amendment sensibly leaves the initiative for a common admissions policy with the LEA, subject to the Secretary of State's approval. It seems to me to be a reasonable compromise and one which I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept.
1 a.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, Amendment No. 262 is, for some reason, linked with this group of amendments. I am not sure why, because it does not seem to me to fit in with the others. As it is, I suppose that I had better speak to it. The amendment is designed to allow the local commissioner to investigate complaints of maladministration in schools. Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1974, as amended. is entitled "Matters not subject to investigation". Paragraphs 5(1) and (2) provide:
"(1) Any action taken by a local education authority in the exercise of functions under section 23 of the Education Act 1944 or sections 17 to 19 of the Education (No.2) Act 1986 (secular instruction in county schools or voluntary schools).
(2) Any action concerning—

(a) the giving of instruction, whether secular or religious, or

(b) conduct, curriculum internal organisation, management or discipline, whether in any school or other education establishment maintained by the authority".

By deleting those sub-paragraphs, the Commissioner for Local Administration (the ombudsman) would not, for example, be able to investigate complaints about the content of the curriculum or poor teaching. As with all ombudsman investigations, the complaint has to relate to maladministration; that is, the body having acted in breach of its statutory duties or in excess of its statutory powers. So the complaint would have to relate, for example, to the school's failure to deliver the national curriculum under the Education Reform Act 1988 or a failure to respond to an inspector's report recommendation about the poor teaching, under the Education (Schools) Act 1992.
170
Within those limitations, it is unreasonable that parents and others should not have recourse to the ombudsman. It could lead also to potentially expensive and disruptive litigation, as the only alternative remedy is through judicial review. Neither schools nor LEAs are obliged to provide complaints procedures, except under Section 23 of the Education Reform Act 1988 in relation to the national curriculum. Even that limited complaints procedure has no independent element as is, for example, provided in complaints procedures about social services under the Children Act 1989.
The local commissioner has complained consistently about the limitation on his jurisdiction. Every three years he has to publish a review of his work. In each of those reviews, he has called for an abolition of the fetters under Schedule 5 and, in particular, has highlighted the limitation relating to education since there are no alternative remedies available; unlike, for example, the Police Complaints Board. Given that his job is to look at the activities of local government, it is illogical and unjust to exclude such an important part of the local authority's functions from his scope. I understand that in this year's review he will again ask to have that restriction removed.
My noble friend Lady Serota asked me to say that she is sorry that she could not stay. She would have strongly supported the amendment. As a former ombudsman, she understands what it is all about. She moved amendments in 1986 and 1988 to try to have the position changed. She told me to say that she hoped that we might be lucky the third time.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady David, on this amendment. She has made the main points. It takes us back to the question of there being some form of ultimate appeal for parents. In our discussions on Amendment No. 255, the Minister mentioned Section 23 of the Education Reform Act 1988, which I have now had the opportunity to look at.
The appeal procedures under that Act are limited indeed. They give a right to appeal only on matters that relate to Chapter I of' the 1988 Act—religious education and worship —and even then for that purpose grant-maintained schools are excluded. It is, therefore, a limited right of appeal. As I understand it, the amendment would give a much wider possibility of having a complaints procedure for parents which they would not otherwise have.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall respond first to Amendments Nos. 259B to 259H, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. We discussed a very similar group of amendments at Committee stage. I am glad to see that this time the noble Lord has acknowledged that the Secretary of State ought to have a role in determining co-ordinated arrangements where agreement cannot be reached locally. However, I cannot accept amendments which would give the LEA a key role even in areas where GM schools are in the majority.
I shall not describe in detail the background to and purposes of our policy on co-ordinated admissions since that was dealt with at the Committee stage.

171
Suffice it to say that the Government continue to believe that the Secretary of State, not the LEA, should have a reserve power to impose co-ordinated arrangements, after suitable consultation, where agreement at local level has proved to be impossible.
I recognise that the amendments would give the Secretary of State the power to modify a scheme proposed by an LEA, but that is not enough. The LEA will, by that stage, have been involved in abortive negotiations with GM and possibly VA schools about voluntary co-ordination. It would be inappropriate to give it the power to propose arrangements which would be imposed on GM and VA schools. In our view, it is far better that the Secretary of State, as an impartial external observer, should be responsible for deciding when and how co-ordinated arrangements should be imposed.
Turning finally to Amendment No. 262, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, I appreciate the desire to add to the complaints mechanisms which are already available to parents. However, I am not persuaded that the amendments are necessary.
The Government are very keen to extend the jurisdiction of the local government ombudsman to cover appeal committees appointed by aided and GM schools. We accept that it is something of an anomaly that parents can invoke the ombudsman if they are unhappy with the handling of an appeal by an LEA-appointed committee, but not if they are unhappy with the handling of a similar appeal by a committee appointed by a GM or VA school. That is why Clause 248 is in the Bill.
That increase in the ombudsman's powers will leave his office at full stretch. There will be no scope for it to investigate any additional education-related complaints. Even if there were scope, I do not believe that it would be necessary to give the ombudsman the new powers which are sought. There are statutory appeals and complaints mechanisms covering the national curriculum as well as other aspects of education. Those are being improved in various ways; for example, by introducing a greater lay element in the committees which deal with admissions and exclusions, and significantly enhancing parents' rights in the SEN field.
It is true to state that there is no general requirement on schools and LEAs to have established complaints procedures going beyond the areas for which statutory provision is made. However, some do set up and publicise arrangements for following up all kinds of complaints, and in the spirit of the Citizen's Charter we would expect more schools and LEAs to see the value of so doing. We may, however, want to look further at whether the Government should be doing more to improve or enhance complaints procedures once we have feedback from the complaints task force and the Charterline initiatives about existing procedures which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has established. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, will accept that the amendment is unnecessary.
172
Amendments Nos. 260 and 261 fulfil pledges that I gave at Committee stage. Amendment No. 260 plugs loopholes in the 1980 and 1986 Education Acts. Under those Acts members of admission and exclusion appeal committees are personally liable for any costs that arise from a successful legal challenge against the decision of that committee. That is because appeal committees, although established by LEAs or governing bodies, are separate legal entities. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford for bringing those loopholes to our attention.
The objective behind Amendment No. 261 is to ensure that the requirement to appoint a lay member to appeal committees fulfils the purpose which we envisaged when we committed ourselves to it in the Citizen's Charter. We shall certainly consult all interested parties before we make the necessary regulations.
Finally, Amendment No. 259L is purely a technical amendment which removes some unnecessary words from the text of the Bill. It will not in any way alter the sense of Schedule 15 which prevents members and employees of local authorities from serving as chairmen of appeal committees. Obviously I commend those three amendments to the House. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment and that other noble Lords will not move their amendments.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I was disappointed with the noble Lord's response. Once again it demonstrates the Government's antipathy to the local education authorities which we have seen demonstrated time and again through many parts of the Bill. However, given the lateness of the hour I shall withdraw the amendment, as the noble Lord suggests, and consider whether it is worth returning to the subject at a later date.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 259C to 259H not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 259J:
After Clause 243, insert the following new clause:
Restrictions on power to exclude pupils
(".—(1) The head teacher of any school maintained by a local education authority or grant-maintained school may not—

(a) exclude a pupil from the school for an indefinite period, or

(b) so exercise the power to exclude a pupil from the school for one or more fixed periods that the pupil is so excluded for more than fifteen school days in any one term.

(2) Subsection (1) above has effect, in the case of a school having articles of government, notwithstanding anything in the articles.
(3) Where, on the day on which this section comes into force, a pupil stands excluded from such a school for an indefinite period—

(a) he shall be treated as if he had been excluded from the school by the head teacher until the expiry of the period of one month beginning with that day and as if, in the case of a county, controlled or maintained special school, the local education authority had been so informed, and

(b) any direction given before that day—

173

(i) under section 24(c) (ii) or 25(d) (ii) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (pupil to be reinstated within period specified in direction), or

(ii) by a committee of the governing body of a grant-maintained school to the head teacher under a corresponding provision of the articles of government.

which specifies a period ending later than the expiry of the period of one month beginning with that day shall have effect as if it specified a period ending with that expiry.
(4) Subsection (1) (b) above does not apply to any exclusion of a pupil which has taken effect before the day on which this section comes into force; but in exercising on or after that day the power referred to in that subsection, account shall he taken of any school days on which the pupil was excluded from the school in the same term in pursuance of one or more exclusions which took effect before that day.
(5) In this section, "grant-maintained school" includes a grant-maintained special school.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have returned at various points in the debate to the issue of exclusions. It is a subject which is, I know, of particular interest to a number of your Lordships.
The Government are concerned about the number of pupils who are being excluded from school, the time taken to operate and complete exclusion procedures, and the provision made for pupils once they are excluded. Those concerns led us to issue a discussion paper on exclusions in November 1992. The paper set out what we believed should be guiding principles in this difficult area, notably that exclusions should be used sparingly and always—and I would emphasise always—as a last resort. The paper also raised a number of specific questions on which comment was invited and received.
I now bring forward a number of amendments as indicated in the Government's announcement on 23rd April.
Amendment No. 259J abolishes the category of indefinite exclusion. Widespread concern was registered by those responding to our discussion paper about the scope for abuse which the category offers and the uncertain position in which it leaves both the child and the parents. In some cases, children of compulsory school age were ending up in what might best he described as an educational limbo. We cannot allow that to happen.
In addition to abolishing indefinite exclusion, we are proposing that one or more fixed term exclusions may last up to 15 school days in any one term. This, we believe, allows schools the necessary degree of flexibility when dealing with cases which do not warrant permanent exclusion.
Amendment No. 287A to Schedule 18 also provides for a regulation-making power to ensure that procedural stages in the exclusion process are completed within specified periods. Information received by the department suggests that there can in some cases he long delays.
Amendment No. 259K provides for arrangements to be made for money to follow the child where a pupil is permanently excluded from an LEA or GM school. Those provisions are not quite complete and we shall return to the House with a further minor amendment at Third Reading. The amounts to be deducted from the excluding school's budget will be determined by
174
regulations. We intend the sum concerned to be equivalent to the pro rata share of the age weighted pupil unit for the remainder of the financial year.
The changes I have outlined represent a measured and carefully considered response to the concerns expressed to us on exclusions and the provision made for excluded pupils. We believe that, coupled with the new duty on LEAs to provide for education otherwise than at school—Clause 274 of the Bill—they will lead to a better deal for excluded pupils while ensuring that head teachers continue to have an effective response to serious breaches of the school's disciplinary codes. I commend the amendments to the House.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister deal with four points on Amendment No. 259K? First, what is an appropriate amount? Presumably it will be a proportionate share of the cost of educating the pupil for a year. But that will differ between grant-maintained and LEA schools because of the allocation of central costs and double funding. Secondly, why have CTCs been excluded from the provisions? They surely receive public money and are widely thought to be large excluders of pupils. Thirdly, is the purpose of subsection (7) of Amendment No. 259K to take account of the pupil who is successively excluded from schools? Finally, should LEAs receive some recompense for the additional administrative work which they will have to undertake?
1.15 a.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the noble Baroness rises to reply, can I ask her whether any calculations have been made about forecasts concerning the effect of the measures on the number of expulsions? We have had figures showing rises through the 1990–91 and 1991–92 academic years and have reached the figure of 6,743 permanent expulsions over that period. Can the Minister give any indication of how the figure might decrease as a result of the proposals that she has just made?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may take the first question on the appropriate amount. I referred to the AWPU factor, the age weighted pupil unit factor—that is, the amount for a particular LEA for a certain age child. For the permanent exclusion, that sum would be the basis for the calculation.
The second question was on CTCs. My understanding is that there have been no exclusions at all from CTCs, which is some measure of their success, given the nature of the children whom they have to accept and admit by law. That is children from families who are not well supported and also children right across the ability range. Nevertheless, there have been no exclusions and my understanding is that the amendments do not cover CTCs.
On the question of recompense, my understanding is that there was consultation. The issue did not come up in the course of those consultations with the local authority associations. However, if I am wrong in saying that no representations have been made to us, of course I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I see it as part of the administrative handling which local authorities carry out now, but without the

175
framework of these amendments, dealing with children who are difficult in school. The authorities try to find ways and means of bringing them in from the streets, and liaising with local families. I do not believe that that factor will weigh heavily in terms of requirement for recompensing them.
On the calculation of full costs of the numbers of expulsions, I cannot be precise about the figures. There is an unhappy tendency for the numbers to increase, which gave rise to the survey in the first place and then the consultation document. We believe that that document was welcomed by most teachers who gave a healthy response. By and large, I think that the framework now suggested has been welcomed. However, if the noble Lord would like further facts and figures about that, I shall write to him.
Lord Judd: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, could she give me an undertaking to look at those points further and write to me? I did not detect that her answers had quite the usual self-confident ring, and I quite understand that. If she were able to write to me more fully, I should deeply appreciate it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, let me put on my slightly more confident voice. On the age weighted pupil unit, the factor for local management of school schemes, a sum of money is attached to each child in school and that would be the basis of the calculation. On the second factor, CTCs are not included and to our knowledge there has been no exclusion from those schools. I believe that recompense is not an additional factor; LEAs are already dealing with exclusions under rather more difficult circumstances. It is my view that it would be a more streamlined position. On calculations, I promise to write with information about specific numbers. However, I can say that expulsions are worryingly high.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the Minister kindly wrote to me on 19th May about exclusions, as she may remember, dealing in particular with this year's comparative tables of school performance. The letter states:
"They will for the first time include details of rates of unauthorised absence at individual schools: they will not however include exclusions data".
That is important. As I understand it, that is not related to these long amendments which we are discussing. However, the noble Baroness also kindly said in the letter:
"I will, of course, put the record straight at Report Stage".
That has not been done under these amendments. I have looked through all the amendments and cannot see where it occurs anywhere, and this is the last day for the Report stage. I repeat that it was a very helpful letter and because of its importance, I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on it now.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe I dealt with this on the second day of Report stage but I am more than happy to put on record again—as I have already done for the noble Lord—that in response to a question on the issue of reporting data I answered on truancy but not on exclusions. But that was put right.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I apologise. I have been present for the whole of the Report stage, so I must have missed it. I am very grateful for the confirmation. It is important.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 259K:
After Clause 243, insert the following new clause:
Exclusion of pupils: funding
(".—(1) Subsection (2) below applies where a pupil is permanently excluded from any school maintained by a local education authority or any grant-maintained school and, in the financial year in which the exclusion first takes effect—

(a) he is subsequently provided with education at a school maintained by a local education authority, education otherwise than at school provided by such an authority or education at a grant-maintained school, and

(b) the person accountable for that education (referred to below as "the new provider") is not the same as the person accountable for the education provided for him immediately before his exclusion (referred to below as "the former provider").

