Sitting of 2 March 1993

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

    English (Key Stage 3)
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received in the last month on key stage 3 English.
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of the responses he has received regarding the key stage 3 English tests for 1993 have been critical of his proposals in their present form.
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): I have received various letters on key stage 3 English. These raise a wide range of issues. I made an announcement about them on 19 February.
    Mr. Hanson: Is the Secretary of State aware that today hon. Members on both sides of the House will have received a further letter from teachers' representatives showing that 99 per cent. of teachers involved in the tests have described them as inadequately planned and prepared? In the face of growing opposition from teachers, parents and school governors, why does the Secretary of State persist in pushing forward with the tests? Is it not time that he postponed them?
    Mr. Patten: I am rather surprised at the hon. Gentleman's question. He cannot be aware that the Secondary Heads Association, the National Association of Head Teachers, the Professional Association of Teachers and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers have all welcomed my announcement on 19 February. Characteristically, the two TUC-related trades unions—the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers—continue with their threats. In the face of evidence of growing illiteracy, it is critically important that the tests go ahead this year and in future, so that we can deal with the problem, which I am afraid has been growing since the 1960s.
    Mr. Jamieson: The Secretary of State will have received many representations from my constituency in Plymouth, from Devon and throughout the country regarding key stage 3 English tests. Last week, he will have received a letter from the Tory chair of a governing body—[HON. MEMBERS: "Chair?"] That is how he describes himself. He is the chair of Devonport high school for boys, a grammar school in Plymouth, and he strongly objects to the tests. Is
    122
    not the fact that the Secretary of State has had to defer publication of the test results this year an indication that the tests are flawed? In the light of that, will he make them optional this year, so that governors can make a proper choice about what is right for their children?
    Mr. Patten: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands a serious situation in the teaching of English. Recent independent evidence, made available and published two Fridays ago, showed that up to a third of young people leaving school aged 16 and going to further education colleges needed remedial help with understanding English because they had the reading age of 14-year-olds. That shows the urgency of the situation and the necessity of having a test at 14 as soon as possible, to identify those young men and women who need help with grappling with the English language—a problem which should have been sorted out long before they reached the age of 16.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people who have studied his statement on 19 February are grateful for it, but hope that he will keep in close touch with heads of English and others, and monitor closely the first unpublished tests?
    Mr. Patten: I welcome my hon. Friend's welcome and am pleased to see him back in the Chamber after his recent ill health. What he says is right—we should monitor carefully the results of the tests this summer. They will be made known to parents and we shall publish the national picture, which I hope will not give me cause for concern, as I fear that it may—I hope that I am proved wrong. We shall also ask the inspectorate—the Office for Standards in Education—to examine the conduct of the tests. As each test is introduced each year—whether it is key stage English 3, the GCSE, or the A-level—it is preparation for the next year's tests, and each test is refined and developed. Teachers have been teaching children approaching the age of 14 this year key stage English 3 for three years and have had a lot of time for preparation. They have nothing to fear and everything to gain from the tests.
    Mr. Ward: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. Can he explain why any competent teacher should have anything to fear from demonstrating that he has reached the standards expected of him?
    Mr. Patten: I think that most teachers are highly professional and I pay tribute to our hard-working teachers. Sometimes, however, there is a bit of fear of the unknown and of something new. People do not like their performance to be exposed, professionals in particular. We in this place are exposed in our performance every clay. When something new comes along, sometimes people are rather frightened of it, but teachers of English should remember that, last year, when the tests for maths and science were first held, they were universally reported on by the inspectorate as having been successful and enjoyed by pupils. Truancy on that day went right down, because 98 per cent. of children turned up to do those tests, which was far more than are normally in school. Children will enjoy the new test and will benefit from it.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Leaving aside the Secretary of State's new answer for truancy, which seems to rely on having tests every day, the Labour party welcomes his partial climbdown regarding the reporting of the results of the key

    123
    stage 3 test. The Opposition do not accept, however, that those tests are essential for identifying illiteracy, although we find it interesting that the Secretary of State referred to "growing illiteracy" after the Government have been in power for 14 years. Will the Secretary of State now follow through the logic of his own acknowledgment that the tests are flawed and postpone them for a year so that parents and teachers can have proper confidence in tests that have been properly trialled?
    Mr. Patten: I am very sorry that the hon. Lady should sneer at what the Government, in a coalition of interested people, are doing to try to deal with the issue of truancy up and down the land. That shows the attitude of those on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Lady has displayed what I have always suspected about her; she does not support the concept of testing.
    We have seen the shadow Home Secretary trying to slip into the clothes of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, which in itself is a difficult task. We see the modernisers of the Labour party trying to come aboard a Conservative agenda on law and order. I am afraid that no such Opposition modernisers have reached the Labour Front Bench. I greatly fear that if the NUT and the NAS/UWT in different parts of the country suggest boycotting the tests, we will find the hon. Lady, who is led by the nose by the producer lobby, backing those trade unions in any boycotts.

    Further Education
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to encourage more 16-year-olds to attend colleges of further education.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): The Government are committed to raising levels of participation and achievement. The proportion of 16-year-olds in education and training has now reached 87 per cent., which is an increase of 20 points since 1979. Our public expenditure plans already provide for 25 per cent. more students in further education over the next three years.
    Mr. Arnold: My hon. Friend will be aware of the £6 million investment that has been approved by the Government for the brand new campus of the North-West Kent college at Lower Higham road in Chalk near Gravesend. May I rest assured that my hon. Friend will give maximum encouragement to my constituents aged 16 and older to take advantage of the excellent courses to be found in that college in electronics, engineering, catering and many other interesting subjects?
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I am aware of Kent LEA's current provisional capital resources for the county, which are now being considered, taking account of competing claims, as I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand. An announcement on these matters will be made shortly.
    Mr. Hardy: Although the House would welcome provision to encourage more 16-year-olds to stay on in education, does the Minister accept that the findings of the Audit Commission, which were published recently, justify the concern felt about a number of students already in further education, not least because of the high drop-out rate? Does he accept that something needs to be done
    124
    urgently to provide the motivation for young people who can see little point in pursuing further education when there is no prospect before them other than unemployment?
    Mr. Boswell: I, too, have studied the recent Audit Commission report and welcome its examination of the subject. We clearly need to secure the best possible value for the existing and enhanced provision that we are making for further education. We need to have higher standards and less drop-out. The figures that the Audit Commission exposed revealed a number of qualifying factors on the drop-out rate, including those who move to other courses in the same institution or to other sorts of study or directly into employment. We need to ensure the best possible counselling for our young people before they go into further education courses, a reasonable range of courses, proper advice while they are on those courses and, above all, proper vocational paths, which we are securing through national vocational qualifications and general national vocational qualifications.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many Wiltshire schools have opted for grant-maintained status in the (a) primary and (b) secondary sectors.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): One primary school and three secondary schools in Wiltshire are already operating as self-governing grant-maintained state schools or have been approved for GM status. A further three primary and two secondary schools have voted in favour of applying for GM status and have applications in the pipeline.
    Mr. Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that four schools to which my constituents send their children in the Swindon area have had ballots and negatived the proposal to go for grant-maintained status? Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment at that outcome, which has been largely a result of general election-style canvassing by Labour supporters? Does he agree that the only people to lose out as a result are the children in those schools? If he does agree, what does he see as the way forward?
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful, but, frankly, not surprised, that my hon. Friend has cited an example from his constituency. Up and down the country there have been shady goings-on with regard to grant-maintained ballots, emanating from some politically motivated people in virtually every local education authority. However, in spite of that, so far the rate of approval of yes votes in grant-maintained ballots has been 80 per cent. and in February it was 82 per cent. We can take great encouragement from that. There are measures already in the Education Bill, which we shall be discussing on Report later today, designed to improve the balance provided to parents, by providing for modest sums to be made available to governing bodies for expenses incurred in promoting grant-maintained status and limiting local education authority expenditure on publications associated with ballots. That will redress the balance between authorities and governing bodies. We believe that those and other measures in the Bill will correct the imbalance that has existed until now and ensure that parents come forward with informed and constructive views.

    Graduate Employment
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he will next meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to discuss graduate employment.
    Mr. Boswell: My right hon. Friend meets the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals from time to time to discuss general higher education issues. He has not received a specific request to discuss graduate employment.
    Mr. Sheerman: Do not the ghastly numbers of unemployed young talent show that a tremendous opportunity for our country has been missed? In a week when President Clinton has introduced a bold and imaginative new initiative for young people, is it not about time that the Government had the imagination to use the talents of young people to do something about the urgent social and industrial problems of our country?
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman perhaps forgets that we have already rapidly expanded the number of students in higher education at the expense of the taxpayer. I would not suggest to the House that graduate employment should be immune to the recession. It is important that we build on the existing high participation rates in higher education and the growing contribution and involvement of young people in further education. That is the best possible thing that those young people can do if there are employment difficulties. I strongly advise them to get the skills that they require, ready for when the upturn comes.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that in a period of world recession, anyone who is fortunate enough to achieve education in the higher sphere—particularly in a university—should consider carefully and seriously the discipline that they expect to study, if they are to look forward to the opportunities that will arise when the world comes out of recession?
    Mr. Boswell: As ever, my hon. Friend is on a good point. It is important that those at university should make the best possible use of their time there. There is no better way of ensuring that this country comes out of recession at the head of the line than having the highest possible ratio of skills in our population.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister accept that work and education are the foundation of human well-being and that the willingness of people to be educated and trained and to work is a nation's greatest asset? Given that undergraduates are, by definition, the best and most expensively educated human assets that this country has, does the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) indicate that neither the Minister nor any of his colleagues has taken a single initiative in discussing the issue of graduate unemployment?
    Mr. Boswell: The Department primarily responsible for employment matters is the Department of Employment. The original question asked specifically when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will next meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. As and when it makes such a request, I shall respond. I have shown the House that we have increased the involvement of our younger people in higher and further education. We
    126
    plan to continue doing that and to have the best-educated and best-skilled work force in employment, to exploit in future the competitive advantage that skills can bring to industry.

    Further Education
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about the drop-out rate of students on full-time courses after the age of 16 years.
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the proportion of students in full-time education post-16 who are failing to complete their course of studies.
    Mr. Patten: I am very concerned by the recent report from the Audit Commission and the Office for Standards in Education, which identified unacceptably high drop-out rates among 16 to 19-year-olds. Schools and colleges should tackle that urgently. Our policies of improving the information and qualifications available to young people will help them make better choices and strengthen their motivation to succeed. We will publish information about vocational examination results of schools and colleges to encourage that.
    Mr. Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that students sometimes experience great difficulty in transferring to not only sixth forms but universities? As someone who lasted only six months at university, I understand those difficulties. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that his Department will carefully examine the way in which universities and sixth-form colleges approach that aspect? I pay tribute to Bournemouth university and to Weymouth sixth-form college for the way in which they help students to select relevant courses and to make a successful transition. Will my right hon. Friend consider publishing college and university drop-out rates, so that students—such as my own four children, who are all receiving a state education—will be able to make sensible decisions on their choice of university education?
    Mr. Patten: I join my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) in paying tribute to the university and sixth-form college in his constituency, both of which are excellent. I agree also that the drop-out rate should cause us concern. I believe that it is partly due to young people making the wrong career choice—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) referred earlier—and partly to young people not receiving closer supervision at school and closer instruction at college. That is one reason why we shall make in the next three years a 25 per cent. increase in the number of students entering further education colleges. As young people make decisions about which career path to follow in vocational or academic education, it is critically important that they have the information that they need. I said in my original answer that we will publish the results of vocational examinations. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset is on to something good, and perhaps we should publish drop-out rates as well. They might tell us something about not only young people but colleges.
    Mr. Raynsford: I am sure that the House agrees that the present drop-out rate of one in three among students over

    127
    16 is unacceptable, as the Secretary of State said. Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Government must take a major share of the responsibility for that? It is not just a question involving colleges and universities—though they have a role. The Government's responsibility is in respect of poverty. Do the Government realise that until they reverse their mistaken decision to freeze the student grant and to enable students to have an adequate standard of living, drop-outs will continue at an unacceptably high level?
    Mr. Patten: It is not for me to say whether the hon. Gentleman's question relates directly to the question on the Order Paper. I can say, however, that there is no evidence of any fall in the number of people—from all social and economic backgrounds—who enter further and higher education.
    The hon. Gentleman could usefully talk to councils such as—to name but a few—Knowsley, Derbyshire, Camden, Islington and Hammersmith and Fulham, where the hon. Gentleman was in a previous incarnation. Those councils have a lamentable record, keeping students waiting for mandatory grants that they should have received many weeks ago.
    Mr. Forman: Notwithstanding the difficulties identified in this and earlier questions, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's record, and the prospects for further education, are exemplary? It is important that the expansion mentioned by my right hon. Friend, and by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education, enables us to tackle more effectively both the problems of the juvenile unemployed and some of the law-and-order problems to which our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will refer in his statement later this afternoon.
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is, in large part, the architect of the recent expansion in further education—480 colleges are involved and there will be one in or near the constituency of every hon. Member in the House—and I pay tribute to him for that.
    Over the past 14 years, Conservative Governments have introduced mass education for all—not only for those under 16, but for people aged up to 18 or 19. I agree with my hon. Friend that that expansion is a great tribute to the Government. We have now achieved the staying-on levels of many of our west European counterparts, and I believe that that will affect not only the country's education, but its social stability—including the crime rate, to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Madam Speaker: Order. These answers are much too long.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Audit Commission has revealed that 150,000 young people are leaving full-time courses without the qualifications for which those courses were designed. Does the Secretary of State accept that, after 14 years of Conservative government, that is a scandal? Does he accept that it is not the fault of the schools and colleges that he would seek to blame, but the Government's fault? Does he also accept that the Government's mindless view that the way in which to resolve the unemployment problem for young people is simply to get them into the colleges—again, without any recognition of the importance of quality and qualifications—gives neither the students nor the country any hope, or anything else?
    128
    The Secretary of State says—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Questions are proceeding far too slowly. We want brisker questions, and I certainly want brisker answers.
    Mr. Lloyd: I shall put my question very simply. After 14 years, what do the Government now intend to do about the problem?
    Mr. Patten: We intend to do what I have been saying in my "much too long" answers. My replies to the hon. Gentleman's first two questions are, respectively, no and no.
    Madam Speaker: That is the sort of answer that I like.