(2) The former provider shall pay to the new provider an amount determined in accordance with regulations as the appropriate amount of funding to be transferred to the new provider in respect of that pupil for that financial year.
(3) Every local education authority shall, where any scheme made by them under section 33 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (financing county and voluntary schools) does not make the provision required by subsection (4) below, exercise their powers to revise the scheme so that it makes such provision.
(4) The provision required by this subsection, in relation to a local education authority, is—

(a) provision requiring the authority, where a pupil is permanently excluded from a school and the exclusion first takes effect in a financial year in which the school is required to be covered by the scheme, to reduce the school's budget share for that year by an amount determined in accordance with regulations as the appropriate amount of funding in respect of that pupil for that year to be subtracted from the school's budget share, and

(b) provision requiring the authority, where a pupil admitted to a school in a financial year in which the school is required to be covered by the scheme has been permanently excluded from a school maintained by them or any other local education authority or any grant-maintained school and the exclusion (as well as the admission) first took effect in that year, to allocate for the purposes of the school in that year an amount determined in accordance with regulations as the appropriate amount of funding in respect of that pupil for that year to be allocated for those purposes.

(5) Expressions used in subsection (4) above and in Chapter III of Part I of the Education Reform Act 1988 have the same meaning in that subsection as in that Chapter.
(6) Subject to subsection (7) below, for the purposes of this section—

(a) the local education authority are accountable for education provided at any school maintained by them or education provided by them otherwise than at school, and

(b) the governing body are accountable for education provided at a grant-maintained school.

(7) Where a pupil is permanently excluded from any school maintained by a local education authority or grant-maintained school and, in the financial year in which the exclusion first takes effect, the following events subsequently occur—

(a) he is first provided with education for which a different local education authority or, in the case of exclusion from a grant-maintained school, any local education authority are accountable (referred to

177
below as "the first new provider") and which is provided in a pupil referral unit or otherwise than at school, and, at any time afterwards

(b) he is provided with education at a grant-maintained school or for which a local education authority other than the first new provider are accountable,

then, in relation to the education mentioned in paragraph (b) above, the first new provider is to be treated as accountable for the education provided for the pupil immediately before the exclusion first took effect.
(8) Any dispute as to whether any local education authority or governing body of a grant-maintained school are entitled to be paid any amount under this section by any such other person shall be determined by the Secretary of State.
(9) In this section, "grant-maintained school" includes a grant-maintained special school.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 15 [School admission appeals]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 259L:
Page 223, leave out lines 20 to 24 and insert:
(" "(5) A person who is a member of the authority or employed by the authority shall not be chairman of an appeal committee." ").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 260 and 261:
Before Clause 248, insert the following new clause:
Indemnity for legal costs and expenses of members of appeal committees
(".—(1) This section applies—

(a) in the case of an appeal committee constituted in accordance with Part I of Schedule 2 to the Education Act 1980, to the local education authority or governing body of an aided or special agreement school required by section 7 of that Act or section 26 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to make arrangements for enabling appeals to be made to that committee, and

(b) in the case of an appeal committee constituted for the purposes of paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 6 to this Act, to the governing body of a grant-maintained school required by the articles of government for the school to make arrangements for appeals to that committee.

(2) It shall be the duty of any local education authority or governing body to which this section applies to indemnify the members of any appeal committee required to be constituted for the purposes of arrangements made by that authority or body against any reasonable legal costs and expenses reasonably incurred by those members in connection with any decision or action taken by them in good faith in pursuance of their functions as members of that committee.").
Before Clause 248, insert the following new clause:
Duty to advertise for lay members for appeal committees
(".—(1) This section applies—

(a) in the case of an appeal committee constituted in accordance with Part I of Schedule 2 to the Education Act 1980, to the local education authority or governing body of an aided or special agreement school required by section 7 of that Act or section 26 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to make arrangements for enabling appeals to be made to that committee, and

(b) in the case of an appeal committee constituted for the purposes of paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 6 to this Act, to the governing body of a grant-maintained school required by the articles of government for the school to make arrangements for appeals to that committee.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations require any local education authority or governing body to which this section applies—

(a) to advertise, in such manner and at such times as may be prescribed, for persons eligible to be lay members
178
of any appeal committee required to he constituted for the purposes of arrangements made by that authority or body to apply to the authority or body for appointment as such members, and

(b) in appointing persons as such members, to consider any persons eligible to be so appointed who have applied to the authority or body in response to an advertisement placed in pursuance of paragraph (a) above.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments en bloc. They were spoken to with earlier amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 248 [Investigation ht' Local Commissioner of decisions of certain appeal committees]:
[Amendment No. 262 not moved.]
Clause 250 [Sponsor governors for aided secondary schools]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 263 to 265:
Page 153, line 32, leave out ("schoo l which provides secondary education") and insert ("secondary school").
Page 154, line 41, leave out ("schoo l which provides secondary education") and insert ("secondary school").
Page 155, line 6, at end insert:
("(8) In this section "direction" me ans a direction contained in an order made by the Se cretary of State.").
Page 155, line 16, leave out ("provide secondary education") and insert ("are secondary schools").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 252 [Power to make and deal with proposals in the case of schools eligible for grant-maintained status]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 266:
Page 156, line 24, at end insert ("and where the procedure for acquisition of grant-maintained status is pending (within the meaning of Chapter III of Part II of this Act) in respect of any voluntary school, no notice of the governing body's intention to discontinue the school may be served under section 14 of the Education Act 1944.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ponsonby Lord Ponsonby moved Amendment No. 267:
Page 156, line 41, leave out from ("subsection") to end of line 48.
The noble Lord said: I wish to address Amendments Nos. 267 and 268 in the name of my noble friend Lady Blackstone. The purpose of these amendments is to remove the requirement of the Secretary of State to consider a proposal for grant-maintained status before considering a proposal to close a school.
This issue was raised at Committee stage in this House, when an amendment was moved by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. That amendment required the Secretary of State to consider any proposal from a local education authority to cease to maintain or make significant changes to the character of a school prior to considering the proposal for grant-maintained status.
In replying, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that in each of the 85 cases that had been submitted to the Department for Education for determination by the Secretary of State, the case for closure had been considered alongside the case for grant-maintained status.
Under Section 73 of the Education Reform Act 1988 the Secretary of State is obliged to consider both sets of proposals together. But he is not able to determine the closure of a school under Section 12 of the Education Act 1980 before he has made his determination as to whether the school should acquire grant-maintained status. Clearly this constrains the Secretary of State by requiring the decision about grant-maintained status to be made first.
The aim of this amendment is to remove that requirement to consider grant-maintained status before closure. As a result of the amendment the Secretary of State would be entirely free to make the decisions in the order that he considered the most appropriate under the circumstances. It is hard to see what objection the Government could have to such an amendment since it removes from the current legislation the constraints on the Secretary of State without requiring any alternative constraints. It would have all the advantages of flexibility without any of the disadvantages of the current legislation or the creation of a new constraint on the Secretary of State to look at the proposal for closure first if he thought this was not appropriate in a particular case.
If Ministers are keen to reduce the number of surplus places then they should be willing to assist local education authorities in making proposals for the closure of schools that are not viable, and schools that need to be closed, in order to reorganise education by deciding on closures before considering such schools for grant-maintained status where that is appropriate. This amendment would provide local education authorities with considerable reassurance as to Ministers' support for their attempts to reduce surplus places wherever that is possible. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment. On a number of the issues that have been considered in the course of Report stage of the Bill there have been considerable divisions between the two sides of the House about what they want to achieve in education and the structure of education of which they approve.
In this case the discussion is one that the Government must have with themselves. Implicit in the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is a question that needs to be addressed by the Government themselves. As the noble Lord pointed out, over recent years there has been a very large number of surplus school places. It is nobody's fault. It arises from the fact that the population in this country rose rapidly in the 1960s and began to fall in the 1970s. In consequence there were a great many surplus school places, especially in those parts of the country from which the population had moved. We all know that surplus school places are expensive.
As the noble Lord, my colleague, said, the 1988 Act allowing the Minister to take together the two issues—the closure of schools and applications for grant-maintained status—indicated that the decision over grant-maintained status should be taken first. That was obviously a way of getting that off the ground, because many of the early groups of schools
180
that adopted grant-maintained status were schools that otherwise would have been closed by their local authority.
The situation has changed markedly in the past two years. By now much the most serious consideration that affects education is the effect of the £50 billion public sector borrowing requirement deficit which overhangs the whole country and which, as we all know, in the next few months will seriously affect expenditure on education as well as other aspects of public expenditure.
In those circumstances, to keep surplus school places available at considerable cost to the education service seems to be extremely unwise. Where places are clearly surplus, they should be considered as such and dealt with in order to save money for the purposes for which that money was originally voted; namely, the education of the children of this country. It should not go on maintaining empty surplus places in schools which without doubt should be closed down.
It seems to me that the priorities for education have changed very substantially. It would make every possible sense to allow the Secretary of State to consider these two issues side by side and decide which should take predominance: the issue of saving on public expenditure, which in present circumstances must be a very serious consideration for any responsible Member of this House or the other place, compared with the issue of opting out. I argue that the balance of priorities has substantially changed since the 1988 Act and that Members of this House should seriously consider this amendment, which allows that change to be reflected in the way in which the Secretary of State would now behave. I support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it may be useful if I remind the House that the debate on this amendment is not in any way about surplus school places. We have said many times—I repeat it again now—that we shall not allow the grant-maintained process to become an escape route for failing and unpopular schools. All proposals will be considered and decided on their merits.
As the noble Lord said, we debated at an earlier stage amendments very similar to this one. They were discussed, I believe, on 22nd April at Committee stage. Again, something similar was moved at Report stage on 10th June.
Let me say briefly why we cannot accept the amendments. We cannot accept them because they would abolish the procedures established in the 1988 Act and re-enacted in Clause 252 of this Bill. Those require both sets of proposals to be considered together, but the grant-maintained proposals to be determined first. If the amendments were agreed, there would be no guidelines for joint consideration of grant-maintained and Section 12 proposals. As my noble friend said when we last considered such amendments, one cannot establish a grant-maintained school if one has decided to close it. It would be illogical to decide the Section 12 proposals before the proposals for grant-maintained status.
I do not believe that the existing arrangements are biased in favour of grant-maintained schools or that