    School Day
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what flexibility he has given to schools on the length of the school day.
    Mr. Patten: I shall try to show some improvement, Madam Speaker.
    Governors have a great deal of flexibility. I am always pleased to hear when that is being used imaginatively, as I understand may be the case in Battersea technology college in my hon. Friend's constituency and as is certainly the case in the 15 excellent city technology colleges that we already have. The length of the school day should be limited only by the capacity of children to learn.
    Mr. Bowis: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Is not flexibility one of the great, outstanding freedoms for our schools? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to that freedom is flexibility in regard to pay, enabling existing teachers to be paid more for the extra hours that they work and removing the need to recruit part-time extra teachers? A quick yes and yes to that question will do nicely.
    Mr. Patten: In shorthand, maybe and maybe. If I may, however, I shall answer in slightly longer hand.
    I am very pleased at the 30 per cent. increase in teachers' salaries over the past three years, which compares with a 16 per cent. increase across the economy as a whole. I should like teachers to be better paid and I should like the teaching profession to be even more respected. There will, however, be a twofold price for that over the years: first, the introduction of performance-related pay and, secondly, much greater flexibility in regard to hours.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: In any consideration of the flexibility of the school day, will the Secretary of State issue guidance to schools on the better community use of their facilities? Would not a better way to tackle problems such as truancy be to make the school a real part of the community, instead of its being hived off in an opt-out corner and the rest of the community feeling divorced from the people using the school?
    Mr. Patten: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Not only the concept but the actuality of community schools and colleges, of which there are many, should be applauded. The hon. Gentleman is right and we should do all that we can.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have applied for grant-maintained status.
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many secondary schools have so far applied for grant-maintained status; what that is as a percentage of the total number of secondary schools in England; and in which local education authorities no grant-maintained schools have so far emerged.
    Mr. Patten: I shall answer these questions as quickly as possible.
    To date, 644 schools have published proposals for grant-maintained status as self-governing state schools. Four hundred and thirty one of those applications have been approved and 156 are currently under consideration. A further 68 schools have voted yes in parental ballots, but have not yet published proposals. About 13 per cent. of maintained secondary schools in England have applied for grant-maintained status.
    Mr. Field: With a record like that, we are going to give my right hon. Friend an E for effort this term. Does he appreciate that the opportunity provided by grant-maintained status has shifted the balance of power so that school governors who are not politically correct are no longer sacked, as happened on the Isle of Wight under the Liberal Democrat-controlled education authority, has put an end to the councillor busybody and has given power back to the principals and parents of schools throughout the United Kingdom and the Isle of Wight?
    Mr. Patten: We all know about the shameful and undemocratic practices of the Liberal Democrats on the Isle of Wight and I wholly condemn them. I believe that power is being redistributed in schools from the centre or hub of the wheel to the rim. Across the country, more parents and governors are taking control of their schools not only through grant-maintained status but through local management of schools which, four or five years ago, the Labour party so opposed.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the figures that he has just given underline the growing importance and success of the grant-maintained schools sector? Will he therefore disregard the ill-informed and ill-considered advice from certain members of the Opposition who would abolish grant-maintained schools? Will he also reflect on the number of children now being educated in the grant-maintained school sector?
    Mr. Patten: The number of children in England being educated in self-governing state schools, which is what grant-maintained schools are, is 236,000. There are an awful lot of committed parents, teachers and governors and their numbers will be growing in the next year or so. Unfortunately, they know, because the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has made it clear, that there is a Labour commitment to abolish grant-maintained schools. I wonder what the modernisers in the Labour party think about that.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does the Secretary of State agree with the widespread concern that has been expressed about grant maintained status being granted in the primary sector, where the Government are giving no guarantees to
    130
    protect funding for nursery education and, incidentally, no protection where they insist on the rationalisation of schools to remove surplus places?
    Mr. Patten: The position of primary schools is clear. If they have a nursery class or stream when they become grant maintained, that is their status when the Secretary of State gives his permission for the school to become grant maintained. If not, they have to come to the Secretary of State and publish an application for a change of character.
    It is good to know of the considerable interest among primary schools not only in individually becoming grant-maintained but in making use of the opportunities given in the Education Bill, which we shall be discussing later today on the Floor of the House, for them to help each other in a grant-maintained cluster.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Secretary of State believe that schools applying for grant-maintained status are exercising what he falsely believes to be parental choice and democracy? If so, is he willing to extend those principles further and allow future generations of parents to exercise parental choice in voting back out of grant-maintained status into LEA control, or is his belief in democracy really a sham and does he believe in it only when it supports Tory party dogma?
    Mr. Patten: For a Liberal, the hon. Gentleman is showing appalling contempt for the rule of the ballot box because in eight out of 10 ballots for grant-maintained schools, the vote is an overwhelming yes and, generally speaking, between 60 and 70 per cent. of parents entitled to vote turn out to vote—far more than in a local government election. The hon. Gentleman is pouring contempt and scorn on the parents who voted in favour of the two grant-maintained schools in Bath which he has done nothing but attack since he has been a Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a recent poll organised by the BBC on Baverstock school in Birmingham found that although, at the time it opted out, 75 per cent. of parents voted in favour, two years later, 99 per cent. of those people eligible to vote were in favour of the opting out? Does not that show how popular grant-maintained status becomes over a period of time and how idiotic it is for the Opposition to threaten to abolish grant-maintained schools?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The BBC broadcast the results of such a poll to which I listened carefully, as I always do. It shows increasing support for Baverstock school as a grant-maintained school. It is one of the biggest schools in the country with, I think, more than 2,000 pupils. After two years' experience, almost every parent of a child at that school has said that they wish it to remain grant maintained and welcome the fact that it has become a successful beacon in Birmingham's educational landscape.

    Expenditure Per Pupil
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on comparative levels of expenditure per pupil in individual local authorities.
    Mr. Forth: Education standard spending assessments allow for variations in the costs that authorities in different parts of the country incur in providing a common standard of service. Differences in levels of actual expenditure per pupil depend, however, on spending decisions taken by local education authorities.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: The Minister will be aware that there is a school of thought that people born in Yorkshire are naturally more intelligent than the rest of the nation. Do the Government subscribe to that school of thought, or are there other reasons why pupils in Wakefield are allowed £1,000 a year less expenditure per head than pupils in Conservative Wandsworth?
    Mr. Forth: I might be tempted to subscribe to the view that the further north one is born the more intelligent one is, but I will leave that to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman must not get into the business of trying to make invidious but specious comparisons about expenditure per pupil across the country, for a number of reasons. In several authorities expenditure per pupil is less than in his own; his is 15th off the bottom of that particular league table, if he wishes to look at it in that way. More particularly, there is no proven relation whatever between expenditure per pupil and quality of education. Many excellent local education authorities have amply demonstrated that it is the quality and outputs that count, not the money that is shoved in at the other end.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend confirm that point from the evidence of going round the excellent schools in Surrey and particularly in Esher, where teachers are making use of the local management budget and getting tremendous output, very high-quality results and low levels of truancy? That is what teaching is all about: the commitment of the teachers and the headmasters in the schools.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is typical that from the Government side of the House we have an acknowledgement of how quality of education comes about, whereas from the Opposition we simply have an obsession with money and expenditure. That sums up as well as anything could the different attitude to education of the two sides of the House.

    Universities (Funding)
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about the funding of universities.
    Mr. Boswell: We regularly receive representations about a range of higher education matters, including funding.
    Mr. Griffiths: Why is not the Secretary of State intervening to stop institutions such as Edinburgh university and Royal Holloway and Bedford New college selling priceless art treasures by artists such as Turner and Gainsborough to balance their books? Will the Secretary of State intervene to stop universities selling off the family silver?
    Mr. Boswell: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's sense of geography. He will know that the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council will shortly take over
    132
    responsibility for—[Interruption.] One at a time, please. The Universities Funding Council is responsible now; the hon. Gentleman is right in that respect. He will also know that there is a Charity Commission and an export licensing procedure under which such matters will be considered. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that the real resources made available to the university sector are at record levels. The problems of particular institutions need to be addressed by those institutions in connection with the relevant funding councils.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that our system of student support is more generous than that in any other country in the western world? Will he further confirm that the reaction to student loans has been for more people to apply to go to university, not fewer, as the Opposition forecast?
    Mr. Boswell: Not only is the provision for student support one of the most generous, if not the most generous, in the western world, but support for the university sector generally through the taxpayer, running at £4 billion a year, is extremely generous and contributes to excellent results.

    Pupil-teacher Ratios
    Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about pupil-teacher ratios in all schools and separately in primary and secondary schools.
    Mr. Forth: As at January 1992 the overall pupil-teacher ratio in England stood at 17·44:1, compared with 18·94:1 in 1979. The within school pupil-teacher ratios were 22·21:1 for primary schools and 15·83:1 for secondary schools.
    Mr. Steinberg: Is the Minister aware that throughout the country many teachers have lost their jobs because of the funding arrangements? In my constituency, for example, Gilesgate primary school has lost three teachers over the past three years, which has had a detrimental effect on the pupil-teacher ratio. When will the Government accept that more resources are needed so that schools can pay their teachers and give children an equal opportunity in education?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman seems to resent the fact that through local management of schools and grant-maintained status we are now giving the responsibility for staffing and the management of schools to governors and heads. They are the people in the best position to make arrangements for teaching in schools and classrooms and it is to them that we entrust that responsibility, which they are discharging admirably.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way in which local education authorities can improve pupil-teacher ratios is to dismantle the expensive administration of school meals and devolve the arrangements to parents? Does he recall that my local authority employed more than 170 additional teachers by dispensing with that apparatus?
    Mr. Forth: In the matter of meals I defer to my hon. Friend, who is the House's expert. He has made an important point—the more opportunities that those who are responsible for managing schools, such as governors,

    133
    heads and staff, take to alter the arrangements so as to deliver the best quality of education and the maximum expenditure in the classroom, the better the quality of education will be. We want to see the most flexible arrangements and the greatest possible variety of arrangements in schools throughout the country, as befits local requirements.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister believe that class sizes matter in terms of the quality of education delivered to our children?
    Mr. Forth: I do not believe that there is any proven connection between class sizes and quality of education.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an interesting fact that about 14 years ago the discussions were about reducing the size of classes that still contained more than 40 pupils, whereas today the discussion is about removing the remaining classes with more than 30 pupils? Is not that a measure of the progress that has been made under the Government in improving teacher-pupil ratios?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, indeed. The vast bulk of our children are educated in classes of fewer than 30. The average class size is well under 30. It would be wrong to focus exclusively and entirely on that. It may be a factor, but it is by no means the definitive factor.

    Physical Education
    Ms. Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what extra support will be made available to schools to assist with the implementation of physical education in the national curriculum.
    Mr. Forth: In 1993–94, the grants for education support and training programme will support £180 million of national curriculum-related activity, including £85 million of expenditure for national curriculum books, equipment and training. It will be for schools to decide exactly how that money is spent.
    Ms. Hoey: Is the Minister aware of the specific difficulties of physical education, especially in our inner city schools? Does he realise that in key stage 1 the assessment will require more than 900 individual tests which must be carried out by a teacher? Does he agree that more resources must be targeted for physical education, or that basic skill will not be learnt by children in primary schools?
    Mr. Forth: Of course, I appreciate the points that the hon. Lady has made, but, with the exception of mathematics and science teachers in primary schools, we have not so far been persuaded that to ring fence expenditure to specific curriculum items is the correct way to go. Therefore, for physical education, as for other subjects in the curriculum, we believe that it is right for local decisions to be made on the use, distribution and prioritisation of the resources that we have given to education. We believe that those resources are more than adequate to carry out the task.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the more power that we can extend to individuals by devolving authority and decision making in our schools and the national health service, the better? Is not the best way to give individuals more responsibility and more control over their lives by reducing the power of the state? Is it the case that, on this crucial test, those who belatedly speak the language of conservatism but still think like socialists, such as the Leader of the Opposition, fail dismally?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his description. We believe in giving individuals more choice and more power. I fear that that is not the policy of the Labour party. Labour Members want less choice and more government, rather than more choice and less power for government.
    Mr. John Smith: In that case, can the Prime Minister tell us why he is opposed to a freedom of information Act?
    The Prime Minister: Because we are extending freedom of information in practical ways—unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who would not give information to parents about schools or to users of the health service about hospitals. That is the sort of information which people in the country want, not the sort of information that the right hon. and learned Gentleman concerns himself about.
    Mr. John Smith: If the Prime Minister is genuinely committed to giving information and to open government, can I give him a simple test? How many billions of pounds were lost in the currency dealings in the fiasco of Black Wednesday?
    The Prime Minister: As a former shadow Chancellor, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not know that no one knows what the figures will be until those things are unwound, he should not be sitting where he is.
    Mr. John Smith: Is not it abundantly clear that the Prime Minister either does not know how many billions of pounds were lost or is unwilling to tell us? Does not he understand that there is a crucial difference between the national interest and covering up the incompetence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    The Prime Minister: We are dealing with the national interest day after day, with no assistance whatever from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Could the Prime Minister give to the greater number of people in Northern Ireland an assurance that the envoy from President Clinton to which he has agreed will not hold talks with the IRA, Sinn Fein or any other terrorist organisation?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman had better wait and see what announcement is made about the fact finder who I believe may come from the United States to Northern Ireland. Many distinguished people from the United States have been there in the past. Many of them have gone back with great enthusiasm for the changes that they have found in Northern Ireland and the great desire among the people of Northern Ireland for a lasting peace.
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pike: After 14 years of Tory government, the unemployed and low paid in my constituency are sick of hearing the Prime Minister saying why we cannot have the social chapter in Britain. Can he tell the people of Britain why France, Germany and all the other countries in Europe can have the social chapter but Britain cannot? Are we a second-class Britain as a result of 14 years of Tory rule?
    The Prime Minister: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not know his own constituency better, for he would know that unemployment there has fallen 16 per cent. since 1987. He may also have noticed the trend in unemployment in France and Germany.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the citizens charter, which very properly enhances the rights of the citizen, should be complemented by a renewed emphasis on the obligations of the citizen, so that we foster and strengthen mutual responsibility in our society? Will he therefore look systematically to identify and eliminate obstacles that at present discourage voluntary work and charitable activity, including aspects of eligibility for both unemployment benefit and invalidity benefit as well as aspects of the council tax and VAT regimes?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we have done a great deal to improve the quantity and quality of voluntary work in this country. I am happy to examine any practical suggestions to improve it even further.
    Mr. Nigel Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nigel Jones: May I offer the Prime Minister the chance to welcome Chelsea's long-awaited victory last night after a change of manager? Does he now understand why millions of unemployed people in Britain would welcome a change of manager of the economy?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may have spent some time rehearsing that. It was not time well spent. Perhaps he needs a training course.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Has my right hon. Friend had time to see the recent "Small Business Bulletin" from Barclays bank, which shows that there was a 19 per cent. increase in the number of small businesses in Britain in the last quarter of 1992 as compared with the last quarter of 1991? This is good news— [Interruption] I know that Opposition Members do not want to hear it, but it is good news. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it shows the resilience of the small business sector in Britain? When he
    136
    next has a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he encourage him to introduce on 16 March a small business-friendly Budget which will help our small businesses?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the importance of the small business sector both to the economy generally and in terms of job creation. I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Skinner: Does not the Prime Minister realise that after 14 years he stands condemned about the seedy state of Britain today? Pensioners have a job to live; they do not have two ha'pennies to rub together. The banks rip off customers. The bosses steal the pension funds. Ministers have their debts paid by the taxpayer. Is not that the reason why the British people understand him less and condemn him more?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must have been taking lessons from the Liberal spokesman.
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective weapons in the armoury against crime is the right to refer to the Court of Appeal any sentence that may be considered too lenient? Does he also agree that those who voted against that in the House, including the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), have very little right to posture about crime and even less right to parade their self-righteousness up and down the country?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his own point in his own way. The public rightly expect the sentence to fit the crime. The power for the Attorney-General to refer over-lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal is an important weapon in the fight against crime and one which I believe will have the warm support of people right across the country. I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield will change his mind. At the moment, his voting record on crime is a worse record than that of an old lag.
    Mr. Redmond: Does the Prime Minister intend to keep his election promises?
    The Prime Minister: All Governments intend to keep their election promises.
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Paice: Is not it clear that many of the young people who are committing crimes are not unemployed, because they should still be at school? In that regard, may we have a vigorous campaign against truancy, to improve education and to reduce crime?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that it is necessary to do that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it perfectly clear that we need to cut down on truancy and if we are successful in doing that, we are likely to cut down on juvenile crime. That is why in future, against the opposition Labour Members, we propose to include information on truancy rates when we publish how schools are performing. It is vital information for parents and vital information against crime and it would be helpful if the Opposition would support us in that policy.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Does the Prime Minister agree that the revelation that the Director General of the BBC has been avoiding tax on a massive scale leaves a very nasty taste in the month? Does he further agree that John Birt should pay back to the Inland Revenue all the tax avoided in his period as deputy director general?
    The Prime Minister: Although I am familiar with the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, it is a matter for the Director General of the BBC and the Inland Revenue.
    Mr. Shepherd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cohn Shepherd: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity over the weekend to reflect on the revealing remarks of Professor Halsey on the way in which the schools were hijacked in the 1960s and 1970s by the trendy lefties? Is not it clear that now that those pupils who had been hijacked are parents, they are unable to give their families the moral base to know what is right and wrong today? Will he not be deflected from his path?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I believe that Professor Halsey now speaks for the views of parents, whereas he certainly did not in the 1960s. The view of the overwhelming number of parents is that the fashionable theories of the 1960s did immense damage to the quality of education in this country.
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Soley: Can the Prime Minister tell me whether it is his policy to achieve full employment?
    The Prime Minister: Every Prime Minister wishes to achieve full employment.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if discipline is not instilled at home it cannot be reinforced in schools and then enforced in society? Do not the people of this country have a right to expect the courts to be tough on parents who refuse to apply discipline to their children?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is necessary to take firm action with that relatively small number of young people who are persistent offenders. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have something to say about that shortly.
    Miss Lestor: Will the Prime Minister take time today to visit one of the nursery schools in my constituency, or in some other constituency, to remind himself that it is 21 years since a previous Tory Government gave a commitment to nursery education for all four-year-olds? Does he agree that that promise, far from being fulfilled, is now rapidly being forgotten? If he is really concerned about family life in this country, he will ensure that deprivation and other family difficulties are identified by having children under expert eyes at a very early age? Does he agree that, by his meanness in nursery education, he is depriving hundreds of young children of educational opportunities and of care and attention?
    The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Lady takes a great interest in this matter. That being the case, she will know that there are more rising fives—four-year-olds—going to school in this country than in any other European country. We have a different pattern of provision, by which our youngsters are brought into school earlier. Notwithstanding that fact, there has been a significant increase in nursery provision.