181
they make sensible reorganisation proposals more difficult. Both the grant-maintained and the Section 12 proposals are and will continue to be decided on their merits.
With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, if it is correct that this issue in no way affects the issue of surplus school places, why was there such a dramatic fall in the number of secondary schools affected by local reorganisation between 1987 and 1991 from 612 to 174? Would the Minister care to explain that?
1.30 a.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a perfectly fair point. The question of surplus school places is very important. I was saying that these particular amendments had nothing to do with surplus school places but dealt with the processes by which these matters would be continued. I gave an assurance at the beginning that we would not in any way allow the grant-maintained process to become an escape route for what might be considered to be surplus school places, avoiding the necessity for those to be considered as surplus school places. I made it quite clear to the noble Baroness that all proposals would therefore be considered on their merits.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply I believe that he has been slightly disingenuous about the content and purpose of the amendments. The purpose is partly to reassure local authorities that they have the Minister's full support in reducing surplus school places. As such, they streamline the Secretary of State's procedures for introducing school closures. Nevertheless, we have had a very full debate about the need to reduce surplus school places and I do not propose to continue it tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 268 not moved.]
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 268A:
After Clause 253, insert the following new clause:
("Responsibilities of school governors
.—(1) The governors of a school shall be responsible for ensuring that all persons teaching in that school are not disqualified from teaching children by any Act of Parliament or exercise of the powers conferred on the Secretary of State, local education authority or other body under any Act of Parliament or, in the case of a citizen of another member state of the European Community, equivalent disqualification under the national law of that member state.
(2) The governors shall have discharged their responsibility under subsection (1) above when a member of the school staff or other person appointed by resolution of the governors produces a certificate in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State and signed by a person authorised by the Secretary of State in respect of each person teaching in that school stating that that person is not disqualified from teaching and does not have criminal convictions or suffer from any medical condition which would put children at risk.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), when a school enters into a commercial contract for the supply of services and that contract specifies that the provider of such services shall be responsible for the production of certificates
182
as under subsection (2) then all liability for the conduct of a person sent brought into contact with children on that school's roll as a result of that contract and not covered by a certificate shall lie with the contractor, not the governors or employees of the school.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I raised this matter at the Committee stage on a short clause stand part debate. The issue at point is the qualifications of supply teachers. By "supply teachers" I mean a teacher who may possibly be employed for a term, or a period of that kind, or someone who comes in just for one afternoon. In the past, supply teachers were always supplied by the local education authority. That is not always the case now. There are a number of employment agencies who supply these teachers. It is important that they should be properly qualified and that their qualifications are checked to make sure that they meet the high standards required of teachers.
At this late hour I will not take up the time of the House. However, on reading the Official Report I was not entirely with what the Minister had said. She has told me that she has considered the matter further, and it will be helpful to have her views on the record. The matter is an urgent one. My attention has been drawn to the fact that there has already been one case of difficulty. This is what my noble friend said on Thursday 13th May:
"Critically, he or she must not have been excluded from teaching by the Secretary of State on health or educational grounds or on the ground of misconduct".
She went on to say:
"it is vitally important to ensure that pupils are not exposed to unsuitable teachers … It is entirely understandable that schools should wish to have teachers' credentials suitably checked by the employment agency before they work in the school … Any licensed agency is able to request such a check before accepting a teacher on to its books".—[Official Report, 13/5/93; col. 1408.]
The issue is whether all of that is happening. I have tabled the amendment in order to set out the responsibilities of governors and the local education authority and to make quite clear how a suitable check can be made on supply teachers.
Subsection (1) makes clear the responsibility of governors. Although it is generally thought that governors are responsible, there may be some doubt as to the responsibility of the local education authority in the matter. Subsection (2) provides a mechanism for ensuring that governors can easily discharge their responsibility. It will place the responsibility on the Secretary of State for making sure that the information needed is available. That seems to be right.
A difficulty arises with access to police records. But it is quite wrong that children and governors should be at risk because Ministers have failed to address the requirements that arise when we are changing from a system based on state provision—that is, from the local education authority—to one based on competition between agencies operating in the market. I believe that there are now some London boroughs where schools need to use agencies. I am not against that, but it is not right that the heads or the governors should be denied the certainty of knowing that the teachers who come from the agencies have been properly checked.
As far as I can see there is no reason why the issue of a proper certificate should be free. The costs of providing them could be recovered. I understand that in Hammersmith and Fulham schools have to pay £1,000 a year if they want the borough to conduct police investigations, List 99 checks, medical checks and to use the borough's vetting list of supply teachers. There is also no need for agencies to have access to police records. All that is needed is that they should obtain a statement by an applicant teacher of any convictions and be able to ask the police to confirm that the statement is complete and accurate. An applicant seeking to cover up any conviction is obviously unsuitable. Subsection (3) is to allow education authorities, agencies and other bodies, to contract with schools to undertake the responsibilities for schools.
I have set the provision out in full because it is an example of the kind of amendment which would meet what could be a serious problem and appears to be a loophole. Obviously at this time of the night I have no intention of pressing it, but I hope that my noble friend—I believe that she has considered this further—is able to give us a greater assurance than she was able to do in Committee, so that we can be quite certain that schools taking teachers from employment agencies can be sure that those teachers are not only suitably qualified academically, but have in fact passed the rigorous tests which teachers would have to do if they were full time. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising again the important question of the responsibility for ensuring that teaching staff in schools, especially those provided through employment agencies, are fit and proper people to have care and control of pupils in schools. I wholeheartedly share my noble friend's concerns. The effect of the amendment that she has tabled would be to make it clear that the responsibility for vetting teachers rests with school governing bodies, but in effect to enable them to delegate that responsibility to an employment agency which supplies teachers to the school.
A number of different factors need to be checked when a teacher is appointed. First, and arguably most important, there is a need to make sure that the teacher has not been excluded from teaching by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has power to bar teachers or to make their employment subject to conditions, if they have been guilty of misconduct (and of course, particularly if they have committed any offences against children), or on the grounds of health. It is relatively infrequent that he has to exercise that responsibility; but where he does so, it is most usually on the grounds of misconduct. A confidential record of teachers who have been excluded is maintained in what is called List 99. Employers of teachers already have an implied duty under the education Acts to check all appointments against List 99, because they are prohibited from employing a barred teacher.
Employment agencies also have a statutory duty in that respect. Under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 they must take all reasonable steps to ensure that
184
persons they supply for any employment are not disqualified from that employment under any Act of Parliament. My Lords, my department is consulting with the employment department. We plan to issue through that department a series of guidelines for employment agencies which supply teachers, to make it absolutely clear that their duty under the Employment Agencies Act includes a firm responsibility to make sure that the List 99 has been checked for every teacher whom they supply. The department's staff will undertake such a check, without delay, where agencies do not have access to List 99 themselves. The guidelines will make it clear that the agencies are required to secure the check before supplying a teacher to a school. The employment department has the power to withdraw an agency's licence if it is found to have failed in its statutory duties.
Employers also already have a statutory duty to ensure that all teachers have the health and the physical capacity to discharge the onerous task of teaching. Some teachers whose mental or physical health puts children at risk may have been barred by the Secretary of State and appear on List 99; but employers also need to be satisfied that teachers are fit enough to carry out their professional responsibilities. We propose that the guidelines for employment agencies should also cover their responsibilities in regard to checking the health records of those they supply to schools.
The amendment would also impose a statutory duty to ensure that no teacher has any criminal conviction. That goes far beyond the present position, and in my view much too far. The Secretary of State does not automatically bar a teacher because he or she has been found guilty of an offence. We need to take account of the nature of the offence and of the circumstances. Of course, any offence against children, and any but the most minor offence involving drugs or violence, for example, would cause the Secretary of State to consider very seriously whether the teacher should be excluded. But automatic, statutory exclusion in all cases goes too far.
My department and the Welsh Office, together with the Home Office, recommend that employers should seek a check of any criminal convictions in respect of all teachers and other workers who have substantial unsupervised access to children. If a teacher is found to have been convicted of an offence, but is not excluded from teaching by the Secretary of State, it is for the employer to decide what, if any, action to take. All intending teachers are required to disclose any criminal convictions when seeking appointment, if they are asked to do so. They should therefore be required by employment agencies to disclose any convictions; and we propose that the employment department guidelines should make that clear also.
In addition, under the Employment Agencies Act, employment agencies must be assiduous in taking up references from previous employers. That too should bring to light any doubts. Here again, we intend that our guidelines should make absolutely clear what the employment agencies' responsibilities are. At present the responsibilities of agencies must fall short of checking against police records. The police will not

185
disclose information to agencies, though some agencies have arrangements for such checks, through the local education authorities for whose schools they provide teachers. We propose that in all cases the guidelines for agencies will make clear that they must tell the schools, when they supply a teacher, exactly how far they have been able to go in verifying the applicant's own statement of any criminal record. It will then be for the school to consider what further action, if any, needs to be taken through the local education authority.
We are also discussing with the Home Office and the police authorities whether any improvement on present arrangements for checking criminal records may be possible. As my noble friend knows, this is a very sensitive area, but we shall not let up on our efforts. I do not believe, with the greatest respect, that the sweeping proposals which my noble friend's amendment envisages are practicable, or would necessarily achieve the objectives which we share.
There are other questions which the amendment does not touch upon. There is, for example, the need for teachers to have the appropriate status and qualifications. Persons who have not been awarded qualified teacher status by the Secretary of State may not, except in very limited circumstances, be employed in maintained (including self-governing) schools. Employment agencies need therefore to be assiduous in verifying qualifications and status. That is not a difficult matter. All qualified teachers should be able to produce a letter from the department confirming that status. If they have mislaid their letter, the department will issue a duplicate on request. There is therefore no excuse whatever for an agency not verifying a teacher's status. This issue too we plan to cover in the proposed guidelines.
Noble Lords may think that issuing guidelines is not enough; that there can be no guarantee that all employment agencies will follow them. As I have said, the Department of Employment has power to revoke an agency's licence if it fails to fulfil its duty. But I recognise that something more is required; and in particular that schools themselves will want a means of enforcing their requirements. The department is therefore considering urgently the advice it might give to schools about their dealings with employment agencies. This guidance could recommend a contract or agreement that schools could enter into with any employment agency whose services they wished to use. The contract would specify in detail the checks the agency would need to undertake before providing a teacher. The requirements could extend to insistence that agencies have indemnity insurance to cover any liability that might otherwise fall on a school as a result of the action of a person supplied by an agency. They could include a certificate of competence, perhaps supplied by independent consultants, to confirm that agencies had the systems in place to undertake all that was required of them. Schools might then be advised not to make use of the services of any agency which would not sign up to a contract specifying such safeguards, and would have grounds for action against any failure to operate those safeguards.
186
I believe that this approach could offer the schools, and more importantly the children, the protection they need. We are consulting the employment agencies themselves, and will consult the LEAs and schools, about these requirements. I do not believe that we need further legislation in this field, which is already covered by a plethora of regulation. But I can assure my noble friend that we are pursuing all practical ways and that we shall continue to pursue these issues vigorously within existing legislation.
1.45 a.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask her about the reference to "criminal convictions". She confirmed that in certain cases teachers must not have criminal convictions, but that does not include spent convictions. I ask about this because I have seen reference in one or two places to ignoring the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and requiring information about convictions even if they are spent. Surely that legislation binds everybody, including school authorities.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding is that, if a teacher has been suspended from teaching because of having a criminal conviction and has appeared on List 99, there is no facility for removing him from List 99. Anybody checking List 99 will find that that teacher has been suspended from teaching for a particular offence. That will be made known. As for spent convictions with the criminal courts, I am not able to answer that technical question, but I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister very much. She has considered seriously the point that I raised in Committee and my amendment. It is very important that her department will issue guidelines and advice to schools and strengthen the provisions for making sure—I entirely accept this—that employment agencies will check the status and qualifications of teachers, as well as whether they are on List 99.
On the question of police records, I realise that this is an extremely sensitive issue to which have no very easy answer. If it were possible to have some system whereby the statement of the person who wishes to he employed could be checked by the Home Office, that would mean that no one would have to see those records. I see that that would be totally inappropriate.
I conclude by thanking my noble friend. I shall read carefully what she has said. I should be grateful if she could send me a draft of the provisions when they are drawn up so that I can have a look at them. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 268B:
After Clause 255, insert the following new clause:
("Schools acquiring grant-maintained status
.—( ) Where a school that is part of a scheme made under section 33 of the Education Reform Act 1988—

(a) acquires grant-maintained status, and

(b) and its expenditure has exceeded its budget for the financial year in which it acquires grant-maintained status,

187
the amount by which the expenditure exceeds the budget shall be deducted from the amount recoverable under section 91 of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the proposed new clause is that, where a grant-maintained school, in the first year of its new status, runs up bills in excess of its budget, that cost should not fall on the local authority. That is obviously desirable not only in itself, but also because the new grant-maintained school should be strongly discouraged from operating outside its budgetary limits. I am sure that the Minister will not wish to give the impression that the Government want the local authority to carry the can for any excess payments entered into by a grant-maintained school. In order to ensure that, the provision should appear on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment and I wish briefly to address it. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the amount of any debt in the revenue account of a school opting out may not be recovered from the local education authority.
There have been various allegations along those lines and the Secretary of State has admitted that some schools have run up their deficits after grant-maintained status has been granted. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has begun to receive reports that a number of schools have cynically been setting out to create deficits during their final month under local education authority control in order to exploit this current loophole in the law.
It has also been alleged that some groups or individuals with an interest in promoting grant-maintained status have been encouraging schools to engage in that dubious moral practice and have advised them how it can be done in such a way that the local education authority does not discover what is going on until it is too late. In one extreme case the school placed an order for computer equipment with an advance payment of some £30,000. It was not until the end of the financial year that it was discovered by the local education authority.
The amendment tries to close that loophole, of which I am sure the Government are aware. I can see no reasonable ground for resisting it. It does no more than encourage prudent management and allow the recovery of proper debts. If there are technical objections to the drafting of the amendment, I shall be happy to withdraw it and to take on board any objections which the Minister may have on those grounds.
Lord Henley: My Lords, there are slightly more than technical objections to the drafting. I am not a draftsman but my advice is that the amendment does not make sense and does not achieve what the noble Lord or the noble Baroness wish. For that reason alone we would have to oppose it but, as the noble Lord so generously said, if we were opposing it only on those grounds he could take it away and come back with something better.
188
We disagree with the intention as well as with the amendment itself. I am sure that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will agree that all those assuming a responsibility for the management of public funds must discharge that responsibility with the seriousness and integrity that as taxpayers we have a right to demand.
Under the local management of schools it should not be possible for any significant deficit to arise without the knowledge of the local education authority. Many LMS-related deficits arise, for example, where the LEA has agreed a request of the LEA school to meet expenditure beyond the amount of the school's LMS budget share. It may be that this is done on the basis that the amount will be subtracted from the following year's budget share. However, we do not consider that fact to be sufficient to cause the GM governing body to be liable to repay those sums.
That is not to say that LEA schools should have a blank cheque on which to write overspending of their LMS budget share. Governors need to bear in mind that, unless they have express or implied authority from the LEA, and are as normal acting as agents of the LEA, spending above a school's LMS budget share is prohibited. But that is a different issue from the question of whether a liability falls to be met by a GM school following on.
I presume that the intention behind the amendment is that the Government should write off any deficit accumulated by an LEA-maintained school when it becomes grant-maintained. We believe that that intention would seriously undermine the proper financial management of LEA school budgets. Local authorities and their schools would no longer be accountable for the proper control of spending if they knew that the Government would cover any overspend. It would not be a proper use of Exchequer funds to support such spending, which would have been local authority spending, albeit through the agency of school governors, and which it properly falls to the local authority to meet. It would not do for local authorities to wash their hands of responsibility in this way, and we shall continue to recover from all authorities the full cost of AMG for schools in their areas.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that it is not the drafting of the amendment which is the problem—although, as I said, there are objections to that—but rather, the intention behind it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that is an extremely unsatisfactory response. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made it clear that there have been cases in which that excessive expenditure has been improperly entered into. It seems quite unreasonable that the local authority should have to carry the can for that school which is passing out of its control. I believe that the Minister agreed that that has happened on occasion. Will he take away the amendment and look at ways in which an agreed malpractice could be controlled, other than by requiring local authorities to pay bills on which they have entered into no commitment, having been incurred by a school for which ultimately they will have no responsibility but which will be the responsibility of the Government?
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must tell the noble Baroness that I am not prepared to take away the amendment. While a school has local management of its own funds it should not be possible for a deficit to arise without the knowledge of the LEA. The LEA has rights and responsibilities in those matters and the LEA must ensure that the school does not go beyond what it can spend in its budget. We feel that it is right that it should be a matter of responsibility for the local education authority.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that is an extremely unsatisfactory reply. I am tempted to call a Division but I shall not do so at this time of night. I fear that the Minister has appreciated the point but, once again, he is determined to support grant-maintained schools and to do down local authorities. This is another example of that which has prevailed throughout our discussions on the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 258 [Inter-authority recoupment]:
Baroness David Baroness David had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 268C:
Leave out Clause 258.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, there alighted on my desk this afternoon a letter from the Minister together with a fairly bulky consultation paper on recoupment. I understand from the letter which was sent to chief education officers and chief finance officers with the consultation paper that the Government intend to alter the framework of inter-authority recoupment. Comments are not to be in until 15th October. Therefore, it seems stupid to begin discussion this evening on Clause 258 in the light of this paper, which is fairly bulky. I have not yet had an opportunity to look properly at it. It seems sensible to examine it and seek advice on it before the next stage of the Bill. I do not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 268C not moved.]
2 a.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 268D:
After Clause 258, insert the following new clause:
("Grants for the Education of refugees and displaced persons
In section 210 of the Education Reform Act 1988 for paragraph (c) there is substituted—
"(c) he is a refugee or displaced person who is for the time being resident in a camp or other temporary accommodation or establishment".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 210 of the Education Reform Act enables the Secretary of State to make grants to local education authorities for educating the children of travellers and refugees resident in camps or purpose-built accommodation. The proposed new clause seeks to amend Section 210 of the Education Reform Act 1988 which currently restricts expenditure of grant to provision of people who are resident,
"in a camp or other accommodation or establishment provided for refugees or for displaced or similar persons".
The Government have argued that the amendment is unnecessary and unworkable and that Section 210 grant provides for those exceptional circumstances
190
where significant numbers of refugees enter as a group and are temporarily accommodated in a dedicated camp or reception centre. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, argued (Hansard, 13th May, col. 1427) that there is no reason to assume that people living in temporary accommodation have by definition any particular educational needs of the kind that Section 210 is intended to address.
However, the task of the education service, and more particularly each school, is to assist the assimilation of each child or young person into the classroom. That includes refugee children, whether or not they are housed in specific camps or in temporary accommodation. The task involved is considerable. The refugee children are already coping with a major change in circumstances and may also be dealing with the direct effect of persecution and death. Each child will have little or no knowledge of English and no experience of the UK education system. The cultural and religious background may be fundamentally different. The length of time of residence in the country is uncertain. Such matters present major challenges to the education authority, school and teacher as well as to the child.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, also argued that LEAs receive allowance in their revenue support grant to meet such needs. However, the pupil count which determines the RSG takes place once a year and refugees and asylum seekers do not have the luxury of timing their arrival in the UK to coincide with the pupil count, or, for that matter, with the bidding timetable for the grant. Therefore, LEAs are often excluded from receiving resources to respond to the educational needs of children of nomadic communities, refugees and asylum seekers. It is, therefore, irrelevant to suggest that the possible abolition of recoupment between authorities will enable an authority to receive funding for refugee children based on the number of pupils in its schools, regardless of their authority of residence.
The situation is further compounded by the restricted eligibility for Section 210 grant which also requires communities to be housed in specific camps. It is not always appropriate for homeless people to be accommodated in camps or in hostels. The pressure on housing means that such accommodation is not available to housing departments. Besides, it is not considered to be desirable to locate people in a single unit where they may be subject to hostility. In fact, homeless people are normally accommodated within bed and breakfast hotel accommodation or in accommodation within the local authority pool.
The needs are particularly acute in London. London education authorities are required to respond to a year-on-year demand from the majority of those admitted to the United Kingdom. The London Research Centre has found that up to 90 per cent. of refugees come to the London area. It has also shown that 1,500 homeless households were accommodated by London boroughs in 1989–90; 2,500 in 1991; 2,500 in 1991–92; and an estimated 2,000 in 1992–93. In October 1992, a survey of London boroughs conducted by the ALA and the London Boroughs