Juvenile Offending
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the Government's plans for strengthening our response to the problem of juvenile crime.
A comparatively small number of school-age children are responsible for a high proportion of crime, particularly burglary and car crime, in many parts of the country. I spoke last autumn of my concern about the apparent lack of powers for the courts to deal with the worst of these offenders, and I have since repeatedly made it clear that I am preparing proposals to close what I perceive to be a gap in the law. I believe that it is not in the interests of school-age children that they should be left at large in the community if they are out of control, playing truant from school and repeatedly committing criminal acts against the general public.
The Government are determined to continue to strengthen the powers of the courts to deal with persistent offenders. We must also take other mesures to tackle the problem on a broader front.
The courts already have some powers to sentence juvenile offenders to custody, subject to their age and the offence of which they have been convicted. They also have powers to order them to be supervised in the community, with a wide range of additional requirements, some of which involve extensive restrictions on their liberty. Those powers are necessary and sensible for the great majority of juvenile offenders, but I have decided that they are insufficient to deal effectively with that comparatively small group of very persistent juvenile offenders whose repeated offending makes them a menace to the community.
The courts will be provided with a new sentence, which for the present I am calling a secure training order. The order will be available for 12 to 15-year-olds who have been convicted of three imprisonable offences and have proved unwilling or unable to comply with the requirements of supervision in the community while on remand or under sentence. A court would be empowered to impose such a sentence only when it was satisfied that such an order was necessary to protect the public from further offending by that juvenile and when a place in a suitable facility was available. Before making an order, the court would be required to take account of a pre-sentence report. The order might last for up to two years.
The challenge for the new secure training centres will be to provide high standards of care and discipline and opportunities for the juveniles in their care to develop as individuals. Regimes in the new training centres will embrace education and training provided in ways that tackle the individual's offending behaviour. After release from the secure training centre, the order will ensure that the juvenile remains under close supervision unless and until his behaviour has altered and those responsible can be confident that he is no longer a threat to society.
It is absolutely imperative that the supervision in the community be rigorous, consistent and firmly delivered. For those persistent offenders discharged from the new training centres, supervision in the community must build on the work done inside the centres themselves.
National standards are required in this area. My Department and the Department of Health, together with
140
the Welsh Office, last year jointly issued "National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community". These standards will need to be supplemented to ensure the effective post-release supervision of 12 to 15-year-olds. Work on this will proceed as a matter of urgency.
The secure training orders will be different from anything that has ever been provided before. I envisage that the centres will be provided through agreements with suitable organisations. They may come from the public, voluntary or private sectors, provided that they can demonstrate the ability to meet the standards we shall be setting and to give value for money. Central Government will act as the purchaser of this provision.
To enable the private and voluntary sectors to provide secure accommodation, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of States for Health and for Wales will amend the present regulations under the Children Act 1989.
The care and social work activities of the centres will be inspected by the social services inspectorate, and their educational provision by inspectors of education.
The Government will also be considering whether the existing powers of courts in sentencing juvenile offenders should, in some cases, include a power to require placement in secure accommodation.
The Government will bring forward legislative proposals to give the courts new powers at the first opportunity.
In working up detailed plans to implement our proposals, we will be having discussions with a wide range of agencies and institutions which may be capable of providing the new centres. Provision will be made for the cost of the new arrangements in the course of the public expenditure planning exercise which is now under way.
In recent years, local authority social services, the probation service and many voluntary organisations have shown that sensible and constructive schemes for supervising young offenders in the community can be successful in preventing crime and diverting young people from the penal system. It is of course important that that policy should continue, and that parents should be involved in the responsibility for the upbringing and behaviour of their children. The existing policy will be strengthened by the measures which my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Health will also take in their respective fields.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be reminding social services that their responsibilities for young people who offend, and those on the brink of offending, should stress control as well as care. There should be no soft options.
My right hon. Friend will shortly issue guidance on the control regimes in secure and other forms of children's residential accommodation. That guidance will take account of the lessons learned in protecting children from abuse, such as in the pindown regime. It will also address the serious concern that staff must be able to exercise proper authority over the children in children's homes. They need sanctions if children misbehave. They should also have the necessary powers to prevent children who are detained by order of the courts from running away.
My right hon. Friend will also ensure that social services departments take a consistent approach towards the control of juvenile offenders. There must be a joint approach with the education authorities, the police and probation service and other agencies. My right hon.

141
Friend the Secretary of State for Education will also be taking measures in support of our general strategy for tackling the problems of juvenile offenders.
Schools must prove effective in instilling discipline through adherence to civilised values and by encouraging and supporting respect for other people and their property. From the earliest possible age, schools, supported by parents, must sharply discourage behaviour which may lead to a life of crime. There is no longer any place in our schools for the discredited philosophy of allowing children to develop in their own way, regardless of right or wrong. Schools must promulgate the values we as a society want to pass on to the next generation.
The national curriculum requires schools to prepare all pupils
"for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life."
The newly independent office for standards in education will be introducing a much more rigorous inspection regime, which will include explicit reporting on behaviour and discipline in schools and on how the school functions.
Action must also he taken to ensure that pupils do attend school. My right hon. Friend now requires schools to keep proper records of truancy. Parents have to be told when their children do not turn up. From next autumn, school performance tables will have to show how well they are doing in making truancy a problem of the past.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why not start here?
Mr. Clarke: I wish some people would play truant more often.
The attack on truancy must come from the Government and from parents. The Government have established a £10 million programme to help schools in 74 authorities to get to grips with the problem. Parents must get their children to school on time and make it clear that they must stay there.
Disruptive pupils must be dealt with more effectively. Significant numbers of children behave so disruptively that schools have had to exclude them. So often, of course, disruptive behaviour, if left unchecked, leads on to offending.
I am able to announce today that, following extensive consultation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education proposes to bring proposals before Parliament to place local education authorities under a new statutory duty. They will be required to develop comprehensive plans to educate pupils who are not attending school. The aim will be to provide courses tailored to the needs of the individual to prepare excluded pupils for re-entry into school.
I do not lightly commend to this House proposals which, in part, have the serious effect of depriving children of their liberty and removing them from their families. The Government, as I have shown, will continue to support proved and effective ways of dealing with children of this age without resort to custody in all cases where non-custodial measures have a reasonable chance of succeeding. Many first offenders will continue to receive a formal caution from the police, but we will shortly be strengthening our guidance to the police about the criteria for cautioning, including a warning about excessive and repeated use of cautioning in cases where it will plainly be ineffective.
142
The range of measures I have outlined today is designed to deal more effectively with juveniles on the fringes of criminality, as well as the hard-core offenders who have shown that they cannot or will not respond constructively to supervision in the community. These measures are urgently needed to deal with this problem, and I am confident that the House will support them.
Mr. Tony Blair: We welcome at least the recognition that we have been pressing upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman for months that, after 14 years, it is time that the Government took responsibility for the situation. Does he understand that the protection that we require is not just against the menace of persistent juvenile offences, but against all types of criminal offences, which have more than doubled under this Government in the past 14 years?
Coming to the central proposal, we agree that the stress should be on care and education and training in secure accommodation. The Secretary of State believes that that accommodation is best provided in entirely new institutions. We believe that it is best provided by building on the secure accommodation already available at the local level. I will put our case for this and ask him to answer three specific points.
First, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that under his proposals not one of these places will be in operation until 1995 or 1996 at the earliest? I remind the House that two years ago a Home Office Minister promised 65 extra places of secure accommodation, and not one has yet been built. We have learnt today—perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will confirm this—that not one has even had the capital funding for it accepted. Does he not understand that it is now that people require action against the rising tide of crime?
Secondly, on the issue of standards, I do not know whether the Secretary of State is aware that the Home Office has just filed evidence with the Home Affairs Select Committee to the effect that local secure accommodation is of a higher standard and leads to less reoffending than is the case with young offenders' institutions. Does he or does he not accept that?
Thirdly, will the Secretary of State listen to the universal advice that it is far preferable to isolate young offenders from their peer group and work with them to lead them to face their responsibilities than to put them in the company of 40 or 50 other persistent young offenders? What we need, in other words, is schools of responsibility, not colleges of crime.
I believe that many people will be surprised at the very narrow nature of the statement. Where, for example, is the action on support and help to make cautioning more effective, as the Association of Chief Police Officers has asked? Where is the review of section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which is causing confusion in our courts? Where is the guarantee that early intervention on young offenders, which has been proved to work, will be available in all parts of the country, because it is not available at the moment? Given that there is a conviction or caution for only one in 25 crimes, where is the national strategy for crime prevention that is absolutely essential? Above all, where is the acceptance that we do not have to choose —as the Prime Minister says—between condemning crime and understanding it, but that we should both condemn crime and try to understand its underlying causes?

143
Is not part of that understanding stopping other Government Departments from doing the very things that undermine the fight against crime? Will the Home Secretary today commit the Government to reversing the policies which have resulted in 75 per cent. of youth services facing cuts this year; which have destroyed more than 100,000 training places for the young and unemployed; which have shut drug projects and closed residential homes for young people; and which have reduced the number of education welfare officers dealing with truancy?
On the Secretary of State's extraordinary statement about truancy, can he explain why he has come forward with the proposals now when the Elton report recommended more than three years ago that the number of education welfare officers should be increased to one for every 2,500 pupils? Can he confirm, in consultation with his colleague if necessary, that today there is only one to every 6,000 as a result of the cuts?
If we are to understand the problems, would not it be sensible to understand the effect of withdrawing benefit from 16 and 17-year-olds and driving them on to the streets? Does he therefore agree categorically that of course there is never any excuse for crime and that those who commit crimes must face justice, but that if children grow up in a world without hope or opportunity, with poor education or housing, with no prospect of work or training, with no stake in the society that demands respect from them, is it not common sense that crime is more likely to breed in such conditions?
Will the Home Secretary understand that we require not a belated response to headlines that damage the Government, but a coherent and thought-out policy to tackle crime and its causes, as they threaten the nation, so that people in our communities can live in their homes and walk the streets of our country free from fear and the threat of crime as they used to be able to do?
Mr. Clarke: I shall not join in too many exchanges about who has been thinking about the problem for months. The Government can demonstrate that not only have we been speaking about it for months, but that three Departments of State have prepared today's proposals, which cover a range of problems—persistent juvenile offenders, absence from school and the regime that needs to be applied by social services departments which have children in their care.
If the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) thinks that we are moving closer together on such matters, the proof will come when we witness his reaction to our solid proposals. He began by suggesting that we should build on the secure accommodation that we already have, and that is a good starting point. Local authorities can provide secure accommodation for children as long as they act within the criteria of the Children Act 1989 and can comply with our proposals in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The Opposition were somewhat resistant to both Acts.
For philosophical reasons, most local authorities are reluctant to provide secure accommodation for juveniles and I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield and his team will use their influence to get rid of that reluctance. I hope that he will welcome the fact that when courts impose supervision orders, as they now do, the
144
Government propose to go beyond the Criminal Justice Act to enable the courts to make it a condition that the person placed under supervision should be held in secure accommodation by a local authority, which will have to provide such accommodation if it does not already have it.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield says that we committed ourselves to 65 specific places. He probably knows that we did so for a particular reason—to replace the remanding to gaol of 15 to 16-year-olds. We have made the capital money available. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has been discussing it with local authorities and it has been difficult to persuade them to take the money for providing secure accommodation. [Interruption.] I am glad that some sinners have come home to repent; I am glad that we are making progress. My right hon. Friend is well on course to providing those places by the target date of 1995. I hope that the Opposition will urge reluctant Labour authorities to work with us and take the capital money that we now have available.
Those two issues have led to the continued uncertainty of the hon. Member for Sedgefield on two points. I hope that we can still persuade him to follow up his recent rhetoric with support for our proposals. First, the hon. Gentleman will not say whether the courts should have the power to impose sentences on persistent juvenile offenders which require them to be sent to secure accommodation. For so long as the courts lack that power, they lack the ability to protect the public.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman cannot decide whether he is in favour of the institutions of the kind that I have described. One moment he welcomes them, saying that we have been laggardly, the next minute he compares them with young offenders' institutions, which deal with older and more hardened delinquents. He has also suggested that we should not put all the offenders together because that would create a university of crime. There is a gap in the law, however, because currently the courts do not have adequate powers to deal with the persistent juvenile offender. The institutions do not exist to which those people can be sent to be looked after better, educated and trained and where their offending behaviour can be tackled. The message in the hon. Gentleman's speeches is obscure, and I am not sure whether he has taken on those points.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to truancy. We have been acting on that for some time, going on from the recommendations in the Elton report. Some authorities take the problem more seriously than others. We are now requiring that schools should produce, for the first time, school-by-school figures on truancy levels. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is about to produce performance tables that will compare school by school, a concept resisted bitterly by the Labour party when we proposed it. I have just announced a package of measures, including a £10 million programme, to tackle truancy, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is fully prepared to tackle truancy in our schools.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield also referred to crime prevention programmes, but their scope goes well beyond juvenile offenders. We have developed a system to encourage crime prevention that includes the safer-city project, the neighbourhood watch scheme, and other crime prevention programmes such as car crime prevention year, which ran in 1992, and other operational activities

145
undertaken by the police to reduce burglary and car theft in target areas. We will continue to launch such programmes.
It is right to comment on those problems in a society that provides a breeding ground for crime. It is also right to comment on the conditions in some of our cities, which the Government have been tackling for many years. Our proposals for city challenge and the inner-city task force are far in advance of anything that the Opposition have suggested. However, those projects cannot be used as an alternative to tackling crime. If we are agreed on the rhetoric and we are close to agreeing on the analysis of the problem, the Opposition should recognise that the Government have brought forward a solid body of proposals. The hon. Member for Sedgefield has no proposals of his own. He cannot yet make up his mind whether he will support that which we have put forward, but I am sure that the House will.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: Does the: Home Secretary accept that his proposals today to deal with persistent offenders between the ages of 12 and 15 and the other comprehensive measures that he has introduced will be widely welcomed in the country? Does he also accept that, if a boy is a persistent offender by the age of 12, his slide into delinquency will probably have happened between the ages of 5 and 10, which is below the age of criminal responsibility?
As a former Education Secretary, does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that powers exist in the Education Acts to ensure that disruptive and emotionally disturbed children are sent to special schools and taken out of mainstream education? Will he ensure that the supply and quality of those schools is improved?
Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has measures to tackle truancy and disruptive pupils of every age. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) is right to say that powers already exist to make provision for particularly disruptive pupils, even of a very young age. We will certainly remind local authorities, education authorities and school governing bodies of those powers. My right hon. Friend also says that there are people out in 1 he field with considerable expertise and skill in dealing with difficult, disturbed and disruptive children. We need to draw on such expertise to provide facilities for older children.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary accept that, in proposing the new secure training centres for the young, he is adding to a range of options that is too limited for the magistrates and those with sentencing responsibilities? By his own admission, he is dealing with a minor part of the problem of young offending, which has become clearer and clearer as we have had 14 years of Conservative administration and a whirligig of Home Secretaries revolving their particular nostrums to tackle the problem. Does the Home Secretary also accept that, at a time when a royal commission is sitting on the criminal justice system, it would be appropriate to look at the need to establish a separate youth justice system with courts—perhaps parallel to the system in Scotland—gearing their responses to young offending in a more apt way?
Mr. Clarke: The Government have introduced youth courts. Throughout their period of office they have progressively introduced a range of powers and disposals for the courts that are effective for the vast majority of juvenile offenders. Only recently, when we took the Criminal Justice Act 1991 through the House, we gave magistrates more powers than they had previously enjoyed to impose conditions on the supervision orders that they could make for juvenile offenders. Today, I have announced that we are considering giving magistrates additional powers to make stronger conditions on the supervision orders to require that the local authority supervises the child in secure accommodation. We shall also provide an entirely new disposal for the hard co re of persistent offenders for whom there are currently no adequate provisions.
I do not believe that our proposals are an ad hoc search for solutions. They constitute a well-balanced package of measures to give the youth courts, which the Government have established, the range of powers which they need and which they tell us they require.
Dame Jill Knight: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that experienced junior, and even infant, teachers are quite capable of saying at a very early age which children are liable to grow up to be criminals? Does he agree that it is not just a matter of truancy? Schools need to return to the understanding that it is essential to discipline a child to live peaceably in a disciplined world. The constant efforts of the Labour party to allow teachers fewer and fewer disciplinary powers are dangerous.
Mr. Clarke: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. As far as it was relevant to do so, I mentioned in my statement the need for schools to accept responsibility for maintaining a properly disciplined and structured atmosphere in which to teach the national curriculum and also introduce children to the values that they need in a society such as ours. The direction of our education reforms underlines that need. We are steadily restoring a more structured atmosphere in our schools and becoming clearer about what schools should be teaching. The national curriculum includes the references that I made to general teaching of the standards required for life in a civilised society. The fact that we are giving more power to parents to influence what goes on in schools will also underline our policy.
We are addressing precisely the problems about which my hon. Friend was worried. I agree that it is extremely important to consider the problem as a whole. The initial causes of criminality are just as important as the disposals that the court can make in relation to the hard-core offenders with whom we have failed.
Mr. Stephen Byers: Does the Home Secretary recognise that his statement addresses only one small part of the overall problem? Does he accept that there need to be changes to the criminal justice system to make it far more effective, which it clearly is not at present? In particular, will he take urgent action to repeal section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 so that previous convictions can be taken into account when an offender is being sentenced? After 14 years of Conservative Government and a crisis of confidence, why will not the main proposals in his statement take effect for another two to three years?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the Criminal Justice Act 1991. It came into effect only last October, so we have barely five months' experience of its operation. That legislation was taken through Parliament at the request of the courts and was supported by both sides of the House. It makes provision for the previous convictions of offenders to be taken into account in certain circumstances. There is now widespread dissatisfaction with the 1991 Act, and I am quite prepared to re-examine it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] However, after only five months' experience of a provision that I think every right hon. and hon. Member supported only 12 months ago, we need a little time to make sure that everyone has that Act's provisions working as they were intended to work before embarking on any possible changes.
Mr. Michael Shersby: As a secure training order will be made only after a juvenile has been convicted of three imprisonable offences, and as my right hon. and learned Friend is to strengthen the police cautioning criteria, will he take account of the widespread disillusionment among the magistracy, Members of Parliament and everybody in public life with the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and allow courts to be told about similar offences?
Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House how it is proposed that
"Schools must prove effective in instilling discipline through adherence to civilised values"?
Do the Government propose to bring back corporal punishment?
Mr. Clarke: I have already described the range of offences that we will be covering, and they do not relate only to persistent juvenile offenders. We will strengthen the guidance on cautioning to make sure that persistent use of cautioning is not resorted to where it is plainly ineffective. The police can then take children before the youth court, and the Criminal Justice Act 1991 enables for the first time the parents of children to be brought before the court and to be bound over to be responsible for the good behaviour of their children. In certain circumstances, the parents can be required to pay their children's fines. Supervision orders are available, which are the next appropriate step with a juvenile who is going out of control.
The 1991 Act extended the range of conditions that justices can impose on supervision orders. We are now proposing to go a step further and are considering giving justices the power to make a supervision order subject to a condition that the child lives in secure accommodation. On top of that, we are introducing a new power to allow a sentence to be imposed on persistent offenders, sending them, under a secure training order, to one of the new secure training centres. There is no need for the police and magistrates to be disillusioned. The 1991 Act—which is certainly worth reviewing but is being too widely attacked—strengthens the powers of the youth courts in a number of key ways.
The Government have been working for months—long before the recent publicity—on ways of strengthening the powers of the courts yet further. It is important to back up the work of the police and of the schools—and it is important to back up the work that should be done by all responsible parents if juvenile crime in this country is to be brought down to a tolerable level.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: The Home Secretary was singularly unprepared to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), but will he comment on a letter that I received today from a constituent who is on the management committee of the Young Lewisham project? That project concerns itself specifically with dealing with young people before they become persistent offenders. The letter states:
"I find it at least ironic and at worst callously indifferent to hear members of the Government and Ministers bemoaning the lack of social responsibility among young people and expressing concerns about juvenile crime, when the consequence of their policies on local government spending is that something as worth while as the Young Lewisham project is forced to close."
Will the Home Secretary ask his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that funding is available for ventures such as the Young Lewisham project? Will he also say when the measures that he has announced will be implemented?
Mr. Clarke: We have greatly expanded the finance available to social services departments, the police and the criminal justice system over the past 12 or 13 years. We continue to direct ourselves to how those resources can best be used. In the case of voluntary bodies supported by local authorities, provision is ultimately local, and must be determined by local authorities—along with their voluntary bodies—in the light of their own priorities, although the Government provide the funds.
How far and how rapidly we progress with the ideas that I have announced today will depend on the availability of parliamentary time, and on the progress of the discussions that I now propose to have about the development of the regime with all those who have expertise in the field. We need to define the cost of providing the necessary centres. We have every intention of pressing on as quickly as possible. I am glad to say that the Government identified the problem at an early stage, and we intend to introduce the new provisions as fast as is reasonably possible.
Mr. Roger Sims: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the frustration felt by the magistracy and the police about the present state of the law, which states that a child under the age of 10 is incapable of a criminal act, and that, in the case of a child aged between 10 and 14, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the child knew it was doing something criminal? Is there not an argument for stating—in the light of common knowledge of children and the way in which they mature nowadays—that the court should make its own judgment about whether a child knew that it was performing a criminal act, and should deal with that child accordingly?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right about the way in which children over 10 are dealt with. I have no doubt that there has been controversy for generations, in the House and elsewhere, about the age of criminal responsibility. Plainly, there comes a point at which a child cannot be placed before a court: we would not put before a court a seven-year-old awaiting sentence for a criminal act. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) has reminded us, however, that does not mean that there is nothing that anyone can do about disruptive children.
It may not be suitable to put before a court a seven-year-old who has carried out violent, dangerous or

149
dishonest acts, thus beginning his criminal career and the list of his criminal convictions. Nevertheless, steps must be taken, by the education authority or, if necessary, the social services department, to deal with the disruptive behaviour of that child. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that the earlier such potentially criminal behaviour is addressed, the better it may be for society as a whole.
Mr. David Alton: The Home Secretary has placed a great onus on parents and teachers. Does he accept, however, that contradictory and confusing messages are sent to many homes because of the high level of television violence and the easy availability of snuff videos and video nasties, as well as the powerful effect of drugs as a pressure for crime?
Does the Home Secretary recognise that much of the problem is due to the fact that many of the children involved come from broken and unloving homes, where there are no fathers, where brothers and sisters often have multiple partners and where the steadying influence of grandparents does not exist? Does he accept that, although hon. Members on both sides of the House wholeheartedly support his call for children to be able to choose between right and wrong, that is virtually impossible while parents and teachers have to struggle with their current dilemma? They tell a child, "Thou shalt not kill, mug, maim, burgle or destroy"; at the same time, those actions feature, dressed up as entertainment, on virtually every televison programme that that child sees at home.
Mr. Clarke: I agree with some of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the material to which children are frequently exposed on television, in videos and elsewhere. It is less easy to come up with remedies on which the House can agree, but the House—and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage—should continue to address the problem.
I agree strongly with what the hon. Gentleman said about drugs. We are seeking to develop yet stronger policies to deal with the abuse of drugs. It is one of the causes of crime that society has the ability to control, as long as we back up the police, the voluntary agencies and every other agency to try to contain it.
As for the hon. Gentleman's point about support and affection in the home, obviously the best defence for a child is a good, supportive home where that child is given
150
affection, and is also taught to distinguish between right and wrong. The new centres that I propose for persistent juvenile offenders will be secure accommodation: the offenders will be locked up and prevented from escaping. They will be made to go through the process of education that they need at that age, and they will be trained; but I suspect that many will also receive more care, affection and personal attention than they received in their own homes. That is one of the many gaps that we shall fill when imposing a sentence that will usually be necessary in the offenders' interest, just as much as in the interest of the public.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's important statement. May I urge him not to delay the implementation of these necessary measures? Will he call on local authorities to use their existing powers much more effectively? Was it not noticeable that the Opposition spokesman had little to say about the many failures of local authorities in that respect?
Mr. Clarke: I shall be introducing legislation as soon as is reasonably possible, although, at the moment, the parliamentary timetable is peculiarly difficult to anticipate. However, this is an urgent priority. I have already said that we shall be making the necessary financial provision in this year's public expenditure round and we are now moving on to the detailed planning with the would-be providers of the centres that we require. I certainly accept my hon. Friend's strictures on the urgency of putting the measures in place.
I also agree with what he said about some local authorities. In some parts of the country there is a dearth of secure accommodation for juveniles, sometimes because the local authority social services department has a philosophical objection to providing it. If the climate of public opinion is changing generally, it should also change among such local authorities. If there has been a conversion among our opponents, that should help to produce a similar conversion by local government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am bringing questions on the statement to a close. The guillotine on the Education Bill falls in less than two hours, and we have private Members' business before that.

Points of Order
4.12 pm
Mr. David Blunkett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance about asking the Secretary of State for Health to tell the House this afternoon whether it is true that she is about to announce a dramatic increase in prescription charges, which will constitute a rise of 2,000 per cent. since the Government said in 1979 that prescription charges would remain at 20p. She is prepared to tax the sick, not the rich—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now making a speech. I understood his Secretary of State for Health, but I have not been informed that she wishes to make a statement to the House. We shall now proceed with today's business.
Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order relating to the Education Bill, Madam Speaker. I wish to complain about the intolerably short time that we have had to examine new clause 22. Hon. Members such as myself who live in the north and who go home to their constituencies at the weekend have not been allowed time to table an effective amendment.
Madam Speaker: That is very much a matter for the Government. It is not a point of order for me. I dealt with the amendments in good time and under the normal procedure.
Mr. Jim Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I in no way seek to call into question what happened on the statement, Madam Speaker, but may I draw your attention to the fact that members of the two Front Benches took well over half of the 40 minutes we had for questions, leaving insufficient time for Back Benchers such as myself, whose constituencies suffer from these problems, to raise specific constituency issues? I realise the difficulty that you faced today, but could you perhaps bring pressure to bear indirectly on members of the Front Benches to make them
152
more aware of Back Benchers' problems in future and perhaps arrange for an urgent debate through the Leader of the House?
Madam Speaker: I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman's support. I face such problems every day. I can assure him that every time there is a statement in the House I make a note of how long the members of the two Front Benches take and that I deal with the situation in the best way that I can. Today I have to strike a balance because of the guillotine on the Education Bill. I know that the hon. Gentleman and the House understand that.

BILLS PRESENTED
  CARRYING OF KNIVES ETC. (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Phil Gallie, supported by Mr. Raymond S. Robertson, Mr. Bill Walker, Mr. George Kynoch, Mr. Jim Wallace, Mrs Margaret Ewing, Dr. Norman A. Godman and Mr. Robert Hughes, presented a Bill to provide, as respects Scotland, for it to be an offence to have in a public place an article with a blade or point; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 March, and to be printed. [Bill 147.]
  EDUCATION (CITY TECHNOLOGY COLLEGES APPEALS PROCEDURE)
  Mr. Simon Hughes presented a Bill to allow for a right of appeal by pupils or parents refused admission to a City Technology College: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 March, and to be printed. [Bill 148.]
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  OFFICIAL SECRETS
  That the draft Official Secrets Act 1989 (Prescription) (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. MacKay]
  Question agreed to.

Local Government (Amendment)
4.16 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision as to the functions of local authorities in relation to ethnic minorities; to amend section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 to permit grants to be made to local authorities making special provisions in exercising their functions, in consequence of the presence within their areas of substantial numbers of people from ethnic minority communities; and for connected purposes.
Mr. Gerrard: The purpose of the Bill is simply to make an amendment to section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966. That section enables the Home Secretary to make grants to local authorities to meet the needs of some ethnic minority communities within their areas. The system is that the Home Secretary provides 75 per cent. of the funding through grants, and the local authority matches that with 25 per cent. In the current year, about £129 million is being spent in this way and is funding the equivalent of about 10,000 full-time staff.
The problem with section 11 is the definition within it. At present it reads that the Home Secretary can make the grants to local authorities in consequence of the presence within their areas of substantial numbers of immigrants from the Commonwealth. Although that wording may have been perfectly appropriate in 1966, now that we have significant numbers of refugees and asylum seekers not from the Commonwealth living in many local authority areas, it is not appropriate any more.
There are some other problems with section 11 which my Bill will not address. The problem of resources is one. The Government impose an annual cash limit and have just announced reductions over the next three years. It is somewhat ironic that, in the letter which they wrote to local authorities saying that they were firmly committed to the reduction of racial disadvantage, the Government announced cuts in this provision.
Also section 11 does not address short-term costs. Under my Bill grant could be paid to help local authorities to meet the special needs of refugees, but from time to time local authorities have to cope with sudden arrivals of significant numbers of people. That happened in the past with Kurdish refugees and more recently with refugees from eastern Europe.
It would be inappropriate to suggest that section 11 was the only way to address those problems, but it has been accepted for some time that section 11 needs amendment. The Government carried out their own review in 1988 and came to that conclusion, suggesting that there was need to widen the definition and that there should be changes in the requirement of substantial numbers, and that section 11 grant should be payable to other service providers and to the voluntary sector, although local authorities would continue to have an important role in co-ordination.
Since that review there have been some changes, but most of what was happening in 1988 is still happening. Almost 90 per cent. of section 11 funding goes to education. That reflects historic developments but also to some extent the cash limiting of the past two or three years which has prevented new projects from getting off the ground. So that the bulk of the money is going on projects such as English for speakers of other languages, careers education and adult basic literacy. But there are other services that are supporting projects such as helping
154
elderly people through the social services, business development advice, challenging racial harassment, translation and the like.
The difficulty is that the changing patterns of need and the need to deal with non-Commonwealth communities cannot be legitimately recognised within those projects. Some London boroughs will give estimates of the cost of providing services. Enfield and Ealing estimate that they have within their areas about 2,500 refugee children who require intensive language teaching. While it may not necessarily be appropriate for all that they need to be met under section 11, and while such need should certainly be recognised in standard spending assessments, section 11 projects should be able to address it.
The present situation is nonsensical in that a class of children, for example, could consist half of Turkish Cypriots and half of Turks. Half the class could be taught through a section 11 project and the other half could not, although clearly the needs would be similar. Over the past 15 years substantial numbers of people have arrived from non-Commonwealth countries—from Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Latin America and, more recently, from eastern Europe. Many of those people have been granted settlement and have obvious needs. They require assistance but they cannot be helped under section 11. There is no doubt that the present arrangements make for inefficient administrative systems. For example, if an authority provides English classes it makes administrative and educational sense for them to be open to non-English speakers from any community rather than being restricted to people from new Commonwealth communities.
Some issues raised by the Home Office review, such as the use of other agencies and, to some degree, the use of the voluntary sector, have been dealt with through the ethnic minorities grants which were introduced in 1991 and are funded through training and enterprise councils. In setting up that system the Home Office said that it was a means by which grant could be opened up to new areas of ethnic minority need and to the voluntary sector, so that the needs of all ethnic minorities, without regard to origin, could be considered. It is a pity that so far the Home Office has found only £4 million a year to distribute in ethnic minorities grant. In addition, local authorities have been encouraged to base projects in the voluntary sector. Indeed, they are required to identify section 11 projects for grant bids.
Everyone involved with section 11 now recognises that it needs amending. The Home Office recognises that, too. Ideally, the Home Office should have dealt with the matter after its review, with new legislation covering all the aspects. Instead the matter has been addressed in a piecemeal way. That is not ideal, but it is a precedent that the Government have already set. After listening to statements such as that which we heard earlier, and thinking about the pressures on parliamentary time, think it unlikely that the Government will find time for a Bill on the subject. In the meantime, therefore, my Bill is needed to help local authorities to target resources efficiently and effectively and to help them reflect the changing needs within their areas.
I finish by quoting the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), whom I am glad to see sitting on the Government Front Bench now. Last year the hon. Gentleman wrote to the Refugee Council in response to its enquiry about the scope for section 11, saying that he recognised its concern