191
Association revealed that some 550 households were accommodated in temporary accommodation in the London area.
Each household is in priority housing need and will have a number of children. The London area receives a number of unaccompanied children each year—150 children from Eritrea in 1990 and an average of 25 each year are accommodated by the social services. Such accommodation falls outside the scope of Section 210 grant for the education of travellers and displaced persons. The provision of services to refugees and asylum seekers is also outside the scope of Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966.
The London boroughs are therefore required to provide a range of services including education. A survey carried out by the ALA and LBA has identified some 7,000 refugee children being provided with intensive English language tuition. A further 3,300 adults were receiving intensive English language tuition. Hence the importance of these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I would very much like to support the amendment which stands also in my name. It surely must be in everyone's interest for displaced persons and refugees who are in this country and are likely to stay in this country to have all the advantages of education and to learn the language and adjust to the country that they are in. That is bound to incur costs that it would be unreasonable to expect the local authority to bear without additional support. I very much hope the Government will be able to accept this modest amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, this amendment seeks, as we know, to extend the scope of Section 210 of the Education Reform Act 1988. At present the application of Section 210 of the Education Reform Act 1988, and of the regulations made under it, is limited to,
"those who are for the time being resident in a camp or other accommodation or establishment provided for refugees or for displaced or similar persons".
The accommodation should be such as is provided exclusively for displaced persons. Provision for those living in hostel accommodation, in the form of bed and breakfast arrangements, or council housing, falls outside the scope of the grant since that accommodation is not provided exclusively for displaced persons but for anybody whomsoever the authority considers to be in need of it.
As the noble Lord will be aware, Section 210 grant replaced an earlier arrangement known as the "No Area Pool", which enabled local authorities to claim additional funding from central government to meet the educational needs of people who were not ordinarily resident in their area. That included nomadic people, displaced persons and others.
Section 210 was never intended to provide the sole means of support for the education of travellers and of displaced persons. LEAs receive allowance in their revenue support grant to meet the basic educational needs of all pupils, including travellers and displaced persons, based on numbers recorded in the annual pupil count. Where local education authorities are
192
making extra provision to meet the particular educational needs of travellers and of those displaced persons within scope of the grant, over and above what is normally provided in school, they may apply for funding from Section 210 grant.
As we have noted earlier, the education element of revenue support grant contains a generous weighting for the costs of meeting additional educational needs of all kinds—including needs that arise from social factors. Those authorities who benefit most from this weighting are those London authorities where the problem of housing in temporary accommodation is most acute. We believe that the noble Lord's amendment also defines the beneficiaries of grant rather more narrowly than Section 210 currently does. The present wording relates to,
"refugees or displaced or similar persons."
The wording of the noble Lord's amendment relates only to "refugees or displaced persons". It is possible this narrower definition could exclude some groups currently within scope of the grant, such as those given "exceptional leave to remain", or those who have recently been admitted to this country under the special arrangements for those previously held in detention camps in Bosnia, together with their dependants. The UK offered to take these people out of Bosnia, to give them temporary protection: they are not therefore regarded as "displaced" in the normal sense of that word.
I hope I may add two further points. First, the Department of the Environment announced two schemes in February to help local authorities facing unexpectedly heavy demands as a result of influxes of displaced persons—one for those from former Yugoslavia, and one for unaccompanied children.
Section 210 grant is not designed to deal with short-term needs: LEAs have to submit detailed project proposals well in advance of the start of the financial year for which funding is sought.
I should add a few words on the educational needs of refugees who do not qualify for Section 210 support at the moment. The main educational need of such displaced persons will be to learn English. Most local education authorities receive financial support from the Home Office under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 for the provision of teachers of English as a second language for ethnic minority pupils.
I am conscious, as the noble Lord will be, that, for historical reasons, Section 11 is restricted to members of New Commonwealth ethnic minorities. The noble Lord will be aware that a Private Member's Bill is currently under consideration which would remove that current restriction. The Government have previously accepted that the removal of that restriction would be desirable. We believe that that could be a more appropriate way forward.
I hope that, in view of what I have said and my explanation of how we see the position, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am always grateful for the gracious way in which the noble Lord replies to these points.

193
There is an urgent need, and it has to be met. Pursuing the amendment at this hour of the night will not achieve the desired result. That is quite clear. I hope that Ministers recognise the need and, in the spirit in which the Minister spoke, will address it effectively. In the hope that that will happen, and with the observation that if it does not we shall find ways of returning to the question, which is a crucially important humanitarian issue, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
clause 260 [Grants by Secretary of State in respect of aided and special agreement schools]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 268E:
Page 162, line 44, at end insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to any other duty of his, the Secretary of State shall, in performing functions relating to the exercise of the power under this section to make grants in respect of expenditure on—

(a) such alterations to school buildings as are referred to in section 15(3) (a) of the Education Act 1944 (alterations required by local education authority in order to comply with prescribed standards), and

(b) the repair of school buildings,

give priority to paying grant in respect of expenditure which is necessary for the performance by governing bodies of their duties; and the amount of any grant paid in the exercise of that power in respect of such expenditure on the repair of school buildings shall be 85 per cent. of the expenditure.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 268E is grouped with Amendments Nos. 268F and 268G. I shall speak first to Amendments Nos. 268E and 268G, standing in my name.
We have had considerable discussions, both inside and outside this Chamber, with representatives of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church about the effect of Clause 260. This clause replaces the existing powers and duties relating to the payment of grant to voluntary aided and special agreement schools. It provides a new power for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to pay grant to the governors of existing schools and to the promoters of new schools in respect of expenditure incurred by them on the provision, alteration or repair of premises or equipment for the school.
The Churches' anxieties about this clause have focused on three main issues. First, they have objected to the replacement of the current duty on the Secretary of State to fund repairs and alterations to school buildings with a power to do so, albeit in respect of all desirable improvement work rather than the limited category of alterations to which the current duty relates. Secondly, they have objected to the provision in Clause 260 to grant-aid repairs at up to 85 per cent. of expenditure rather than, as now, at 85 per cent. Finally, they have expressed concern about the scope of the power given to the Secretary of State to attach requirements to grant payments in respect of the return to him of funds should the premises cease to be used for the purposes for which such grant was paid.
I made it clear during our consideration of this clause in Committee on 13th May that the Government's policy is to fund repairs which the governors are obliged to undertake in order to comply with a duty, and to set the rate of grant at 85 per cent. of the expenditure which they incur. Nevertheless, in
194
response to continuing concerns expressed at the time by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I undertook to consider further whether we could introduce an amendment which placed some reassurance on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 268E is the result of that consideration, and I am confident that it should provide the reassurance which the Churches are looking for. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to give priority to grant-aiding governors' repair expenditure and their expenditure on certain alterations—the categories of expenditure which my right honourable friend is currently obliged to grant-aid—where the governors are required to incur the expenditure in order to comply with a duty in statute or common law. The amendment also sets the rate of grant in respect of such expenditure incurred on repairs at 85 per cent., as is the case now.
Amendment No. 268G is a technical one which corrects an inadvertent extension currently in Clause 260 of the Secretary of State's power to grant-aid governors' repair expenditure to that which they might incur in respect of repairs to the internal fabric of the school buildings. Under the Education Act 1944 such repairs are the responsibility of the LEA. Where governors voluntarily incur such repair expenditure they will need to look, as now, to the LEA or to their Local Management of Schools budget to support it.
The amendments go a considerable way towards meeting the Churches' apprehensions about the new funding arrangements for voluntary-aided and special agreement schools. In discussions with me, the right reverend Prelate was kind enough to pay tribute to the extent to which we have met almost all the points of concern of both main Churches in the course of the Bill's passage. I hope that he can accept the amendments in that spirit. I commend them to the House. I shall respond to Amendment No. 268F after it has been presented to the House. I beg to move.
2.15 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister and to the Government for moving the amendment. The amendments go a long way towards meeting our anxieties. First, the amendment makes it clear that where there is expenditure necessary for repair or required alterations, the Government will continue to fulfil their responsibilities for making grants and give priority to them.
Perhaps I may ask just one question. It has been reported in the press recently that the Secretary of State may be withdrawing the prescribed standards. If that is to be the case, I wonder what the impact will be on sub-paragraph (a) of the amendment. That question was not in my mind when we met the Minister and discussed these issues.
Secondly, the amendment makes it clear that these grants will be at 85 per cent. That gives us reassurance and, furthermore, it helps us over the insurance problems which I outlined in Committee. When we discussed this in Committee, the Minister said that I shocked her. I am sorry about that, but I am sure she