155
"that the majority of refugees are not able to benefit from support under this provision because they do not come from the New Commonwealth…We accept that there is a need to bring forward legislation and when there is a suitable opportunity we intend to extend the scope of the grant beyond New Commonwealth ethnic minorities to whom, for historical reasons, it is restricted at present."
The Minister now has an opportunity to support my Bill and to do what the Home Office has been saying for some time that it wants to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. David Lidington, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Mike Watson, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Stephen Byers and Mr. Bernie Grant.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Neil Gerrard accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision as to the functions of local authorities in relation to ethnic minorities; to amend section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 to permit grants to be made to local authorities making special provisions in exercising their functions, in consequence of the presence within their areas of substantial numbers of people from ethnic minority communities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 March, and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

Education Bill (Allocation of Time)
Resolved,
That the Report [11th February] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Newton.]
Report considered accordingly.
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in its resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) and agreed to.
Following is the report of the Business Committee:

(1) The order in which proceedings on consideration are taken shall be new Clauses; Amendments to Clauses Nos. 1 and 2, Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 3 to 7, Schedule No. 2, Clauses Nos. 8 to 29, Schedule No. 4, Clauses Nos. 30 to 44, Schedule No. 3, Clauses Nos. 45 to 49, Schedules Nos. 5 and 6, Clauses Nos. 50 to 53, Schedule No. 7, Clauses Nos. 54 to 154, Schedule No. 8, Clauses No. 155, Schedule No. 9, Clauses Nos. 156 to 168, Schedule No. 10, Clauses Nos. 169 to 201, Schedule No. 11, Clauses Nos. 202 to 219, Schedule No. 12, Clauses Nos. 220 to 222, Schedule No. 13, Clauses Nos. 223 to 231, Schedule No. 14, Clauses Nos. 232 to 237, Schedule No. 15, Clauses Nos. 238 to 268 and Schedules Nos. 16 to 18; and new Schedules;

(2) The allotted days which under the Order of 15th December are given to the proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

Government new Clauses

6 p.m.

Remaining new Clauses

8 p.m.

Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 143

10 p.m.

Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 195

midnight

Second day

Amendments up to the end of Schedule No. 12

6.30 p.m.

Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 256

6.30 p.m.

Amendments to Clause No. 257

8 p.m.

Remaining proceedings on consideration

9 p.m.

Third Reading

10 p.m.

Orders of the Day

  Education Bill
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It concerns the selection of amendments for today's debate. Under the selection on clause 156, amendment No. 97 has been selected. That amendment directs that the subsection of the clause should be left out and that subsections (2) and (3) should be inserted. Those subsections include the provisions in amendment No. 98, but amendment No. 98 has not been selected, so amendment No. 97 does not make any sense in its present form.
  Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman had given me a little notice, I might have been able to turn all the pages more rapidly. As all the amendment and page numbers were thrown at me, may I examine the matter and report back to him?

New clause 22

  GENERAL DUTY OF SECRETARY OF STATE
  ' .—(1) The Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales.

  (2) In particular he shall exercise for that purpose his powers in respect of those bodies in receipt of public funds which—

  (a) carry responsibility for securing that the required provision for education is made in, or in any area of, England or Wales, or

  (b) conduct educational institutions in England and Wales.

  (3) He shall, in the case of his powers to regulate the provision made in educational institutions in England and Wales, exercise his powers with a view, among other things, to improving standards, encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice.'—[Mr. Patten.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.28 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it might be convenient to take the following: amendment (b) to the new clause, at end insert—
  '(4) He shall exercise his powers in respect of the distribution of public funds to ensure that they are distributed equitably.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 81 and 82.
  Mr. Patten: I am glad to put to the House something which I think will be historically important in educational terms. I am all the more pleased because I presume that it will have the enthusiastic support of Opposition Members. I say that because my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) assures me that the clause responds to the general concerns of both sides of the Standing Committee.
  I believe that one of the first people to press for me to move such a new clause was the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright). That is exactly what one might
  158
  expect from such an erudite and far-seeing Member of the House. I hope that I am damaging enough with his general management committee in what I am saying. Of course, his views were—
  Mr. James Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
  Mr. Patten: I was just coming to my hon. Friend. I know that he felt exactly the same way. That does not surprise me, because his wisdom and judgment in such matters are unparalleled throughout the House.
  Mr. Pawsey: I am not quite sure whether I should have asked my right hon. Friend to give way at that specific time. I was merely going to say that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) spoke at some length on the matter in Standing Committee. Clearly, there is a general flow of good will across the Chamber on this important clause. I feel it only right that my right hon. Friend should be aware of that current of good will.
  Mr. Patten: I wish that there would always be a current of good will from both sides of the House whenever I get to the Dispatch Box.
  I know that both sides of the Chamber are realistic about the way in which the educational world has changed beyond the vision set out at the beginning of the 1944 Education Act. I welcome the fact that, even though we may differ on many other points, everyone seems to recognise that the world has moved on in the last half-century. That is not surprising.
  Mr. Derek Enright: In the current constructive mood of good will, would the Secretary of State care to take on board the 99 positive proposals which we have made but which he has overlooked or the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) is loth to tell him about? The right hon. Gentleman will have overlooked it. I understand that because he did not appear once to listen to the deliberations of the Standing Committee.
  Mr. Patten: All those constructive views were listened to carefully, and, with his usual charm, rejected, by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
  I am indebted to both Conservative and Opposition members of the Committee for their support in the Standing Committee for the move that we are making. The debates, which are there in the Standing Committee Hansard for all to see, highlighted the fact that section 1 o the Education Act 1944 refers exclusively to the responsibility of local education authorities alone for the delivery of education services. It is no longer the case that LEAs alone have responsibility for the delivery of education. Things have moved on a great deal in the past half-century.
  The thrust of Government policy in recent years has been to change the picture, especially since the landmark Education Reform Act 1988, which will be a monument to the service rendered in this place by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). That Act has helped to transfer power and responsibility to the institutions—the schools and colleges.
  The 1988 Act created the initial framework for the transfer of power by requiring schemes of local management for all state schools and colleges of further education, and by giving schools the right to opt out of

  159
  local education authority control. One of the results of that bears repeating, because Opposition Members continue to talk the success story down.
  There has been a startlingly successful move towards self-government in both further education and grant-maintained schools. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I attended a reception last night to mark the creation of the new further education sector, which will have complete freedom from local authority control after 1 April 1993. We have seen the effects and benefits of increased freedom.
  As of today, more than 650 schools have applied for full self-governing, grant-maintained status. As projected in last summer's White Paper, by April 1994 the number of grant-maintained schools could be about 1,500. Of course, by then all LEA schools in Britain will have delegated budgets under the local management of schools scheme. LMS was bitterly fought a few years ago by the Opposition but, curiously enough, it is often used now as a weapon to persuade schools not to become self-governing. Local authorities say, "We will give you 85, 90 or 95 per cent. of the control over your budget."
  As Mr. Enoch Powell might have said, it is paradoxical that that which the Labour party used to oppose five years ago it now uses as a weapon to try to stand in the way of Government policy. That attempt will fail, in the same way as opposition to delegated school management failed only five years ago.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: A similar statement was made in Committee that we opposed the principle of local management of schools. We did not. We opposed the formula which the then Secretary of State proposed to introduce—especially the running sore of basing the budget on average school salary costs rather than real school salary costs.
  Mr. Patten: No one who was in the House in 1987 and 1988, who sat through the many hours of the Committee stage of the Education Reform Bill or who took part in and listened with care and attention to the debates on the Floor of the House could have come away with anything other than the opinion that the Labour party did not wish to see the end of local bureaucratic control.
  I welcome the hon. Gentleman's belated conversion. I suppose that it is the beginning of the modernisation of the Labour party's education policy, albeit five years behind the times. After the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has left her position on the Front Bench to go somewhere else, the next Front-Bench spokesman will be thoroughly in favour of grant-maintained schools, just you wait and see.
  The belief in self-government lay at the heart of the White Paper introduced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself, and of the Bill, which has now almost completed its passage through this House. The Bill consolidates the framework laid down in the 1988 Act. That framework provides for more and more schools to achieve self-governing status. But the laws which govern the provision of education must recognise what is happening and the fact that there have been other transfers of powers in the education world.
  The then R. A. Butler's 1944 Education Act marked a great leap forward in the development of the education
  160
  system in this country. I often think that, had the then R. A. Butler, in his scheme in the 1944 Act, had the benefit of the national curriculum and regular testing, the tripartite division of schools that he introduced in that Act might still endure today, because the national curriculum provides equality of opportunity and a minimum entitlement for all our children.
  That did not happen, as he did not have a national curriculum or testing, but the Act itself has been on the statute book for half a century, and times have changed. The model of a centrally planned system, from Whitehall to town halls and county halls, is no longer appropriate, with a hierarchy of control from the Secretary of State to the local education authority, and through the local education authority to the school or college. It is certainly not appropriate for the 21st century, as was obvious to some well before the Education Act 1988.
  My noted constituent Professor Halsey, fellow of Nuffield College Oxford, was much mentioned during Prime Minister's Question Time, and I have followed his sayings over the years. In a speech as long ago as January 1981, he doubted the wisdom of leaving education in the hands of—I quote directly from The Guardian, so it must be true—"professional education officers". He recommended a system whereby every school would receive a direct grant from Whitehall. As Professor Halsey said, "Why not try something revolutionary—local democracy?" That is exactly what we are doing. The Labour party is just 12 or 13 years behind Professor Halsey.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: During the process of the Bill through Committee, Opposition Members were continually talking about our measures being centralising. My right hon. Friend is making it perfectly clear that they do not even begin to understand the purpose of the Bill and Government policy. Will he confirm that our proposals and the Bill move towards local democracy and to the control of education being in the hands of schools, teachers and parents, and are the opposite of centralisation?
  Mr. Patten: Some people in the Labour party are now beginning to believe that, in democracies throughout the western world, the move towards giving individuals and communities greater control over their own affairs, be it in schools or the health service, is a model. Words such as "empowerment" and "distribution of power" have been falling from the lips of some of the modernisers in the Labour party.
  However, none of those modernisers is represented on the Opposition Front Bench today. The Opposition education team is in the hands of the producer lobbies and one or two trade unions. They should listen to what Professor Halsey said in 1981. I repeat, for the second and last time, my prediction that, by the end of the Parliament, we might well see the Labour party having turned on its head on grant-maintained schools, in the same way as it has done over trust hospitals and the local management of schools. That has been the history of the Labour party since 1979.
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I am extremely concerned that the Secretary of State is not up to date. Perhaps he has not read Professor Halsey's letter in The Guardian this morning, in which he fully reaffirms his commitment to comprehensive schools, and states:

  161
  "My preferred educational policy is also that of the Labour Party which deplores Conservative privatisation, underfunding and centralised bureaucracy, and which favours comprehensive schools. In short I remain an unrepentant ethical socialist."
  Mr. Patten: For some reason, I have not read The Guardian this morning. I will do so, but I was reading from what Professor Halsey said 12 years ago. He may well have turned on his head, having been used so much by the Conservative party and the press. I regret the fact that he is now flicking backwards and forwards between one position and another.
  Historians and academics, like Professor Halsey, would think ill of Members of Parliament if we failed in our duty to bring the lapsing provisions of the Education Act 1944 up to date, and it is in that spirit that I tabled the new clause. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will admire its straightforward simplicity. It is deliberately framed in a general form. Without the tedium of a long list, it covers all the relevant institutions and bodies. It also covers the colleges of further education, the Further Education Funding Council, the Higher Education Funding Council and the universities.
  This is a radically different picture from that of half a century ago, when local education authorities ruled all the education waves—not only schools but further education colleges, and subsequently those institutions that became polytechnics, which a few years ago we set free of local authority control and enfranchised as independent universities. One has only to go to an independent grant-maintained school, an independent further education college or an independent university within the state system to see the benefits of independence. Those benefits need to be reflected in this vital clause.
  The new clause also emphasises the Government's key educational objectives, which, unfortunately, do not seem to be shared by many Opposition Members. These objectives include improved standards—improved mainly through the encouragement of diversity—and increased choice for pupils and parents.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is this very independence that stimulates vitality and new ideas in heads and teaching staffs, as well as in parents? Responsibility for implementation is what really brings ideas to fruition. In teaching, that is what provides ultimate satisfaction.
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend was in education for many years before coming to the House. Because of that experience, I respect what he says and always give way to him.
  What my hon. Friend has said does not apply just to grant-maintained schools. One now finds 90 per cent. delegation in LEA schools. Many such schools are on the edge of the nest, ready to fly off as fully independent institutions. There is a terrific feeling of zip and vim, and there is much experimentation. I pay tribute to those schools. The modernising tendency that is sweeping the Labour party has yet to reach education.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I approve entirely of the right hon. Gentleman's concern for diversity and choice. In that context, will he look again at what I said in Committee about the possibility of providing state funding for schools whose curricula are
  162
  different from, but none the less at a deep level compatible with, the national curriculum in terms of both scope and standards?
  Does he recognise that such schools have an enormous contribution to make? So long as it can be proved that they have been successful and have reached the same destination by a different route, consideration ought to be given to some means, other than those that I have proposed, of providing state support for them.
  Mr. Patten: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's great interest in these issues. I was about to say that he and I have crossed swords, but it would be more correct to say that we have almost crossed the Floor towards each other during Question Time exchanges about special educational needs. I respect his views and am aware of his deep interest in Steiner schools. I respect what that movement does.
  However, state funds should be provided for schools that undertake the national curriculum. That is a minimum entitlement of all children in all schools of any sort within the state sector. The grant-maintained schools, county schools and schools in metropolitan areas deliver it. That is the right way forward.
  We are always willing to consider applications from schools of all sorts for admission to the state sector, provided there is no surplus of school places in the areas concerned, and provided that the schools teach the national curriculum. Having been made aware of the hon. Gentleman's position, I shall keep an open mind on these issues. However, in the context of this Bill, we cannot go any further down the route that I know the hon. Gentleman wishes us to take.
  I have referred to the way in which the system has changed since 1944. This new clause certainly does not sound the death knell for council control of primary and secondary schools. In effect, schemes of delegated management and self-government have almost done that already.
  The new clause makes it clear that the role of local education authorities is changing rapidly. So far as some schools stay within the LEAs, these authorities will continue to plan provision in them and service them. The LEAs will also retain certain key strategic responsibilities —most notably in the field of special educational needs. But LEAs will no longer be the sole, and in some cases no longer a substantial, provider of education.
  Education authorities are increasingly becoming enablers. They are enabling schools to provide education and are providing some services. The new clause reflects that existing and dynamic state of affairs. It encapsulates the Government's vision of our future education system. It recognises the fact that the system is changing very rapidly, as well as the extent of change since 1944, and I commend it to the House.
  4.45 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I ought to start by welcoming the Secretary of State to the debate on the Bill. Since November we have been discussing it in great detail in Committee. The fact that the Secretary of State never even put his head round the door of the Committee room proves that his interest in the Bill is not exactly commendable.

  163
  The Secretary of State did not make any reference to amendment (b), in my name and the names of several of my hon. Friends. That amendment would provide that
  "He shall exercise his powers in respect of the distribution of public funds to ensure that they are distributed equitably."
  It is surprising that the Secretary of State did not say whether he was prepared to accept our amendment. Obviously, this is an issue with which he does not feel comfortable. Perhaps his remarks a few moments ago explain his problem. He said that schools should receive public money for delivering the national curriculum, yet the Government support the assisted places scheme, by which public money is used to subsidise independent schools that do not provide the national curriculum. Perhaps that is why the Secretary of State was not willing to address the basic principle of equity, which is the foundation of our amendment.
  In some respects, the new clause could be seen as harmless. It is a declaratory provision full of rhetoric but without much meaning. It is strange in that it gives the Secretary of State powers, whereas the Act of 1944 imposed duties. If the Secretary of State's role is so critical, he should be seen as undertaking duties rather than exercising powers. One can choose whether to exercise powers.
  In any case, I am not happy with the new clause. It is not true that there was Opposition pressure for it. Opposition Members drew attention to the anomaly in the Government's legislation, but that is hardly the equivalent of calling for such a provision. Before the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends came on the scene, there was a consensus that the Government were responsible for providing the framework of education, while the local authorities administered its delivery in accordance with local circumstances and local decisions, democratically arrived at. That is local accountability—a concept with which the Secretary of State seems to have difficulty in grappling. The Secretary of State's grabbing of specific powers has proceeded apace in recent years.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Act of 1988, which was introduced by his right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). Once that power was given to Secretaries of State, they became addicted to acquiring even more power and holding it in their own hands. Even before this Bill was introduced, the Secretary of State had power to appoint to quangos whomever he liked and to seek advice from those agreeing with him, and from no one else. The Secretary of State can decide the content of the curriculum. Indeed, he can announce changes such as the one about which we heard today—that the chairman of the National Curriculum Council and the chairman of the School Examinations and Assessment Council have resigned and a new appointment has been made. It is interesting to note that, when talking about his powers and role, the Secretary of State does not refer to the changes relevant to the Bill that have been made during the discussions on the measure.
  Let us not forget that the right hon. Gentleman had, and used, many powers prior to the introduction of the Bill. He had powers over the curriculum, assessment and testing and powers to determine methods and levels of funding, in so far as the Treasury would allow, and over methods of teaching and teacher training. But even that array of powers was not enough for the present Secretary
  164
  of State, which is why new clauses were introduced at a late stage, well after the guillotine had fallen, without proper time for consultations. Ministers have been panicked into using the measure to prop up some of their failing policies.
  For example, the Secretary of State is taking new powers under clause 25 to enable him to declare void a ballot on grant-maintained status, if he thinks that somebody has played a part in influencing the ballot through the provision of information to parents. He will personally make that judgment. He has already introduced a new clause to force the issue of grant-maintained status on to the agenda of every governing body each year. So much for Government claims about trusting the judgment of governors.
  Now we have the new clause, the so-called zero clause, which emphasises the role of the individual who holds the Secretary of State's office. But the right hon. Gentleman spent little time on the way in which he wants to repeal section 1 of the Education Act 1944, which he called the bedrock of education for the last 40 years. That fundamental change to the 1944 Act was introduced last Friday, although it was trailed in The Daily Mail a day earlier. The change, fundamental to the balance of power in education, has not been arrived at through consultation or consensus. The Government have simply determined to use their majority to achieve the change, without canvassing opinion inside or outside Parliament. Ministers are making policy on the hoof. Their policies will not stand the test of time, and the present Secretary of State is not well known for his willingness to consult on any issue.
  Mr. Pawsey: Does the hon. Lady agree that only two weeks ago the Secretary of State met representatives of five of the six main teacher unions—a clear sign that he is prepared to listen to what others have to say?
  Mrs. Taylor: I fancy that the Secretary of State would rather not receive that type of assistance from the Benches behind him, not least because he has been personally responsible for digging the very hole out of which the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) was trying to rescue him. It was clear from what was said at Question Time earlier that the Secretary of State has still not taken on board many of the fundamental points that the teachers put to him.
  I wonder whether the Secretary of State even discussed the issues involved with the Prime Minister. After all, on Friday we had the publication of the new clause, which The Daily Mail described as the death knell of local authorities—we have been told that the Secretary of State does not believe in local authorities and thinks they should be abolished—and on the following day the Prime Minister told the Conservative local government conference—many people must have been surprised to learn that there was such a body—that there should be a new partnership between central and local government. If there is to be such a partnership, why is the Secretary of State trying to abolish the responsibility and accountability in education that local authorities have had under the Education Act 1944?
  In Committee, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools—who, unlike the Secretary of State, was present for all our sessions; I suppose that the Government had to be represented by someone—made it clear that he regarded any Conservatiive councillor as having a vested interest. When we asked him about his attitude towards

  165
  Conservative education leaders who had reservations about the Bill, he dismissed them as vested interests. I wonder whether he discussed the matter with the Prime Minister or took on board his right hon. Friend's claimed new spirit of co-operation with local authorities.
  The new clause confirms that the Secretary of State wants a national system of education under his personal political control. He is making it clearer than ever that schools that become grant-maintained will not be opting out of local authority control but will be opting into centralised control under the right hon. Gentleman's direction. He will, as now, determine the curriculum, the level of funding and the number of teachers and, as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said, the Government do not believe that the class size issue is relevant to the quality of education.
  Mr. James Clappison: The hon. Lady has spoken at length about the powers of the Secretary of State. Will she comment on the objectives of the new clause which those powers will be used to achieve? In other words, will she speak about my right hon. Friend's powers to improve standards and to increase diversity and opportunity for choice? What has she to say to parents about those issues? What is her philosophy towards, and her policies on, education and standards?
  Mrs. Taylor: I remind the hon. Gentleman that his right hon. Friend said at Question Time this afternoon that during 14 years of Conservative rule the problems of illiteracy in Britain had increased. I accept that we need improved standards, but there is no sign of such standards being achieved for all children in Britain under the Conservatives.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: If the hon. Lady is arguing that many grant-maintained schools are effectively opting into central Government control, may I ask her to square that with the remarks of her predecessor, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—a quite intelligent Labour Front-Bench spokesman—who said in June 1992 that parents and governors might feel bound to make decisions about what was best for their schools and that Labour must not appear to be in opposition to those parents? If parents feel that they can take more control of decisions relating to their schools, they cannot feel that they are opting into control by central Government.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. While I do not recall him praising my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) when he was shadow Secretary of State, I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept the praise retrospectively. There have been occasions when parents have suggested that a school should become grant maintained to protect its comprehensive nature. I believe that some parents will take that course, and I shall appreciate their concern in view of the selection that is being introduced.
  Ms. Armstrong: My hon. Friend may recall that I was a member of the Labour education team at the time to which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) referred. We were then particularly referring to parents in Kent, Tory Wandsworth and other Conservative authorities where schools were being starved and were having imposed on them a system of education that they did not want. Therefore, in order to preserve the strength of comprehensive education, which they wanted their
  166
  children to continue to enjoy, we said that perhaps we had to allow them to make that choice. The Tories were not allowing them any decisions or any choice over the future education of their children.
  5 pm
  Mr. Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that it would not be the intention of the hon. Member for Durham, North West (Ms. Armstrong) to mislead the House in any way. We recognise that she is a person of integrity, but I fear that, inadvertently, she has not entirely answered the point.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a point of order for me.
  Mr. Pawsey: I have in my possession a copy of the press release that was published at the time. It is headed
  "Labour publishes new advice on opting-out."
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mrs. Taylor: I think that my—
  Mr. John Bowis rose—
  Mrs. Taylor: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later, but I am answering the point first. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are working to a guillotine, because his Government have limited the time for discussion of this Bill.
  When the White Paper was published, followed by the Bill, many people outside the House expressed concern at the centralisation of decision making in education. There are now many people whose anxiety has increased as the Bill has gone through Committee and the Secretary of State has taken more powers to himself.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: My hon. Friend will agree with me that from the beginning of this debate it has been clear that the Bill has nothing to do with standards. It is designed to centralise education and obliterate local education authorities. That has been the main aim of the Bill from the first day.
  Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. Sometimes Ministers have been honest about that, and sometimes they have tried to disguise that purpose. I think that it is true to say that Conservative councillors involved in education, as well as Labour councillors and those from other parties, are desperately concerned about the power that the Secretary of State has already, the way in which he uses that power and the constant interference in education by Ministers. I believe that their concern would increase were the Government to get their way and add the new clause to the Bill.
  Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I seek merely to correct an impression that might otherwise mislead the House. I have in my possession the press notice that was issued by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). It is headed:
  "Labour publishes new advice on opting-out."
  The date is 10 June 1992 and the relevant section is:
  "it must be recognised that local circumstances will vary. The community of schools is under threat of being broken up, but parents and governors may feel bound to make decisions

  167
  about what they think is best for their school. Labour must not appear to be placed in a hostile position of opposition to such parents.."
  That is the relevant issue.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming what my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstong) said; that that was in relation to Kent and Wandsworth. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the majority of schools that have opted out have been in Conservative-controlled authorities. The Secretary of State who introduced the original legislation said that he expected opt-out to take place in areas where there were poor local authorities and parents wanted to escape from them. It is very evident that, if that is the reasoning behind opting out, it is in Tory areas that there is the greatest level of dissatisfaction.
  Mr. Bowis rose—
  Mrs. Taylor: No, I must carry on. Hon. Members will complain if I do not draw my remarks to a close.
  There was a great deal of concern when Ministers first decided to take these extra powers. The Association of County Councils, which is a Conservative-dominated body, called it a constitutional Bill and expressed its alarm; the Churches expressed their concern at the extra powers that the Secretary of State was taking; and even the Conservative Education Association talked about the Secretary of State trying to nationalise our schools, and said that the Bill proposed a frightening over-centralisation of power in the hands of the Secretary of State. And that was before this new clause was introduced.
  No Secretary of State should be, or should try to be, all-powerful in education. No Secretary of State—not even a Labour one—has a monopoly of wisdom. I am disappointed that the Secretary of State does not share his Prime Minister's commitment to having a partnership between central and local government. Just as the delivery of education at school level is best achieved by a proper partnership between parents and teachers, so the structure of education in this country would be best achieved by a partnership between central and local government.
  Ministers are not interested in partnership. This Secretary of State wants to grab all powers to himself. That cannot be the way forward, and for that reason we oppose these proposals.
  Mr. Bowis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether it is in order to respond to this first debate, as the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman just has, without referring to amendment (b) standing in her name. There has been no reference to any Labour policy on this measure.
  Mrs. Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I not only sought to move that amendment, but asked the Secretary of State what his response would be. I spelt out very clearly the principle of equity established in our amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's interest in that amendment means that he will vote for it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That has answered the point of order.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I have listened to my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) with great interest. Each seemed to me to seek to use party political and national history to illustrate their versions of events and their views on what ought to be happening in education in this country.
  For my money, my right hon. Friend is going in the right direction. The central reason for that is the promotion of the theme of independence and of choice and diversity in education. One is bound, looking at the matter historically, to compare that with the Labour party's record. As the Bible says, by their deeds ye shall know them. I always remember that when I pay attention to the Labour party. One never wants to listen to what Labour party supporters say; one must watch what they do.
  This is the party that produced circular 10/66, which said that we would have a unitary system of education; we would abolish all grammar schools, independent schools, single sex schools, and all the rest. We would have one form of secondary education—comprehensive. There is a lot to be said for that system—I worked in it for well over 20 years—but to say that everything else must be jettisoned simply for this unitary form of education was preposterous.
  Mr. Mike Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: I intend to be very brief, but I will give way once.
  Mr. Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that circulars 10/65 and 10/66 were advice by the Department of Education to local authorities, and that it was up to the latter to determine whether it was carried out?
  Mr. Greenway: Yes, but "advice" in inverted commas. It was very heavy advice, and local authorities knew very well that they had to observe it. [Interruption.] I was in schools, and I know very well what the pressure was. I suppose that I was working for the most socialist authority in the country—the Inner London education authority. Its response was to get rid of every grammar and voluntary school. I remember hearing the chairman of the schools sub-committee of ILEA, Mrs. Irene Chaplin, tell the heads of all voluntary-aided schools, "We're going to do you." What did she mean? She intended to get rid of them.
  ILEA intended to get rid of all diversity in education in London, and it produced the London plan, which aimed to produce 97 comprehensive schools out of all the secondary modern, grammar, and technical schools, many of which were so excellent. Why did ILEA do so? It was a response to heavy "advice" from the Labour Government, who wanted identical education for all children in secondary schools. Their aim was to achieve a unique socialist child or protege. Comprehensive schools were designed not to give children an education for life, but to produce socialists.
  Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend has heard the Opposition pay lip service to local accountability today. Does he recall what happened when local education authorities voted to oppose central Government diktat? Does he recall what happened every time that parents, teachers and schools sought to oppose it? They were overruled.
  Mr. Greenway: There is no doubt that the Labour party's education record has been highly authoritarian,