195
will understand when I say that the DfE smelling salts have worked wonders. I am immensely grateful for the amendments which have so reassured us.
There is, however, still a gap between us, and I hope that we can bridge it. The government amendments do not deal with recoupment grants. By Clause 260, Clause 82, and as a result of Amendment No. 111 moved on 10th June, the Secretary of State takes power to call in all grants if a school closes. In Committee, the Minister sought to reassure us. She said that this provision,
"will have a very limited application, where assets of voluntary-aided and special agreement schools are not otherwise recycled for educational purposes".
She went on to say:
"I should make it absolutely clear that no requirement for repayment will be attached to grant being paid in respect of school premises owned by the trustees".—[Official Report, 13/5/93; col. 1454.]
All that was reassuring, so far as it went, but I have to say—I hope that the Minister will not feel that I am still being difficult—that if the provision is intended for that limited purpose, then the powers taken by the Secretary of State are out of all proportion. If all that is intended is the narrowly defined recoupment of grant where a school is in third party ownership, why does the Secretary of State need to have the unfettered power to call in grants whenever he wants to do so? I accept that the present Administration will honour the undertaking that the Minister has given. But I must recognise that Ministers are reshuffled; Governments alter; circumstances change; policies shift. In the future, in circumstances which we may not be able now clearly to foresee, those wide-ranging powers could legitimately be used in a devastatingly different way.
My argument therefore is a simple one. If the Government want only limited clawback powers for use in strictly limited circumstances, that is all we need to have on the face of the Bill. My amendment is an attempt to provide just that. I hope that the Minister will at least accept the spirit of my amendment, even if the words present some technical difficulty.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, has the Minister seen the newspaper report about a letter which the Secretary of State for Education has sent to members of the Cabinet? The report states that Ministers are about to drop school building regulations in England and Wales because the repairs and improvements to bring schools up to standard would be too expensive. Mr. Patten stated that there was no realistic prospect of finding the capital expenditure to bring schools up to the standards of the Government's 1981 regulations. That report appears to be authentic. If that is the situation, then the proposals in the amendment will not arise.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I should like to add my support to the concerns that were expressed by the right reverend Prelate, in particular about the wording of Clause 260(8) by which the Government give themselves a preference. It appears to be a "heads I win, tails you lose" arrangement. I should feel more comfortable with a "for richer, for poorer"
196
arrangement, which could be achieved if subsection 8(b) stood alone; in other words, the grant would not be returned to the Government even if the item on which the grant had been spent had become worth less or worthless.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, would it not be fairer if all creditors were put on the same footing?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we understand the concern of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford about the effect of Clause 260(5). However, we feel that his amendment goes too far in that it would make the subsection inoperable. For that reason it is unacceptable.
It may be helpful if I reiterate briefly what I said during our consideration of this provision in Committee on 13th May. Clause 260(5) is intended to enable the recovery of assets which have been provided or enhanced by grant aid to voluntary aided and special agreement schools, should the assets cease to be used for the purposes for which grant was paid. Requirements to secure a recovery of assets will be imposed in strictly limited circumstances, where property which is made available for the purposes of a voluntary aided or special agreement school is not recycled for educational purposes.
Recycling takes place except where the property is owned by persons other than the trustees and is made available to them under a lease or a licence agreement. We propose, therefore, that recovery of assets will be pursued in those very limited circumstances; that is, where property which is owned by persons other than the trustees is used for a school under the terms of a new lease or licence agreement that is entered into after the legislation has come into force. I should like to emphasise that in all other cases, which constitute the vast majority, no requirement will be attached to the payment of grant.
The right reverend Prelate's amendment renders subsection (5) inoperable, since all voluntary aided and special agreement schools are held by trustees on trust for the purpose of the school, including those which are conducted under a lease or licence agreement.
The amendment, therefore, goes too far by precluding the imposition of a requirement in the few cases where it is necessary.
We intend to continue our discussion with representatives of Churches in relation to this provision. I can therefore reassure the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords that we have not lost sight of this important issue. Technical problems arise if the boundaries to the operation of the claw-back provision are included in the Bill. We are engaged in urgent discussions with the parliamentary draftsmen and, despite the complications, I have not given up hope of introducing an amendment at Third Reading that will clarify the basis upon which the provision will operate and properly recognise the question that is of concern to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the right reverend Prelate.
In the event of deregulation of the School Premises Regulations, there would be no effect on the provisions of the amendment. Grant will still be paid

197
according to the requirements of premises, for example, health and safety requirements. As to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, it is not my practice, nor should it be, to respond to leaks in newspapers.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 268F:
Page 163, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) No requirements may be imposed under subsection (5) above in connection with the payment of grant in respect of premises which are held by trustees on trust for the purposes of the aided school or special agreement school in question.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I do not wish to move the amendment, However, I take the opportunity of thanking the Minister for her reference to urgent discussion still continuing. I am grateful for that. I hope that we shall be able to reach agreement by Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 268F not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 268G:
Page 163, line 33, at end insert:
("( ) In this section "repair" does not include repair falling within section 15(3) (b) of the Education Act 1944 (repair for which governing body are not responsible).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was debated with Amendment No. 268E. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 266 [Religious educational trusts: adoption of statutory trusts]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 268H to 268M:
Page 165, line 20, leave out from ("with") to end of line 24 and insert ("—

(i) the provision of religious education at relevant schools, or relevant schools of any description (but not only at a particular school or schools) in a diocese or other geographical area; or

(ii) the provision of premises for relevant schools, or relevant schools of any description (but not only at a particular school or schools) at which religious education is or is to be provided in a diocese or other geographical area;").

Page 165, line 26, leave out ("parish").
Page 166, line 27, at end insert:
(""provision", in relation to premises, means provision by the purchase of a site, the erection of premises or the maintenance, improvement or enlargement of premises;").
Page 166, leave out line 28.
Page 166, line 30, at end insert:
("religious education" means religious education in accordance with the tenets of a particular religion or religious denomination; and "religious education fund" includes a Sunday school fund.")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 267 [Religious educational trusts: supplementary provision]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 268N:
Page 167, line 3, at end insert:
("( ) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
"(5A) Where a scheme given effect under this section provides for the endowments dealt with by the order or any
198
part of them to be used for the purposes specified in Schedule 16 to the Education Act 1993, any such scheme may provide for the endowments thereby dealt with or any part of them to be added to any existing endowment applicable for those purposes (whether it is so applicable by virtue of a scheme given effect under this section or otherwise)."").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 269:
After Clause 267, insert the following new clause:
("Voluntary and grant-maintained schools: teachers' pay and conditions
Employment of certain teachers: pay and conditions
After section 3 of the School Teachers' Pay arid Conditions Act 1991 (special provisions as to grant-maintained schools) there is inserted—
"Special provisions for teachers on transfer of employment.
3A.—(1) This section applies where a school teacher employed to teach at an independent school—

(a) which becomes a county or voluntary school in pursuance of proposals published under section 12(1) (b) or, as the case may he, 13(1) (a) of the Education Act 1980, or

(b) in place of which a grant-maintained school is established in pursuance of proposals published under section 47 of the Education Act 1993, becomes employed (in the case of a county or voluntary school) by the local education authority or the governing body or (in the case of a grant-maintained school) by the governing body in accordance with the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

(2) A pay and conditions order shall not apply to the statutory conditions of employment of such a teacher unless he gives notice in writing to the new employer that the order is to so apply.
(3) Where the governing body of an aided school receive notice given under subsection (2) above, they shall inform the local education authority.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Uniform Statutory Trusts For Educational Endowments]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 269ZA to 269ZF:
Page 224, line 37, leave out ("or") and insert:
("( ) in or towards the purchase of a site for, or the erection, improvement or enlargement of, the premises of a teacher's house for use in connection with any relevant school in the area, and").
Page 224, line 49, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
Page 225, line 2, after second ("the") insert ("relevant").
Page 225, line 2, after ("assets") insert ("for either of the purposes").
Page 225, line 4, after second ("the") insert ("relevant").
Page 225, line 4, at end insert ("for any of the purposes").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendments concern schemes made under Section 86 of the Education Act 1944 and orders made under Section 2 of the Education Act 1973 which provide for the assets representing discontinued denominational voluntary and grant-maintained schools to be vested in diocesan authorities and applied for the benefit of continuing voluntary and grant-maintained schools.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the relevant government amendments accepted at Committee stage which made three new provisions. First, they gave diocesan authorities power to standardise the trusts related to endowments of closed voluntary and grant-maintained schools within existing schemes and orders into a new common

199
format by the adoption of uniform statutory trusts. Secondly, they enable the income, but not the capital, arising under schemes or orders to be applied for wider purposes than at present. Finally, the amendments enable the endowments held on uniform statutory trusts to be amalgamated so as to constitute a single charity. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, once again I thank the Minister. Many of the amendments improve the matters relating to Section 2 and Section 86 orders and schemes. We are very grateful for this as we are for so many other issues where the Government have met our anxieties. I do not wish people to think that we are not grateful.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 269ZG:
After Clause 270, insert the following new clause:
Corporal punishment
(".—(1) Section 47 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (corporal punishment) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after "pupil" there is inserted "to whom this subsection applies" and after that subsection there is inserted—

"(1A) Where, in any proceedings, it is shown that corporal punishment has been given to a pupil by or on the authority of a member of the staff, giving the punishment cannot be justified if the punishment was inhuman or degrading.

(1B) In determining whether punishment is inhuman or degrading regard shall be had to all the circumstances of the case, including the reason for giving it, how soon after the event it is given, its nature, the manner and circumstances in which it is given, the persons involved and its mental and physical effects."

(3) In subsection (5)—

(a) for the words preceding paragraph (a) there is substituted "Subsection (1) above applies to a pupil", and

(b) for "but" there is substituted "and in this section "pupil".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
2.30 a.m.
Clause 271 [Provision of goods and services by local education authorities]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 269ZH:
Page 168, line 28, after ("grant-maintained") insert ("or grant-maintained special").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment merely represents a technicality, ensuring that grant-maintained schools will fall within the liberalising terms of Clause 271. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 269ZJ:
Page 168, line 39, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have decided that this amendment and the following one, Amendment No. 269ZK, are too important to be moved at this time of the morning, so we shall defer discussion of them until the next stage of the Bill.
[Amendments Nos. 269ZJ and 269ZK not moved.]
Clause 272 [Abolition of requirement to establish education committees]:
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 269A:
Leave out Clause 272 and insert the following new clause:
("Education Committees
When an order or orders under section 10(1) (b) of this Act are made in respect of both kinds of education in the area of a local education authority section 6(2) of, and part II of the First Schedule to the Education Act 1944 (Education Committees) shall not apply to that local education authority.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I am sorry to speak again and bring this matter back to the House, but I think it is important that I should do so. The amendment has the effect of requiring LEAs to retain their education committees until the 75 per cent. trigger point is reached. I moved this at Committee stage, and at the end of the discussion the Minister said that she was impressed by some of the arguments. As the only two speakers were myself and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, we can share this unexpected accolade. The Minister went on to say that she would consider the arguments before Report. I have had some discussion with her over the matter and I am grateful to her for providing the time for us to discuss the issues.
The Bill gives freedom to local authorities not to have education committees if they do not wish to. As the educational responsibilities of local authorities diminish over time, that will be a valued freedom. In the longer term I accept the proposal. The likelihood is either that local authorities will want to combine education with, let us say, social services, or—and I think this is the more likely—they will distribute their educational responsibilities to social services, transport, planning or policy committees.
In the longer term, when local authorities have no direct responsibility for schools, that is acceptable. But while a local authority has responsibility for a significant number of schools, it seems to me right that they should have a properly constituted committee to discharge their educational functions. Anything less is not to take education seriously.
Surely the local government commission might set up a new unitary local authority. It might still have responsibility for all the schools in its area. But, under the Bill as drafted, it could try to administer the schools through another committee or through a number of committees. I cannot think that that is right and if until now local authorities have been required to have proper education committees, surely they should continue to have them now, while they have a significant number of schools to administer. Education is a major responsibility, it merits being monitored and administered by people who make that their special concern. Anything less would be to treat education as second rate.
The second reason for retaining education committees up to the trigger point is that the Churches will continue to have representation on the body, which ensures that they can continue to work in partnership and to do their own strategic planning. It will avoid any risk that there are Church representatives on committees dealing with concerns other than education which could be inappropriate and might be resented.
My third reason in support of the amendment is that some of the local authorities themselves want it. They see my amendment, if I understand them correctly, as ensuring that education and local authority responsibility for education is being acknowledged as significant and valued. I hope, therefore, that the House will think this a modest but significant improvement to the Bill.
Also grouped with this amendment are Amendments Nos. 269B to 269H. Perhaps I may speak to those. They are amendments to government amendments which were moved in Committee. The Government moved these amendments at Committee stage in order to ensure that Church representation could continue in the event of there being no education committee. However, we foresee difficulties with the amendments and for that reason I move a number of minor or even technical amendments to them.
Our concern is to be represented on the appropriate local government committee that deals with the primary educational responsibilities if no education committee is dealing with them. Our primary concern is to deal with strategic planning; that is to say, the establishment, change of character or closure of schools. These matters never affect one school alone. There is always a knock-on effect. As the Churches have their own strategic planning to do, we need to be in partnership with those who have an overall strategic planning responsibility.
As it now stands in the Bill, Clause 273 would enable us to be represented on any committee which deals exclusively or mainly with education. But if a local authority were to combine education with social services, that combined committee will not deal exclusively with education, and probably not mainly with education. If (and I think this more likely) a local authority distributes its educational responsibilities across a number of committees, education will not be a main, and never an exclusive, responsibility anywhere. I suggest therefore that the clause will not work. We need to tackle the problem the other way round, and arrange for representation on the committee which deals with a substantial part of the educational responsibility. Even that may not ensure that we are represented on the committee responsible for strategic planning. Therefore, even with my amendment, some uncertainties remain. It is partly for that reason that my amendment includes a new sub-clause to provide that the Secretary of State can direct any named local education authority, instructing it to include representatives on a named committee.
I have to say that all this amounts to a second-best solution and strengthens the argument for my early amendment to keep education committees until the 75 per cent. trigger point. I hope, therefore, that these various matters will be considered by the Minister. I am very grateful to her for the time and trouble that she has already taken over this matter. It may be that we have to continue these negotiations outside the House, but I thought it right to bring them back to the House at this stage.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have been consulting the local authority associations and the Churches on how best to preserve the position of the Churches. They believe that the answer lies in providing appropriate voting rights and representation on local authority committees where education issues are involved. That would reaffirm the rights accorded under existing legislation to representatives or persons who appoint foundation governors of voluntary schools in the context of the new arrangements.
The Government expect to produce an agreed amendment with the Churches at Third Reading which will remove the need for the right reverend Prelate's amendment to Clause 272 and consequential Amendment No. 286B. I hope that he will withdraw it. The amendments that I have in mind would also remove the need for the right reverend Prelate's amendments to Clause 273.
I am in no disagreement with the direction of the right reverend Prelate's amendments. We have been working on similar lines ourselves. Unfortunately there are real difficulties about the amendments to Clause 273 as they stand. For one thing, it would be necessary to identify the totality of an authority's LEA functions in order to determine whether the committee deals with a substantial part of them, and that is no easy task. I also venture to suggest that the amendments may not achieve all that the right reverend Prelate wishes. They would not operate when a committee dealt with all the authority's education functions.
Those difficulties have exercised us as regards our own attempts to bring forward a comparable but more effective amendment. I am confident that we can improve on these amendments in consultation with the Churches. With your Lordships' agreement I ask the right reverend Prelate to withdraw his amendment with a view to bringing forward a similar but more acceptable amendment at Third Reading.
As we are talking about local education authorities and their functions, perhaps I could use this opportunity to mention that I have had expressed to me concerns about the way in which self-governing schools have been refused services by some LEAs. I am not able to respond immediately to those concerns but I would wish to dwell on the matter between now and Third Reading and if necessary to come forward with an amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the assurance that we shall continue our discussions. In the hope that we can reach agreement at Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 273 [Power of Secretary of State to direct appointment of members of committees]:
[Amendments Nos. 269B to 269H not moved.]
Clause 274 [Exceptional provision of education in school or elsewhere]:
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 269J:

203
Page 169, line 42, at end insert ("and separate arrangements shall be made as respects children for whom provision is made by reason of illness from those made as respects other children").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am very sorry to have to tell your Lordships that the wife of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, who has been very ill and whose situation was critical today, has taken a turn for the worse and the noble Lord has been called to the hospice.
These amendments relate to children in hospital. It is difficult to imagine any of your Lordships disagreeing with the aims of the amendments. They are to separate, in this Bill, the sick children who need education in hospital or while convalescing at home from the children excluded from school for other reasons such as truancy, disruptive behaviour and so on. Their needs are very different.
Sick children need to have their conditions understood. They need teachers who have a sensitivity and dedication toward dealing with illness and injury as well as the motivation to teach children at different stages of their education. The conditions cover a wide span—leukaemia, cancer, orthopaedic cases, spinal injury, cystic fibrosis, kidney disease, heart problems, arthritis, serious burns and illnesses of all kinds; the list is endless. There are also children with psychological problems and those with learning difficulties and eating disorders. The psychological problems are as important as the physical ones. They all need to be overcome.
But continuity of education and help for the children in order to keep up with the curriculum so long as they are well enough are vital. Otherwise they will drop behind and have problems when they go back to their normal schools.
There is a real fear that the education of sick children will be cut if their educational needs are submerged in all the other categories included in:
"Exceptional provision of education in school or elsewhere".
The reason is that education authorities will have to organise hospital education for many children from beyond the authority where the children are, as so many children attending hospitals with specialist units often come long distances from their homes.
Until parents have a sick child they do not realise the importance of these facilities. There are to be many changes in counties because of the boundary changes. The education of sick children throughout the country is patchy. Some services have already been cut or are very limited. Today I have had a fax from Pinderfields Hospital School in Wakefield which said:
"The school is registered with the Department of Education and has a properly constituted Board of Governors. Funding is from the Wakefield LEA, Pinderfields recharging the Wakefield MDC to cover use of premises, heat, light etc. The head teacher … is supported by seven teachers, a nursery nurse, two school assistants and a secretary. There is throughput of 1,250 pupils per year with a range of 38 to 72 at any one time and an average of 50. An appropriate educational service is provided to all children in the hospital from the first day that they are notified by medical/nursing staff to be well enough to take part. Teaching takes place on the wards as well as in the school and there is a minimum qualifying length of stay before teaching commences".
The Pinderfields Hospital School is an example of
204
good practice and provides a high standard of education to children in hospital. There is a good working relationship between Pinderfields and Wakefield MDC. These are excellent facilities that we want to see safeguarded throughout the country. Already councils like Cumbria do not pay for the education of such children unless they have been sick for at least a month. St Thomas's Hospital is also very limited.
I have met many children with horrific injuries who have been helped by their teachers. They have given them hope and that has led to the building up of trust. It has opened the way to the rebuilding of their lives. One 16 year-old girl who was doing her GCE had meningitis that developed into septicaemia. She had to have both legs and four fingers of her right hand amputated. It was the teacher who helped her and gave her confidence to fight back to achieve as near normal a life as possible. Education is vital for these children. I beg to move.
2.45 a.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Baroness. My name appears in both amendments. Basically, we are talking about specialist educational help for a special group. The people in hospital are initially grouped with those who do not have the same kind of problem and thus must be regarded as having a great variety of individual problems. One cannot put too many people together. The minute one has an overall group one creates exceptions and specialist assistance is required. I do not believe that the Government can disagree with the intention underlying the amendments. Once it is given any thought it is patently obvious—especially in view of the noble Baroness's thorough introduction—that there should be a special way to deal with the matter. I hope that the Government will be able to put something into the Bill to address these considerations.
Baroness David: My Lords, my name too appears against some of these amendments. I should like to speak particularly to Amendments Nos. 269J and 269K. I think it is important that the Government should not group together any children who are disruptive, or may have been in that kind of trouble, with sick children in hospital just because that might be a convenient way of dealing with a number of children. I hope that we shall be given the reassurance that that will not happen in any circumstances.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I have been asked to raise a matter by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington. I am sure that we all associate ourselves with the expression of sympathy for the wife of the noble Lord, as expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I wish to raise a question on subsection (4). One of the problems of the clause is that there are some areas where what is intended is not completely clear. Perhaps the noble Baroness could say something about the force of the word "may" in subsection (4). One would perhaps have preferred the subsection to read,

205
"shall make arrangements for the provision of suitable full-time or part-time education".
I wonder whether the Minister can give us the assurance we seek about the treatment of ill and sick children as distinct from the other groups listed in the subsection with them, which I am afraid is bound to make the House a little suspicious.
Finally, perhaps she would be so kind as to say something further in regard to the force of the words, "suitable education" when applied to children with specific needs that may arise from certain conditions or illnesses.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I have supported an amendment along these lines from the earliest stages of the Bill. It always seemed to me that the phrase in Clause 274, lumping together,
"illness, exclusion from school or otherwise",
was inappropriate. On a previous occasion I incurred the wrath of the noble Baroness by raising the question of exclusions when she thought it inappropriate. In fact, she helpfully referred to exclusions this evening and brought into the Bill various measures which are designed to reduce them. However, that does not mean that the problem will go away.
It seems to me to be intuitively quite inappropriate that sick children should be included in the same provision as children who are excluded for other reasons. In fact, not only the tabloid press but even some of the respectable dailies have taken to referring to the places where truants and expelled pupils are educated as council "sin bins". It does not seem appropriate that any sick child should be educated from or administered from a "sin bin". I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give us a little comfort on that matter.
Lord Judd: My Lords, perhaps I can say briefly from these Benches that we would like to associate ourselves with the messages of concern for my noble friend Lord Young and his wife. It is distressing news and I hope that our good wishes can be conveyed to him.
I should also like to take the opportunity of saying that we find these amendments timely and right. We believe that those concerned have focused attention on a serious need Which must be met, and we hope that the Government can respond positively.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I too should like to be associated with the comments in regard to the noble Lord, Lord Young. He has been stalwart throughout the Bill, waiting until the late hours of the night knowing that he had the pressures of a sick wife. We are extremely distressed at the news tonight and I hope that we can find a way of ensuring that he knows that our thoughts are with him.
Perhaps I can also say that there is a serious misunderstanding about the grouping together of children who are sick and children who are out of school for other reasons. The only commonality is a reference in the Bill to "education otherwise". It is an obligation on local authorities to provide education for all children who are out of school. Some of those children will be truants, some will be excluded and some will be sick. What is absolutely right and proper
206
is that whatever provision is made for those children should be appropriate to their needs; in other words, that sick children are properly educated either in hospital or by home tutors, or even assisted in schools. There is no other commonality. It is a line on a piece of paper. We should be concerned with how we provide for those young people.
Clause 274, on the new duty to secure education otherwise than at school, already differentiates between those children who are out of school for reasons of illness and the children who arc out of school for other reasons. I have earlier reaffirmed that the arrangements for sick children will be distinct from those for disaffected pupils in pupil referral units.
There is no question, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, of the children being administered from "sin bins". I hope he will not use that phrase again. I hope that we have moved on from them. Certainly my experience is that we have some excellent school support units doing splendid work. We shall be drawing up separate guidance on the operation of the new duty on LEAs to secure education otherwise than at school in so far as it affects sick and other children.
We shall be consulting widely on the contents of both sets of guidance after the Bill receives Royal Assent. It would be inappropriate to introduce on the face of the Bill specific reference to the separate arrangements to be made for pupils out of school because of illness without referring to pupils in other circumstances. Should we, for example, consider separately school phobics or pupils receiving home tuition pending completion of a formal assessment or placement in a special school? For example, how should we consider pregnant schoolgirls or pupils who have been discharged from hospital and are convalescing at home?
That is why there is a comprehensive, general duty in Clause 274 on local authorities to provide education for children out of school. What is most important is that the approach to educating each child or young person who is sick is appropriate and sensitive to the individual needs of the child. I must reiterate that the Government believe that the reform of education, coupled with new guidance, will ensure that better co-ordination and more coherent provision is made for such children.
I have concluded before that effective arrangements for the education of sick children must rest primarily with the local education authority and in future such provision may be augmented by any provided in a grant-maintained hospital special school. But now and in future authorities must be able to administer provision in a flexible way which will allow them to make arrangements that will suit the circumstances and meet the needs of each hospital and each child in their area.
It is, I believe, self-evident that what is needed for a thinly populated rural county is not the same as in an inner city where there is a large, specialist children's hospital. In order to meet these needs within certain parts of the country, local education authorities will undoubtedly need to consider a different approach and a less formally structured provision than this amendment envisages. The proposals set out in

207
subsections (2) and (3) of Amendments Nos. 271 and 423—I do not believe that it is Amendment No. 423; I shall have another number for that in a moment—would remove the ability of LEAs to adopt such a flexible approach by seeking to impose on them a uniform system of provision.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, I am told that Clause 274(4) relates to children over compulsory school age. Therefore, it is a power and not a duty.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and to say that what the noble Baroness has said needs to be studied, because there is concern. There is concern that the merging will mean that local authorities may not give the money necessary so that sick children get the education they need. They are not such a difficult group as the other group of children in that amendment. That is the message which we have been trying to convey to the Minister.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I know that it is Report stage but I wonder whether, with the leave of the House, I may reply, because it is a very important point. The local authorities are under an obligation to provide. If children are out of school the local authorities are obliged to make provision. The provision which they are obliged to make has to be consistent with the needs of the child. Therefore, for a sick child it will usually have to be a provision in hospital, but it can be at home. If it concerns a child who is out for other reasons then of course it is a different provision.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister share the anxiety of many people about the cutting of the number of teachers, which has reached 50 per cent. in some hospital schools and which is of tremendous concern?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may answer. I believe that I am breaking the rules. I broke them first myself and so I stand guilty. We are talking about the new regime and not the one which exists at the moment. When the local authorities have an obligation under this Bill they will have to make provision. Therefore, this obligation will pre-empt local authority finances.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 269K not moved.]
3 a.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 270:
Page 170, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) A local education authority shall make arrangements for the provision of suitable full-time or part-time education otherwise than at school for any young person of compulsory school age detained in pursuance of an order made by any court or of an order of recall made by the Prison Commissioners.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is a different matter. In moving it, I wish to bring to the notice of your Lordships the fact that young people of compulsory school age, detained in pursuance of an order made by any court or of an order of recall made by the Prison Commissioners, are the only school-age young people who are not included in any part of this Bill.
These young people are divorced from and have contact with their local authority severed by not including them in the part of the Bill relating to exceptional provision of education in schools or elsewhere—that is, Clause 274. Surely they fit in there rather well.
Before Committee stage, I telephoned the Department for Education to check whether these young people of 15 who go to young offenders' institutions were included in the Bill. I was told that they were not. This amendment seeks to include them so that contact with their local authorities and local schools is not lost.
Many of these young people have immense social problems. They are at a very difficult age. Every one of them has a problem otherwise they would not have been sent into custody. Education is perhaps the one salvation which can put them on to the right road. If links with their education authority are lost, it may be more difficult to reintegrate them back into school. They may not even be wanted back. Because so many of them have social and educational problems, they are the very people who need to be kept under close review with probation and social support, as well as support for their teachers. Many of these youngsters will have truancy problems, behaviour problems and drug problems. They need experts to deal with them. Do not the educational authorities have the expertise to make the necessary arrangements? What expertise does the Home Office have in education?
Many of these young people have come from children's homes—about 49 per cent., I am told. They often have little continuity in their lives. The provision of a high standard of education at this difficult stage in a delinquent child's development can provide a turning point in that child's offending pattern, leading to an interest, achievement and even a qualification which leads on to employment and a better chance of avoiding reoffending after release.
So many of these young people have been abused and misused. They feel rejected and have low esteem. The education in many young offenders' institutions is the best investment and activity from which the young person derives benefit. If such young people are included in this Bill, it would strengthen the links between the Home Office, the institution and the young person's local education authority and school.
Unless there is better working together between government departments, it seems that there is little hope of improving the system. At this time of much change, there is great concern at the rising of serious juvenile crime. I hope that your Lordships will see the importance of the continuity and of keeping in touch with the educational needs of these young people of school age. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on moving this amendment and to echo virtually every word that she said about young offenders.
At one stage of my ministerial life, I was the Minister responsible for prisons and one fact that struck me forcefully was learning how many young people in prison were illiterate and how profoundly that had undermined their whole sense of their capacity to hold a job, complete their schooling or even be recognised by the rest of the community. I strongly urge upon the Government that these young people—they are greatly at risk and if not rescued are likely to become involved in a cyclical life of crime—should be included within the scope of the Bill.
Although throughout Clause 274 we are quite properly laying a whole series of duties on local education authorities with regard to children with exceptional needs, I cannot help wondering what will happen when, as the Government intend in many cases, local education authorities go out of business. Perhaps the Minister will say who she sees as being likely to take on these onerous yet vital responsibilities.
Baroness David: My Lords, as one of the quartet of noble Baronesses who tabled the amendment I wish to add my support. The rehabilitation of young people in custody is most important. They should not be deprived of any form of education. Some may be illiterate and in need of basic education. But some may be intelligent and if their tuition continues while in custody they may be capable of taking some kind of qualification. It is odd that they are not mentioned in the Bill and I hope that the Minister will reassure us that they have been thought of and will be provided with education. It would be better coming from the local education authority rather than from elsewhere.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, what she meant when she asked who will do the work when local authorities go out of business?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I was thinking of a situation in which the 75 per cent. trigger point is reached. What does the Minister then regard as being the responsible authority in terms of these groups, which are small in any given school but which together constitute a substantial problem.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the education of children under the secure arrangements is not affected because the local authority is not responsible. That is what the amendments are trying to achieve. As regards education otherwise than at school—in other words, the obligation to provide for children out of school—that continues irrespective of the trigger points. Local authorities will continue to have into the future the role of providing education for children out of school.
My Amendment No. 286AB is coupled with Amendment No. 270. Section 116 of the 1944 Act provides that the powers and duties of the Secretary of State, LEAs and parents under the Education Acts are
210
not to apply in relation to persons detained by order of court. As currently drafted, Schedule 18 inserts a reference to the funding authorities in that list of persons and bodies in Section 116 whose Functions are not to apply to persons detained by order of court. This amendment removes the reference to the funding authorities. It is wrong to refer to the funding authorities in this context because their functions will not in any way bring them into the area of provision for persons detained by order of court. I must stress to your Lordships that this amendment—indeed this Bill—does not affect the operation generally of Section 116.
Amendment No. 270 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Mallalieu, who is not in her place, would replace that existing power for local education authorities to provide education for persons detained in pursuance of a court order with a duty.
The present arrangements date from the 1944 Act and I referred earlier to Section 116 of that Act. They are long-established. One of the most important things that they achieve is to ensure that there is no division of responsibility and accountability. In the case, for example, of young offenders sentenced to detention in a young offenders' institution, the responsibility for securing adequate education provision lies clearly and unequivocally with the prison service and with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
The prison service is responsible for the custody of these young offenders and for all other aspects of the regime of the establishment. If there are inadequate arrangements then it is the prison service that is clearly accountable. If the law provides that some things in young offenders' institutions are the responsibility of one agency and some of another that seems to me a recipe for confusion.
The objectives of young offender institutions are clear. Detainees should acquire and develop while in custody, understanding of their own behaviour, self discipline, personal responsibility, interests, skills and employability which will enable them to be honest and useful citizens after release. Inmates aged 16 and under receive at least 15 hours of education or training within the normal working week. The objectives and regime set out in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and its dependent rules were described in 1991 by the Education, Science and Arts Committee in another place as robust and optimistic.
Similar considerations apply to the regimes in the proposed new secure training centres for persistent juvenile offenders, which will provide education and training in ways that tackle the individual's offending behaviour. The Home Office will determine the educational specification to be complied with by the providers of the secure training centres, in consultation with the Department for Education and with Ofsted. The educational regime in the centres will be subject to inspection by Ofsted.
Detained children may also be placed in secure accommodation provided by local authorities or by the Department of Health through the Youth Treatment service. Such establishments are not exclusively for those detained by the court. They

211
accommodate a mix of children, including those being looked after by local authorities on welfare grounds. If this amendment were carried it would have the effect of requiring LEAs to provide full-time education for some residents of units but not for others—this clearly would be confusing and undesirable.
The amendment, while clearly well intentioned, would, we believe, cause major operational difficulties for LEAs. The consequence, if the amendment were to be accepted, would be that local education authorities would he given a duty to provide education services which they might not be able to fulfil and for which other arrangements already exist. That cannot be sensible.
It is important that the noble Baroness should be secure in the knowledge that education will be provided for those young people by the appropriate authority. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and those who have supported the amendment. It seems to me that there should be links between the education authority and the prison service. Perhaps something could be better organised as regards the guidelines. Some of the school-aged youngsters are in custody for a very short time. They may be serving a sentence for non-payment of fines. Some are first offenders. They leave custody to return to their schools. There should be a link because they are of compulsory school age.
I should like the Minister to say that there will be some dialogue and continuity. They are very damaged young people. Often they must return to their school from an institution. It is very difficult for them, especially if they have spent a lot of time in care, which many of them have. I wish to make a better transition for them. They need some support.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I can give the noble Baroness an assurance that, if a young person is the subject of a secure detention order, he will be the responsibility of the Home Office. Education will be provided under that regime. If that young person does not go back to school but ends up wandering about on the streets, the child becomes an obligation of the LEA. The LEA will know when the child is released and it will be obliged to provide education otherwise than in school. If the young person returns to school, then education is provided directly by the school which he is attending. Of course, there is liaison between local education authorities and Ofsted and some secure units.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 271 not moved.]
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 271A:
After Clause 274, insert the following new clause:
("Hospital education
.—(1) Where there is a hospital in the area of a local education authority which is provided by a health service
212
body (within the meaning of section 4 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990), being a hospital at which separate provision is made for the treatment of children as in-patients, the arrangements for those children shall be made—

(a) by the establishment at that hospital of a school, or

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

and such provision as is mentioned in paragraph (b) shall be known as a "hospital educational unit".
(2) Where a local education authority make arrangements under this section—

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

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

they shall make arrangements for the provision of education by those teachers to be organised at such a school or unit and for those teachers to be supervised by teachers providing education at such a school or unit.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move this amendment in order to give the noble Lord, Lord McColl, an opportunity to speak to it. He has been sitting here for an extremely long time. Amendment No. 271 stands in the noble Lord's name because the Clerks were not able to contact the noble Lord as he was abroad. That is the reason for Amendment No. 271A being tabled without having the noble Lord's name attached to it. The chairman of the trust for Guy's Hospital, the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, strongly supported the amendments on the last occasion that we spoke to them. Therefore, I thought that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McColl, would like to comment upon them. I beg to move.
3.15 a.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind invitation to speak. I was in fact just about to leave because I have to see a patient shortly. However, I should just like to say that we are worried at Guy's. We have a marvellous school which is having problems because the local authority has been cutting down. We would really like to take it over and run it as part of the trust; but that is another issue.
We have been worried about children in school being lumped together with those with problems, but that has been answered very clearly by my noble friend in her response to another amendment. I am grateful to her in that respect. That is all that I wish to say, except to stress that we are concerned and that we hope our current problems will be resolved in the future.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think that a good many of the points made by my noble friend have been answered in the course of my responses to other amendments. However, the point about the hospital school council is that it will become a qualifying candidate for grant-maintained status. No doubt if it wishes to seek that status, an application will be winging its way to my department. I wish it success; that is, if I am allowed to say that without prejudice.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, we shall read all that has been said to see what we can do between now and the next stage. I should like to discuss the

213
compassionate business with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 17 [Pupil referral units]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 271B:
Page 226, line 18, leave out ("but not for an indefinite period").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 259J. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 275 [Stamp duty]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 271C:
Page 171, line 1, after ("46(2)") insert ("or 47").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 271D, 276, 277A, 286AA, 268D, 286E, 297ZA, 297B and 299. This is a disparate group of largely technical amendments. Amendment No. 271C will exempt from stamp duty any transfer of land by the funding authority to the governing body of a school established following proposals by promoters under Clause 47.
Amendment No. 271D inserts a reference to Clause 182 in the list of excepted provisions to statutory instruments in Clause 277(2) and Amendment No. 276 concerns the definition of "local education authority" in relation to LEA maintained schools. It allows for exceptional circumstances in which a local education authority may be responsible for maintaining a school located outside its own area.
Amendment 277A is a technical amendment to a technical part of the Bill. It provides for a number of the provisions to come into force on Royal Assent.
Amendments Nos. 286AA and 297B are purely technical amendments which clarify the definition of secondary school in the education Acts.
Amendment No. 286D simply allows the Secretary of State to use his powers of intervention under the Sex Discrimination Act in cases where the councils themselves undertake an act which constitutes sex discrimination. Amendment No. 286E has a similar effect with regard to the Race Relations Act and racial discrimination.
Amendment No. 297ZA is necessary to enable the provisions referred to in it to be brought into force before the establishment of the FAS. The amendment works by requiring references in those provisions to the FAS, until its establishment, to be read as references to the Secretary of State.
Finally, I must apologise for the necessity of moving Amendment No. 299. During the final debate of the Committee stage of this Bill, I or my noble friend inadvertently moved Amendment No. 341 which stood in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. The amendment that was moved is of no practical effect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 277 [Orders, regulations and directions]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 271D to 275:
214
Page 171, line 20, after ("145") insert ("182").
Page 171, line 20, after (" 271") insert ("the definition of "Church in Wales school" in section 281").
Page 171, line 23, after (" 216") insert (",234(5), 235(8)").
Page 171, line 23, after (" 284") insert ("or paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 3").
Page 171, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) No regulations shall be made under paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 3 of this Act unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
Page 171, line 26, after (" 55") insert (" 68").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 275A:
Page 171, line 33, at end insert:
("( ) Before making an order under section 55, giving consent under section 56(1) or giving a direction under section 56(2) of this Act in respect of a Church of England, Church in Wales or Roman Catholic School the Secretary of State shall consult with the appropriate diocesan authority.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, in connection with Clause 55 the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, moved an amendment to require consultation with the appropriate Church authority where a Church school plans to change its instrument of government. In response the Minister said it was more practical for the Church school and the appropriate diocesan authority to consult at the local level. She further said that it was not appropriate to have such detailed consultation on the face of the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, withdrew his amendment.
I return to the matter, first, because our officials in the Church of England were shown, I am told, a draft amendment prepared by parliamentary draftsmen on this subject. It was at that time intended that it should be included at Clause 277, but we are riot clear why this draft amendment was sunk without trace.
Secondly, I regret to say that we have some evidence that Church schools do not always consult as they should with their own Church authorities. For instance, it is a legal requirement that a Church of England school governing body seeking grant-maintained status should consult with its diocesan board of education. Some Church schools have failed to comply with this legal requirement. Even so the Secretary of State has approved the application for grant-maintained status. We therefore have grounds for concern that Church schools, although not all Church schools, do not always fulfil their obligations and responsibilities. Therefore I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment which can now be much more straightforward because we have the definitions of "appropriate diocesan authority" achieved by her Amendment No. 275B. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sympathetic to the concerns of the Churches in this area. The Government have already made it clear that we will be consulting the Churches on a national basis when the instrument and articles of government regulations are being made. We are also committed to consulting the relevant national Church bodies when the Secretary of State initiates subsequent changes to the instrument or

215
articles of government of all grant-maintained schools or of all Church of England or Roman Catholic or Church in Wales schools. Noble Lords can have my assurance that an amendment will be put forward to this effect at Third Reading, specifying this on the face of the Bill.
We will be specifying in the Bill that the Secretary of State must consult the appropriate national Church bodies when he makes regulations or initiates changes to the instruments and articles of government of all grant-maintained schools. He will also consult the relevant diocese on those, probably fairly rare, occasions when he initiates changes to an individual school's instrument or articles of government. However, when an individual school itself requests the change the requirement will be on the school first to consult with the diocese before applying to the Secretary of State for the necessary authorisation. With those assurances I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness has not quite met our concern, but at this stage of the proceedings I do not wish to detain the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 281 [General interpretation]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 275B:
Page 172, line 30, at end insert:
(""Church in Wales school" means a school in the Province of Wales in which the religious education provided is provided in accordance with the faith and practice of the Church in Wales and "appropriate diocesan authority", in relation to such a school, means the Diocesan Board of Finance for the diocese of the Church in Wales in which the school is situated or such other person as the Secretary of State may by order designate in respect of that diocese,
"Church of England school" means a school in the Province of Canterbury or York in which the religious education provided is provided in accordance with the faith and practice of the Church of England and "appropriate diocesan authority", in relation to such a school, means the Diocesan Board of Education for the diocese of the Church of England in which the school is situated").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment has already been spoken to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 276:
Page 172, leave out lines 43 to 45 and insert:
(""local education authority"—

(a) in relation to a school maintained or proposed to be maintained by a local education authority, means that authority, and

(b) in relation to a grant-maintained school, means the local education authority for the area in which the school is situated").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment has already been spoken to.
Lord Judd: My Lords, it may well be the hour, and I may have misunderstood the Minister, but I am a little confused. Perhaps the Minister can clarify a point.
I thought that the amendment extended the definition of a local authority in order to define the
216
LEA for a grant-maintained school and that the amendment states that the LEA for the area in which a school is situated is the local education authority for that grant-maintained school. Perhaps I may take a specific example to illustrate my point. Does that mean that the London Nautical School, which has been a grant-maintained school since 1990, which is physically located in the London Borough of Lambeth although the London Borough of Southwark has been its LEA, will now transfer to the London Borough of Lambeth?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord said that it was a late hour. Perhaps I may correct him and say that it is a fairly early hour on this shortest night of the year.
I am not sure whether I can answer the noble Lord's question, but perhaps I can explain again what Amendment No. 276 is about. It concerns the definition of local education authority in relation to LEA maintained schools. It allows for exceptional circumstances in which a local education authority may be responsible for maintaining schools located outside its own area. The example I should like to give is where a local government boundary change has relocated a school in a different area and agreement has been reached between the two LEAs concerned that responsibility for maintaining the school should remain unchanged.
I am not sure whether I can answer immediately the particular example which the noble Lord gave, but I give that example of how we see the amendment working. I stress that it is largely of a technical nature. I should like to consider what the noble Lord said and possibly come back to him by means of correspondence.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 276A and 276B:
Page 173, line 4, at end insert:
(""Roman Catholic Church school" means a school in which the religious education provided is provided in accordance with the faith and practice of the Roman Catholic Church and "appropriate diocesan authority", in relation to such a school, means the bishop of the Roman Catholic diocese in which the school is situated").
Page 173, line 11, at end insert:
("( ) Before making an order in respect of any diocese in Wales in exercise of the power conferred by the definition of "appropriate diocesan authority", the Secretary of State shall consult the bishop for the diocese.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 282 [Index]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, I am in some difficulty. None of the proposers of Amendment No. 277 is present. Therefore, perhaps I may take it that the amendment is not moved.
[Amendment No. 277 not moved.]
Clause 284 [Short title, commencement, etc.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 277A:
Page 175, line 26, after ("Act") insert ("(other than sections 229, 277 to 279, 281, 282 and this section)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment was debated previously. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Distribution of functions where order made under section 10]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 278:
Page 179, line 33, leave out ("exercising those powers") and insert ("performing that duty").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 279 to 280 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 281 to 285:
Page 180, line 37, leave out paragraph 7.
Page 184, line 8, leave out ("Chapter IV of Part II") and insert ("section 46").
Page 184, line 33, at end insert:
(".The funding authority shall not by virtue of paragraph 3 or 5 of this Schedule be under any duty in respect of junior pupils who have not attained the age of five years.").
Page 184, line 34, leave out paragraph 17.
Page 184, line 42, leave out paragraph 19.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendments have already been debated. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 286 not moved.]
Schedule 18 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 286A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 286AA and 286AB:
Page 229, line 24, after ("pupil"") insert:
("( ) in the definition of "secondary school", "primary or" is omitted").
Page 229, line 35, leave out from ("1993"") to end of line 37.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 286B not moved.]
3.30 a.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 286C to 287B:
Page 230, line 27, after ("school") insert ("and paragraph (b) does not apply where section 181(2) of the Education Act 1993 applies").
Page 233, line 41, after (""23") insert ("23A").
Page 235, line 23, after (""18") insert ("18A").
Page 237, line 29, leave out from ("particulars") to ("the") in line 30 and insert ("approved or adopted under section 49, 97 or 177 of").
Page 238, line 35, at end insert:
(".In section 23 (exclusions) "or indefinite" in paragraphs (a) (ii) and (b) is omitted.
In section 24 (reinstatement in county etc. schools)—

(a) in paragraph (a) (i), for "after consulting the governing body" there is substituted "(after giving the governing body an opportunity to express their views and after considering any views expressed within the prescribed period by the governing body)",

(b) in paragraph (b), for "an exclusion which is for an indefinite period or is permanent" there is substituted "permanent exclusion",

(c) paragraphs (c) and (e) are omitted, and

(d) in paragraph (f), "or (c)" is omitted.