  169
  and that it never encouraged schools to have an individual approach. The proposal of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will ensure, by law, that schools may have such an approach in future, and I warmly welcome it.
  Freedom and choice in schools are essential. The Labour party has argued that the Bill will centralise education, but it could not be more wrong. Every secondary school in my constituency is, or is on the way to being, grant maintained, and they choose that route by first balloting parents of children at the' school. What could be more democratic?
  Mr. Hall: What is the local authority?
  Mr. Greenway: When the ballot was set up at the school attended by the children of the former Leader of the Opposition, the then Labour-controlled Ealing council sent in all the heavies—
  Mr. Patten: There was intimidation.
  Mr. Greenway: Yes, there was tremendous intimidation. The council sent in the education officer, the deputy education officer and the chairman of the education committee, whose father is the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—every heavy that one could think of—to pressurise the parents against voting to make Drayton Manor high school grant maintained; but the parents fought it and took a democratic decision. They threw off Labour party pressure to go grant maintained. The debate was long and lasted many months, but the ballot could not have been more democratic or more decisive, which was a slap in the face to local socialists, to the then Leader of the Opposition and to the Labour party.
  First, parents are balloted; secondly, the Bill will ensure that grant-maintained schools and many of those with local management, which all schools will soon have, will take decisions locally.
  How was it done in the long days of Labour Governments? One could not take decisions locally then. My last school, which was built by the Labour-controlled ILEA—before that it was the London county council—had five gymnasiums, and they all leaked. How long did it take for the roofs to be repaired? First, I had to contact the local education authority's architects department, and after six months it sent for the GLC architects. When they could not come, they sent in contractors. After a couple of years, the job was put out to contract, and eventually the leaks were repaired. Grant-maintained schools will be able to call in builders to fix leaks the day after they occur. Such independence is a great improvement and will be of tremendous value to schools.
  Finally, giving independence to schools, which the Bill once enacted will do through new clause 22, will grant them a crucial decision-making power over how to spend their cash. For example, Northholt high school has decided to change from local authority cleaners to a cleaning company, which saves £70,000. That money has gone towards more teachers, pens, pencils, rubbers, books and all the rest, and that was a local decision.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important advantages of new clause 22, once it becomes law, will be that schools will have the opportunity to spend money on building improvements? For example, in my constituency the Labour-controlled local authority is insisting that a school
  170
  should install another old terrapin building, when the governors and the head teacher know that they could get a new, brick-built classroom for less.
  Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend has such a good argument. I cannot understand why Opposition Members do not accept the arguments for independence and freedom put forward by Conservative Members to involve the local community, whether parents with children at the school or well-wishers, such as pensioners who enjoy attending school functions and others near the schools. They will become more involved, schools will improve and the children will benefit. Surely that is what it is all about.
  The reorganisation of London schools wasted between 10 and 20 years, and children's education suffered grievously. That must never happen again, and it will not under the Bill.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: First, I join the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) in welcoming the Secretary of State to the debate. We are all delighted that he will at last join our detailed discussion of the Bill, for which he claims personal responsibility.
  Many hon. Members will have seen the press release of new clause 22 put out by the Secretary of State, which explicitly stated that the new clause was being tabled because schools are in the driving seat. Those of us who have studied the changes in legislation in recent years will know that that is being economical with the truth. The reality is that the Secretary of State is firmly in the driving seat. He has closed the doors of his vehicle so that he cannot hear what anyone else is saying, save for those few who have decided to get in with him. The Secretary of State has determined the direction and the route that will be taken, and many people are concerned about that.
  The new clause states:
  "The Secretary of State…shall exercise…his powers in respect of those bodies in receipt of public funds".
  I hope that that means that local education authorities will be included in the list.
  Mr. Patten indicated assent.
  Mr. Foster: I see that the Secretary of State nods. I know that many hon. Members fear for the long-term future of local education authorities because of the hammer blows that the Government have dealt them.
  The new funding authorities established through this legislation will also be included in the list. My problem is that I do not understand—and it has not been explained to me in a way that I can understand—how the Secretary of State will exercise his powers through those two bodies. He was not with us when we debated this issue in Committee, but perhaps I can remind him that, in respect of the working relationship between LEA and the funding authorities, he said:
  "There will be two bodies—the LEA and the funding agency—with parallel but not shared responsibilities."—[Official Report, 9 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 635.]
  Some of us did not understand that and, in Committee, we pressed the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools to explain it. At one point, he said:
  "We have no difficulty accepting the concept of shared responsibility"—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 1 December 1992; c. 391.]
  He was already beginning to contradict the Secretary of State.

  171
  Finally, in what the Under-Secretary called his definitive explanation, he said in Committee:
  "there is shared responsibility exercised by parallel duties." —[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 8 December 1992;c. 517.]
  I hope that the Secretary of State will take particular note of that, as it directly contradicts his statement. None of us really understood what that meant, so we have grave reservations about new clause 22(2), which states that the Secretary of State will exercise his powers
  "in respect of those bodies in receipt of public funds".
  What is even more worrying about the new clause is the way in which subsection (3) is significantly infused with Tory party dogma. It refers to the Secretary of State exercising his powers
  "with a view, among other things, to improving standards, encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice."
  Those words are harmless enough on the face of it, but given what we have come to know the Secretary of State to mean by them, they are extremely destructive in his hands. Many hon. Members will have noticed that, when the right hon. Gentleman introduced the new clause, he did not quote those words precisely; he put it rather differently and spoke about the power to improve standards, mainly through encouraging diversity and increasing choice. That reinforces my point about the new clause representing Conservative party dogma.
  When the Secretary of State talks about improving standards, he fails to do so in the way that most of us consider to be vital—by making a significant improvement to the resources available to our schools. When the Secretary of State talks about judging standards, as he did in the debate about the key stage 3 English standard assessment task, the SAT, he is talking about simplistic paper and pencil tests. The right hon. Gentleman may talk about encouraging diversity, but many of us are increasingly concerned that what he means is the back-door introduction of selection by ability. The decision on Southlands girls school reinforces our concern.
  The Secretary of State's concept of choice is different from that understood by many others. It is therefore surprising that he introduced a new clause that included the word "choice", especially when the Under-Secretary has accepted that that word is inappropriate. It was the right hon. Gentleman's own Minister who referred back to the words contained within the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper, which explained that parents had the ability "to express a preference" for a school. Many of us know that the choice of school is not available to the vast majority of parents.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: On the question of choice, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the situation in Hillingdon, where many of the secondary schools became grant maintained, and where, as a result, a smaller proportion of parents are now getting their first choice of secondary school for their children than under the old system?
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Lady has illustrated the concern that many of us feel about the concept of choice, as used by the Secretary of State and his colleagues on the Conservative Benches, which is merely rhetoric. It is not borne out by the options available to parents.
  172
  The hon. Member for Crosby (Sir. M. Thornton) is even more trenchant than I have been in his criticism of the use of the word "choice". I should remind the Secretary of State that that hon. Gentleman said:
  "To be told that you have the freedom to choose is a sick joke when the only choice is between losing teachers or slashing an already reduced sum for capitation."
  The Secretary of State may talk about choice, but he still refuses to allow legislation to be introduced that would enable future generations of parents to have the option to allow their children's schools to opt out of grant-maintained status and back into LEA control.
  In Committee, we discovered that one of the reasons that we were there was for the Secretary of State—or in his absence, the Under-Secretary—to explain their thinking behind the Bill. The words of the new clause may seem fine, but when we analyse the underlying principle and what it would mean if it rested in the hands of the Secretary of State, we must all be extremely concerned.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: I welcome the new clause. I cannot think of anyone in whose hands those powers and responsibilities would be better placed than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have one slight proviso: I hope that they will always rest in such good hands, because I am a little worried that, at some point in the future, improving standards may not be part of the picture.
  On Second Reading and in Committee there was little mention of nursery education and I should like to spend a few moments considering it. Evidence has been gained from this country and many others of the effectiveness of early education. In countries where children have access to good-quality pre-school education the evidence suggests that they have an advantage when starting school. They score higher marks in the SATs at the age of seven and do better at school at the age of 10 on a variety of scores.
  In the United States, research has revealed the long-term benefits of nursery education, which include a reduced likelihood of delinquency in later years—that is of particular importance in the light of recent events in this country and the statement made by the Home Secretary only this afternoon. That research also revealed that nursery education resulted in fewer referrals to special education schools and fewer unwanted teenage pregnancies and that children went on to enjoy happier marriages and a better job life than those who did not benefit from such education. One report of particular importance, bearing in mind that it covered two departments, revealed that for every dollar spent, ․4·30 was saved. It is important, therefore, to appreciate that nursery education is a question not merely for the Treasury, but for policy decision.
  In Committee, the Under-Secretary rejected amendment No. 83 because he said that it was unnecessary and pointless. It had been moved by the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), who made an extremely good speech; I endorse much of what she said. The Under-Secretary was good enough to accept amendment No. 105, which added a reference to nursery schooling to schedule 2.
  The Minister also referred to the Education Acts of 1944 and 1980 and he correctly pointed out that neither required previous or future funding of nursery education —more's the pity, to my mind. Many LEAs, however, provide such education now and I believe that many more should be encouraged to do so.

  173
  The new clause establishes the Secretary of State's responsibility for, and powers over, the conduct of all educational institutions in England and Wales that receive public funding. I am sure that he would want to clarify how the provision for nursery schooling will be made in the future. That raises two questions, the first of which relates to the general level of funding for nursery education. There is certainly a lack of clarity about the Government's future funding policy for it.
  I should like increased resources for nursery education, and have argued about the effectiveness of such expenditure, both earlier in my speech and on previous occasions. However, my immediate concern is to ensure both a continuing commitment to nursery education and that expenditure is maintained, at least at current levels. That is one way forward.
  5.30 pm
  There are three other possible ways forward. The first is to earmark funding for services for children under five at both central and local government level. The second way is to accept the longer-term need for increased spending on nursery education and reflect that in increased standard spending assessments. The third way is to make provision statutory or to return to the pre-1980 position, where local authorities had a duty to provide nursery education, with additional resourcing as required. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify the position.
  In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the Government did not intend:
  "that the duty of the funding agency of the schools funding council for Wales to secure sufficient school places should include a duty to secure nursery places. The LEA's duty under section 8 of the Education Act 1944, to which the duty of the funding authority is linked in paragraph 3(3) and (5) of schedule 2, does not include a duty to secure sufficient nursery places—it is not the intention that the funding agency or the funding council should cover nursery education. However, if on further reflection we believe that that may be the case, we shall return to it at a later stage."
  I hope that there is a promise hanging there. My hon. Friend continued:
  "if a school with full-time nursery provision becomes grant-maintained it will be funded in total by the funding agency for schools. That will not he so if the school offers only part-time provision."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 3 December 1992; c. 483–84.]
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a little concerned about to which of the Government's new clauses or amendments the hon. Gentleman is speaking. I think that many Opposition Members will endorse what he is saying about nursery education, but we fail to see the relevance of his speech now.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The scope of the new clause is wide, and it refers to nursery education. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) is in order: if he were not, I should have ruled him out of order.
  Mr. Rathbone: The subject could not be more pertinent, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is taking on more and more responsibility for the funding. We are discussing an important point of principle as well as a point of practice. I hope that I have illustrated by the two quotations that I gave from my hon. Friend the Minister
  174
  that there appears to be an inherent tension between the two extracts, particularly since some definitions of full time might include the majority of nursery provision.
  The proposals on the common funding formula are currently out for consultation. There still appears to be some confusion over what constitutes full-time provision and what constitutes part-time provision. In a recent High Court case—I believe that it involved Lewisham—it was contended that nursery education was provided on a daily basis. Even if it was provided for only a part of each day or if pupils attended only part time, that constituted full-time provision. It appears that full-time, but not part-time, nursery education will be funded by the funding agency, with the cost to be recovered from the LEA.
  There are five possible policies, and I seek clarification from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about which policy, or which combination of policies, will be adopted.
  Mr. Steinberg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a great danger that if a local education authority, particularly a Conservative one, finds that its schools have opted out and it no longer controls education in its area other than nursery education, that authority might provide no nursery education? It could be that the only local authorities providing nursery provision will be those controlled by the Labour party, which already has an excellent record on nursery provision.
  Mr. Rathbone: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a risk of that happening. However, his comments about Conservative-controlled education authorities is incorrect. He need only to refer to the Hansard Committee report to see the clear description of the marvellous job done by the Conservative authority in Wandsworth.
  To return to my first points: first, clarification is needed on the role of the funding agency and the funding council for Wales in relation to nursery education. Secondly, if grant-maintained schools, through the funding agency, are to be funded for full-time nursery education, clarification is needed about what constitutes full-time provision and what constitutes part-time provision in respect of the common funding formula.
  Thirdly, if the funding agency is to be responsible for funding nursery education, it will be important to ensure that its membership includes at least one experienced early teaching specialist.
  Fourthly, and crucially, there is a need to safeguard the ability of the LEA to locate nursery provision where it is most needed. If grant-maintained schools are able to demand new nurseries, local education authorities will effectively have to fund those by losing money from their standard spending assessment, which will be re-routed through the funding agency to the grant-maintained school. That would have an impact on the LEA's ability to fund its own nurseries on a continuing basis.
  Fifthly, the Bill enables the Secretary of State to require inter-authority recoupment on under-five pre-school provision. I hope that he will use that provision. I should welcome clarification on those matters.
  Mr. Enright: The Secretary of State said that the Bill was of straightforward simplicity, but that phrase should be properly interpreted. It is a Bill of downright naivety,

  175
  which illustrates the Government's problems as they panic instead of considering and understanding the causes of anxiety, and acting to resolve them.
  I took the trouble to look at the Government's history on education Acts. There was the Education Act 1979, the Education Act 1980, the Education Act 1981, and further legislation on education in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985, but the Government still did not have it right. Therefore, in 1986 they introduced three education Bills that became the Education Act 1986, the Education (Amendment) Act 1986 and the Education (No. 2) Act 1986—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): There is a consistency.
  Mr. Enright: The Government were not consistent as, thereafter, they gave up as there were a few other semi-important pieces of legislation such as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the poll tax legislation. Therefore, we had a couple of years without anything until, in 1988, we had the great Education Reform Act, but still the Government had not got it right. They would have been far better advised to sit down in 1979 and appoint a royal commission on education so that we could find the best way forward.
  The Secretary of State's problem is that he has no underlying philosophy or principles to guide him as to what should be done in education. The Secretary of State should be like Lochinvar leading forth the teachers and the educational world into a new age. Instead, he behaves much more like the first world war generals, who stayed behind and shot soldiers in the rear as they went forward. The Secretary of State cannot distinguish between tactics and strategy or between the purpose of war and the actions required to win the war.
  The Secretary of State referred to the 1944 Act, and gave me credit for new clause 22. I am grateful to him for that, but, alas, the words with which he chose to replace the 1944 Act were wrong, as, indeed, was his interpretation of the Act. The Secretary of State clearly said that it refers only to LEAs, but it does not. It refers to a tripartite arrangement between schools, local education authorities and the Secretary of State for Education. It is a tragedy that it was abolished. The 1944 Act showed that the authorities knew the distinction between being progressive and being effective, and they honed their weapons accordingly. They knew of the desire for the varied as well as for the comprehensive. They knew of the duty of a local education authority to stimulate the spiritual, moral, mental and physical development of all pupils. All that is wiped out by new clause 22—tossed aside in an effort to satisfy the Secretary of State's megalomania.
  New clause 22 emphasises and underlines the Secretary of State's power. He is to take to himself the task of monitoring standards. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) said that by their deeds shall ye know them. The Secretary of State is to monitor standards. What a track record he has, on the way in which English in particular has been introduced. It is absurd to suggest for one moment that illiteracy can be removed by looking at gobbets from "The Importance of Being Earnest". It is a means, but one must make sure that the proper resources are there.
  176
  The Secretary of State talks of encouraging diversity, at a time when he is squeezing out syllabus subjects such as classics and imposing syllabuses that are so prescriptive that Hitler and Stalin would have looked upon the right hon. Gentleman proudly as an heir to their tradition. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Lenin?"] Lenin would not have looked at the right hon. Gentleman in that way—Lenin never looked at anyone in that sort of way.
  If the Secretary of State wants to withdraw some of the prescriptions that he is putting in the various syllabuses, I should welcome it, but every act of this Secretary of State has shown that he wants to act as a dictator—that he knows best and that no one else can contribute advice that he will take.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman defend the practice of many left-leaning teachers, who believe that rap music is an appropriate subject to be studied in English lessons? Would he not prefer the works of Oscar Wilde, such as "The Importance of Being Earnest"? Does he not agree that is the right recipe for children to learn good English?
  Mr. Enright: What an extraordinary statement. Teachers in any school know best what will fire the imagination and enthusiasm of their pupils. They use a whole variety of methods to stimulate their pupils—as I did. To help my pupils discover what the optative and subjunctive are all about, I translated Beatles songs into Latin—which would no doubt be to the fury of the hon. Gentleman, but it contributed to effective teaching. Many teachers do the same and it is wholly absurd of the hon. Gentleman to ridicule teachers who are working effectively at the chalk face, at a job which he could never do.
  The Secretary of State talks of giving increased choice, but what increased opportunities for choice do pupils have—
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Enright: I will do so when I have finished making this point, even though the hon. and learned Gentleman has only just strolled—I nearly said the wrong word—into the Chamber.
  The Secretary of State deliberately refused choice to 16-year-olds of the equivalent of the baccalaureate, thereby reducing their choices at 18-plus. I give way to the decorously dressed hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As a classicist myself with first-class honours, I should be interested to hear a rendition of a Beatles song, with all the words in English translated into Latin by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Enright: Certainly.
  "Habitamus sub vitreo,
  Sub vitreo,
  Sub vitreo"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House long enough to know its rules full well.
  Mr. Enright: I apologise unreservedly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I could not resist the hon. and learned Gentleman's challenge.
  New clause 22 is totally inadequate to achieve the aims that we have for our children and the philosophy that the Opposition adopt towards improving education standards