In section 25 (reinstatement in aided etc. schools)—

(a) in paragraph (c), for "consult the governing body" there is substituted "give the governing body an
218
opportunity to express their views and to consider any views expressed within the prescribed period by the governing body", and

(b) paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) are omitted.

Regulations may provide that, where a local education authority or governing body of a school are required under section 24 or 25 of that Act to take any step, the duty must, subject to prescribed exceptions, be performed within the prescribed period; but such provision shall not relieve the authority or body of the duty to take any step which has not. been taken within that period.").
Page 238, line 43, after ("punishment)") insert:
("( ) in subsection (5) (b), for the words from "primary" (where first mentioned) to "full-time" there is substituted "education", and
( )").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 288:
Page 239, line 19, at end insert:
(". In section 58(1) (travelling and subsistence allowances for governors), in paragraph (a) for "county, voluntary and maintained special schools" there is substituted "any county. voluntary or maintained special school which does not have a delegated budget (construed in accordance with section 33(6) (b) of the Education Reform Act 1988)".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 290 and 291. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, we undertook in Committee to introduce a government amendment which would allow governing bodies the discretion to use their delegated budget to pay to their members travel and subsistence allowances. The amendments fulfil that undertaking. Unless the House would like me to expand further, I intend to leave it at that. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I express my thanks to the Minister for moving the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment. No. 288A:
Page 240, line 26, leave out from ("from") to end of line 28 and insert (""Curriculum Council, that" to "shall be" there is substituted "Council, in relation to Wales, shall be, so far as relevant for the purposes of advancing education"").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment has been previously debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 289 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 289A:
Page 240, line 28, at end insert ("and at the end of paragraph (c) there is inserted—
"(ca) to advise the Secretary of State on such other matters connected with the provision of education in maintained schools in Wales, or in non-maintained special schools there, as the Secretary of State may specify by order;",").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 289B not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 290 to 292:
Page 241, line 10, leave out from ("section") to ("after") in line 11 and insert ("36 (delegation to governing body of management of school's budget share)—
( ) in subsection (4)").
Page 241, line 13, at end insert ("and

219
( ) after subsection (5A) there is inserted—
"(5B) Any such governing body shall not exercise their powers under subsection (5) above to pay to governors any allowances other than travelling and subsistence allowances." ").
Page 242, line 15, at end insert:
(". In section 218(7) (school etc. regulations) after "approval" there is inserted "or, in such cases as may be prescribed, the approval of the funding authority".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 293 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 293A:
Page 243, line 17, at end insert:
(".In section 36(8) of that Act (consultation in respect of education supervision orders) the words from "social" to "of the" are omitted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 300. These are technical amendments designed to remedy a particular deficiency in a particular provision of the Children Act 1989, which has been drawn to our attention by an LEA. The proposed amendment will bring Section 36(8) into line with other provisions of the Children Act 1989. Where there is a requirement to consult the appropriate local authority, that consultation is intended to take place with the authorised officer of the social services department within that authority. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 294:
Page 244, line 40, at end insert:
("The School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991 (c. 49)
In section 2 of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991 (orders relating to statutory conditions of employment), in subsections (6) and (7) for "section 3" there is substituted "sections 3 and 3A".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 294A:
Page 244, line 43, at end insert:
(".In section 2(1) (functions of the Board) there is inserted at the end—
"(g) such functions as are from time to time assigned to the Board under the Education Acts.".").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the amendment is grouped with others, including Amendment No. 294B which stands in my name but which I shall not move because a government amendment deals with the matter. These are amendments to the Diocesan Board of Education measure. They are largely technical. I do not believe that I need to explain the matter further.
I should perhaps say in connection with Amendment No. 294A that at one point the Government indicated that they did not think the amendment necessary because no new functions were being given to the Board of Education. However, the Diocesan Board of Education has been given new functions in connection with the additional governors. For that reason, an amendment along the lines suggested is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, in relation to Amendment No. 294, we are at present consulting parliamentary counsel on whether the amendment is appropriate. It may be regarded as otiose on the grounds that, if the Bill or any education Bill assigns functions to diocesan boards, there is no need to double-bank by making provision in the measure. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will not press the amendment. If appropriate, after consultation with parliamentary counsel, we can return to that matter at Third Reading.
In principle we are happy with Amendment No. 294B, which the right reverend Prelate stated that he would not move. However, we believe that Amendment No. 294C is better. The right reverend Prelate has indicated that he would prefer to accept our amendment.
I should like to turn to the amendments in the Government's name—that is, Amendments Nos. 294AA, 294AB, 294AC, 294AD, 294AE, 294C and 301. Amendment No. 294AA is merely a technical amendment to update the reference to the Education Acts in Section 7(3) of the 1991 Measure to include a reference to the Bill. The other amendments are consequential upon the other provisions in the Bill. They are necessary because we have streamlined the process for schools to become grant maintained. The amendments require that the local diocesan board be given at least seven days' notice of the governing body's intention to consider holding a ballot on grant-maintained status, that the governing body should take account of any relevant advice from the diocesan board and that any statutory proposals consequent upon a ballot in favour of seeking grant-maintained status should refer to that advice. The amendments follow commitments that were given at an earlier stage to the right reverend Prelate, and representatives of the Church have been consulted on those matters.
I trust that the right reverend Prelate will not feel it necessary to move the amendments, and that the House will accept our amendments in due course.
Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and on the basis of the assurance that he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 294AA-294AE:
Page 244, line 45, after ("required)") insert:
("( ) in subsection (4) for the words from "by a resolution" to the end there is substituted "to hold a meeting to consider whether to hold a ballot of parents on the question of whether grant-maintained status should be sought for the school, it shall—

(a) give to the secretary of the Board for the diocese in which the school is situated at least seven days' notice that such a meeting is to be held at such time and place as is specified in the notice, and

(b) have regard to any relevant advice given by the Board, when considering at the meeting whether to hold a ballot of parents on that question,

and in paragraph (b) above, "relevant advice" means advice given in connection with the acquisition of

221
grant-maintained status for the school whether given for the purposes of that school or for Church of England voluntary schools generally",
( )").
Page 244, line 46, at end insert ("and ( ) in subsection (6) "or (4)" is omitted").
Page 244, line 47, after ("status)") there is inserted ("( )").
Page 244, line 49, at end insert ("and
( ) for "the advice given by the Board under section 3(4) above" there is substituted "any relevant advice (defined in section 3(4) above) given by the Board" ").
Page 245, line 2, at end insert:
(".In section 7(3) (powers of Board to give directions to governing bodies of aided church schools) for "1988" there is substituted "1993" ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 294B not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 294C:
Page 245, line 3, after ("(interpretation)") insert:
("( ) for the definition of "church school" in subsection
(1) there is substituted—
""church school" means—

(a) a Church of England voluntary school,

(b) a grant-maintained school which was such a voluntary school immediately before it became grant-maintained,

(c) a grant-maintained school established in pursuance of proposals published under section 47 of the Education Act 1993 where either any trust deed relating to the school or the statement required by paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to that Act provides for religious education at the school to accord with the faith and practice of the Church of England, or

(d) a grant-maintained school in respect of which proposals for the required provision for religious education to be provision for religious education in accordance with the faith and practice of the Church of England are approved under section 96 of that Act", and.

( )")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 294D:
Page 245, line 11, at end insert:
(".In Schedule 2 of that act there is inserted—
"(k) a course provided for persons with profound and multiple learning disabilities at an institution designated by the Secretary of State".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No.294D is a comparatively simple amendment. Under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, it proposes the provision of courses for people with profound and multiple learning difficulties. It is in the spirit of much of what the Government have done in expanding the availability of education for those with special educational needs. I hope that the Government will be able to give a favourable response, even at this late hour.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, when we debated Amendment No. 334ZB at Committee stage, I confirmed that the Government do not dispute the importance of provision for students with profound and multiple learning difficulties. We fully accept that there should be a duty to secure that type of provision and we have provided for it under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
The issue raised by the amendment is whether that duty should lie wholly with the further education funding councils. As I stated at Committee stage, I do
222
not accept that making provision for certain students the responsibility of the funding councils will give it higher status, nor do I accept that giving a duty to the funding councils rather than to LEAs will make it more likely to be discharged. The duty on LEAs is no less strong than that on the funding councils.
Another argument that I do not accept is that the funding councils are more likely than LEAs to have resources to support the types of provision for which they are responsible. The Government have made it clear that the funding councils will be funded for the provision which has been allocated to them; we have also made it clear that where the duty remains with LEAs, funding will continue to be available to authorities too.
The scope of the funding council's duty in Schedule 2 to the Act is designed to ensure that the Council is able to offer an integrated package of provision which is the start of a ladder leading to vocational or academic courses. LEAs' duty largely relates to courses which do not lead to qualifications and which may be of a more informal kind. We consider that. where courses are free-standing, LEAs should secure their availability along with other LEA responsibilities in the social services area. We see no advantage in having a single funding body for students with profound and multiple learning difficulties. In cases in this category, retention of a local authority involvement is important.
There is also the indignity of determining at what point someone has multiple learning difficulties or falls short of that and the difficulty of falling between two stools. As provision for students with profound and multiple learning difficulties is already covered by the duties under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press the amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, at this time of night, I do not pretend to have followed clearly the response of the noble Baroness. However, certain matters might be of interest. For instance, the problem of definition is one that we have often dealt with previously. When I feel a little more refreshed, I should like to read carefully th noble Baroness's response. Bearing that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 295 and 296:
Page 245, line 21, after ("inspection)") insert:
("( ) in subsection (3) in paragraph (e) for the words from "11(3) (a)" to the end there is substituted "180(1) of the Education Act 1993 (approval of independent schools for children with statements)",
( ) at the end of subsection (6) there is inserted "or to the content of collective worship which falls to be inspected under section 13", and
( )").
Page 250, line 5, at end insert:
("( ) In paragraphs 14(4) (c) and 15(3) (c) after "education" there is inserted "or, as the case may be, who takes part in acts of collective worship the content of which falls to be inspected under section 13".").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments were taken with Amendment No. 259. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 296A not moved.]
Schedule 19 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 297 and 297ZA:
Page 250, line 27, leave out ("under") and insert ("by an order under section 55 of this Act").
Page 251, line 7, at end insert:
("Meaning of "funding authority" before Funding Agency for Schools begin to exercise functions
.—(1) Before the Funding Agency for Schools begin to exercise their functions, references in the relevant provisions to the funding authority shall be read in relation to schools in England or the governing bodies of such schools as references to the Secretary of State.
(2) The relevant provisions are—

(a) paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 3 to this Act, and

(b) paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 to this Act.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 20 [Repeals]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 297A and 297B:
Page 252, column 3, line 46, leave out ("8") and insert ("8(1) and (2) (b) and (d)").
Page 254, column 3, line 42, at end insert:
224
("In section 114(1), in the definition of "secondary school", "primary or".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 298 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 298A to 301:
Page 256, column 3, line 27, at end insert:
("In section 23(a) (ii) and (b) "or indefinite".
Section 24(c) and (e) and, in paragraph (f), "or (c)".
Section 25(d), (e) and (f)").
Page 257, column 3, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 16.
Page 257, line 28, at end insert:

("1989 c. 41.

The Children Act 1989

In section 36(8), the words from "social" to "of the".")

Page 257, line 44, at end insert:

("1991 No. 2.

The Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991

In section 3(6) "or (4)".")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before four o'clock.

  CROWN ESTATE COMMISSIONERS: NETTING REVENUE, SCOTLAND
  CROWN ESTATE COMMISSIONERS: NETTING REVENUE, SCOTLAND
  MoT CERTIFICATES: FRAUD
  MoT CERTIFICATES: FRAUD
  BANK OF ENGLAND: SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES
  BANK OF ENGLAND: SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES
  DUTCH BANKS: ALLEGED FRAUDS BY LONDON BRANCHES
  DUTCH BANKS: ALLEGED FRAUDS BY LONDON BRANCHES
  EC COSMETICS DIRECTIVE
  EC COSMETICS DIRECTIVE
  PRIVATE HOUSE RENOVATION GRANT SYSTEM
  PRIVATE HOUSE RENOVATION GRANT SYSTEM
  TRIDENT REFIT
  TRIDENT REFIT