  177
  not just for the few but for all our children. That means increasing the power of their imagination. That is what we should be examining, and it is that which the Secretary of State consistently curbs by his actions.
  5.45 pm
  Mrs. Angela Knight: The importance of new clause 22 is that it acknowledges that we have a changed system, in which more schools are going grant maintained—which I welcome. The 650 schools that have already voted for GM status are just a drop in the ocean. Many more are considering that course. One reason is the continuing antics of many local education authorities—antics that do not serve well the schools in their areas.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: I can tell my hon. Friend that a conference in Birmingham within the next two weeks on grant-maintained schools has been oversubscribed by no fewer than 35 schools, who are desperate to be free of the control of appalling Labour local authorities.
  Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend's intervention shows only too clearly how the momentum is gathering and that schools view GM status as the best option for serving the children in their areas.
  In Derbyshire, many head teachers are most worried about the way in which the local authority is seeking to prejudice the education given in some schools by the way that it distributes funds. One head pointed out recently that some schools receive £1,600 per pupil, while others get as much as £2,400—a gap of £800. He adds, most eloquently:
  "If one examines the surpluses left over at the end of the year, it indicates the enormous differences and unfairnesses in the Derbyshire system. The council is quite blatantly failing in its duty to fund schools according to their needs."
  That is an example of the way that some education authorities are choosing not to provide schools with the funds that they require. The importance of grant-maintained schools is that they are funded according to their needs.
  Ms. Estelle Morris: If the hon. Lady is so concerned about funding inequalities within an LEA area, will she comment on the situation in Birmingham, where four grant-maintained schools have been given half a million pounds between them, whereas the other 500 schools have been given only £6 million between them all? Does the hon. Lady consider that the Secretary of State acted equitably in the way that he distributed money between Birmingham schools?
  Mrs. Knight: I understand that the hon. Lady is referring to capital allocations. If the schools make a good case, they will be funded. If they fail to do so, they will not be funded. The hon. Lady will find that many LEAs, including mine—and, I suspect, hers as well—have not given their schools the finances that they need, because those authorities have chosen to spend their capital elsewhere. I urge the hon. Lady to tell Birmingham city council that it is imperative that it spends more of its capital on schools. That authority is notorious for underfunding every school in its area. I am surprised that the hon. Lady did not make that point in her intervention.
  It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who was conspicuous by her absence in Committee. She said that, in her view, the Bill was intent on abolishing local education authorities. That
  178
  is a travesty of what the Bill is about; its purpose is to allow parents to choose what is best for their children, for the school that their children attend and for the community. It is not about the Department saying this and the LEA saying that; it is about parents being able to make independent decisions about schools. That is a fundamental part of raising standards. It must be recognised that it is a movement which is continuing throughout the country, and that changes must be made in institutions to accommodate it.
  Earlier speakers cited the Association of County Councils as an authority which did not support the Bill. In a letter to me, the association said that it welcomed the Government's present policies for education, and this Bill. It said:
  "In particular, we are pleased to see the continuing drive for higher standards in schools, more open accountability to parents, greater day-to-day managerial independence for schools of all kinds, the merger of the bodies responsible for the curriculum and for its assessment, and stronger governing bodies."
  That, surely, is evidence of the association's support for the Bill.
  It is interesting to note that the Church, too, now wishes to swell the number of grant-maintained schools. I recall reading an article that stated that one in four bishops is privately in favour of schools opting out of LEA control, and is promoting it in the primary and secondary schools within his jurisdiction. That is very good news, and it provides support for the Government's policies.
  The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) produced a long list of education Bills that have been presented to the House. That shows the importance that Conservative Members ascribe to education: it is proof of this party's willingness to grasp the fact that education is one of the most important and fundamental issues, and to ensure that children receive the best possible education.
  I particularly welcome the diversity and choice that are now springing up throughout the country, even in Labour-controlled areas. If an area contains both grant-maintained and LEA schools, choice is provided. Previous Acts of Parliament have removed the artificial restrictions placed on school numbers; now, parents can choose more widely. The city technology college movement is another aspect of the increased choice and diversity that are now available.
  I believe that education is a fundamental issue of our times. If we fail children while they are at school, it will be very difficult for them to catch up later. New clause 22 recognises that change has taken place, and that greater changes will follow in the coming years. It is surprising that the Opposition should oppose it: it is a Luddite—indeed, an ostrich—approach to say that local education authorities are the only possible providers of education. Why should that be so? If I must trust someone with responsibility for education, I prefer to trust parents—and the grant-maintained system is all about trusting parents' choice.
  Mr. Stephen Byers: I hope that the new clause will be opposed, for a simple reason: it is fundamental to the drift of Conservative education policy. It starkly demonstrates the way in which power is being concentrated in the hands of the Secretary of State. It does not give power to schools, governors or parents; it gives power to the holder of the office of Secretary of State for Education. It represents one of the most dramatic

  179
  extensions of Whitehall power since 1945. The wholesale nationalisation of our education service will not lead to greater diversity; all our experience clearly shows that nationalisation, and the dead hand of Whitehall, lead to a uniform system up and down the country, rather than the diversity that the Government pretend to favour.
  Choice will be denied to parents, for a simple reason. There is a paradox at the heart of the Bill, and at the heart of new clause 22. On the one hand, the Secretary of State argues in favour of extending parental choice; on the other, because of Treasury pressure, he must remove hundreds of thousands of surplus places from the education system. It is impossible to reconcile the removal of such a large number of surplus places with the extension of parental choice. Parents in Hillingdon and Bromley, where the grant-maintained sector is up and running, are experiencing less choice as a result of the Government's policies.
  The new clause repeals an important provision in the 1944 Act—the provision that refers to a partnership in the delivery of education services. The new clause allows the Secretary of State power to dictate to the various bodies involved, whether they are local education authorities or funding agencies. That is power without responsibility. It would bad enough to give such a power to any Secretary of State; it is even worst to give it to the present Secretary of State, who runs away from arguments, fears debate and is scared of questions. He is the Scarlet Pimpernel of the education world: they seek him here, they seek him there, but we all know that they will never find him at an education conference. He runs away from his critics, and, as a result, our children suffer.
  In the introduction to the White Paper, the Secretary of State quoted John Ruskin. Let me refer him to another Ruskin quote, which I feel is appropriate to the way in which he speaks from the Dispatch Box. Ruskin wrote:
  "Conceit may puff a man up but it can never prop him up." I think that the Secretary of State has much to learn from that.
  Even the right hon. Gentleman's friends are now turning against him. The education editor of The Daily Telegraph writes that he is "Aloof, ineffectual, almost invisible", and continues:
  "his performance is beginning to provoke derision among his enemies and cause concern to his friends. His report card says he contributes little to discussion in class, lacks initiative, does not do his homework".
  The new clause is a blow to local democracy. It will destroy the partnership established in the Education Act 1944. It does nothing to raise standards, improve quality, extend opportunity or provide greater parental choice. Our children and our nation deserve better.
  Mr. George Walden: I welcome the new clause as I welcome the Bill. Far from doing what the hon. member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) and other members of the Opposition parties have alleged, the new clause will introduce a more equitable distribution of powers between the Government and the councils—
  It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order 15 December) and Resolution this day, put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 238.

  Division No. 164]

  [6 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Elletson, Harold

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Amess, David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Ancram, Michael

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evennett, David

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Faber, David

  Ashby, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Forman, Nigel

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Forth, Eric

  Baldry, Tony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bates, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Freeman, Roger

  Bendall, Vivian

  French, Douglas

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fry, Peter

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gallie, Phil

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Booth, Hartley

  Garnier, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bowden, Andrew

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowis, John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brazier, Julian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bright, Graham

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hague, William

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burns, Simon

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burt, Alistair

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butcher, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butler, Peter

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cash, William

  Heald, Oliver

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hendry, Charles

  Clappison, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Congdon, David

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

  Conway, Derek

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Couchman, James

  Jack, Michael

  Cran, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

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

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jessel, Toby

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Devlin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dover, Den

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Duncan, Alan

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

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

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knox, David

  Eggar, Tim

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  181

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lidington, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Shersby, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sims, Roger

  Lord, Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Luff, Peter

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Soames, Nicholas

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Maclean, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Madel, David

  Spring, Richard

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sproat, Iain

  Malone, Gerald

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mans, Keith

  Steen, Anthony

  Marlow, Tony

  Stephen, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stern, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stewart, Allan

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Streeter, Gary

  Merchant, Piers

  Sumberg, David

  Milligan, Stephen

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mills, Iain

  Sykes, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thomason, Roy

  Needham, Richard

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholls, Patrick

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

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tredinnick, David

  Norris, Steve

  Trend, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Trotter, Neville

  Ottaway, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Page, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Paice, James

  Viggers, Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Walden, George

  Pawsey, James

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Waller, Gary

  Pickles, Eric

  Ward, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Redwood, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Richards, Rod

  Wilkinson, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Willetts, David

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Wilshire, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wood, Timothy

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Yeo, Tim

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sackville, Tom

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Barnes, Harry

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Barron, Kevin

  Ainger, Nick

  Battle, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bell, Stuart

  Allen, Graham

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Alton, David

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Benton, Joe

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashton, Joe

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Austin-Walker, John

  Betts, Clive

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Blair, Tony

  182

  Blunkett, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Boateng, Paul

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Henderson, Doug

  Boyes, Roland

  Heppell, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Hoey, Kate

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Burden, Richard

  Hood, Jimmy

  Byers, Stephen

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Caborn, Richard

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hutton, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ingram, Adam

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Clelland, David

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jamieson, David

  Coffey, Ann

  Janner, Greville

  Cohen, Harry

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Corbett, Robin

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Keen, Alan

  Cousins, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Cryer, Bob

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Leighton, Ron

  Dafis, Cynog

  Litherland, Robert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Livingstone, Ken

  Darling, Alistair

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davidson, Ian

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McAllion, John

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

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Denham, John

  McCartney, Ian

  Dewar, Donald

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dixon, Don

  McFall, John

  Dobson, Frank

  McKelvey, William

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dowd, Jim

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McWilliam, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Madden, Max

  Eastham, Ken

  Mahon, Alice

  Enright, Derek

  Mandelson, Peter

  Etherington, Bill

  Marek, Dr John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Martlew, Eric

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Maxton, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Meacher, Michael

  Flynn, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Michael, Alun

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Foulkes, George

  Milburn, Alan

  Fraser, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gapes, Mike

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Garrett, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gerrard, Neil

  Morley, Elliot

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Gordon, Mildred

  Mudie, George

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Mullin, Chris

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Murphy, Paul

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Grocott, Bruce

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Gunnell, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hain, Peter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hall, Mike

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hanson, David

  Parry, Robert

  Hardy, Peter

  Pendry, Tom

  183

  Pickthall, Colin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Pike, Peter L.

  Spellar, John

  Pope, Greg

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stott, Roger

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Straw, Jack

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Tipping, Paddy

  Redmond, Martin

  Turner, Dennis

  Reid, Dr John

  Vaz, Keith

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wallace, James

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Walley, Joan

  Rogers, Allan

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wilson, Brian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Winnick, David

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wise, Audrey

  Short, Clare

  Worthington, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wray, Jimmy

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

  Wright, Dr Tony

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

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Snape, Peter

  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time.
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Question necessary to bring to a decision the Question so proposed.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Question, That all new clauses standing in the name of a member of the Government, be added to the Bill.

New clause 20

  LOANS TO GOVERNING BODIES OF GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOLS
  '.—(1) The appropriate authority may make loans to the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools in respect of expenditure of any class or description specified in regulations (referred to in this section as "loan regulations") incurred or to be incurred by the governing bodies for or in connection with such purposes as may be so specified.
  (2) Any loan under this section shall be made on such terms as loan regulations may require, being terms specified in or determined in accordance with the regulations.
  (3) Where any sum is payable by the governing body of a grant-maintained school to the appropriate authority in respect of the principal of, or interest on, any loan under this section, the appropriate authority may (without prejudice to any other mode of recovery) recover the whole or any part of that sum by deducting it from any grant payable by them to the governing body.
  (4) In this section, the "appropriate authority"—

  (a) in relation to England before the Funding Agency for Schools begin to exercise their functions, and

  (b) in relation to Wales before the Schools Funding Council for Wales begin to exercise their functions,

  means the Secretary of State and, in any other case, means the funding authority
  (5) The funding authority shall exercise any power conferred on them by this section in such manner (if any) as may be specified in or determined in accordance with loan regulations.'—[Mr. Patten.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 26

  EXTENSION OF FUNCTIONS OF AUDIT COMMISSION
  '.—(1) Section 220 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (extension of functions of Audit Commission) is amended as follows.
  (2) At the beginning of subsection (1)(c) there is inserted "the Funding Agency for Schools, the Schools Funding Council for Wales or".
  (3) After subsection (2)(bb) there is inserted—

  "(bc) with respect to studies relating to the Funding Agency for Schools, the agency;

  (bd) with respect to studies relating to the Schools Funding Council for Wales, the council".

  (4) In subsection (2)(c) after "school," there is inserted "the funding authority or".'—[Mr. Patten.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 27

  FUNDING AUTHORITIE: COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF LAND
  '. In section 17(4) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (statutory undertakers) after paragraph (a) of the definition of "statutory undertakers" there is inserted—

  "(aa) the Funding Agency for Schools,

  (ab) the Schools Funding Council for Wales".'—[ Mr. Patten.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 28

  APPROVAL OF PREMISES OF MAINTAINED OR GRANT-MAINTAINED SPECIAL SCHOOLS
  '.—(1) Where a body serve under section 169(6) of this Act notice of proposals for the establishment of a school which is specially organised to make special educational provision for pupils with special educational needs, they shall submit to the Secretary of State the particulars in respect of the proposed premises of the school mentioned in subsection (3) below.
  (2) Where a body serve under section 169(6) of this Act notice of proposals for making a prescribed alteration to a special school, they shall if the Secretary of State so directs submit to him the particulars in respect of the premises or proposed premises of the school mentioned in subsection (3) below.
  (3) The particulars are—

  (a) particulars of the provision made or to be made in respect of the means of access to and within the premises or proposed premises of the school, and

  (b) such other particulars in respect of the premises or proposed premises of the school as the Secretary of State may require,

  and they shall be submitted at such time and in such form and manner as the Secretary of State may direct.
  (4) The particulars submitted under subsection (3)(a) above shall indicate the extent to which the provision referred to conforms with the minimum requirements, so far as they are relevant to school premises, of—

  (a) Design Note 18 "Access for Disabled People to Educational Buildings" published in 1984 on behalf of the Secretary of State, or

  (b) if that Note has been replaced by a document prescribed by regulations made or having effect as if made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that document.

  (5) Particulars submitted under this section in respect of the premises or proposed premises of the school require the approval of the Secretary of State.
  (6) Where any proposals falling within subsection (1) or (2) above are required to be implemented, they shall be implemented in accordance with any particulars approved under this section.'—[Mr. Patten.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  GRANTS BY SECRETARY OF STATE IN RESPECT OF AIDED AND SPECIAL AGREEMENT SCHOOLS
  ' .—(1) The Secretary of State may—

  (a) in the case of any aided school or special agreement school, or

  (b) where proposals have been approved under section 13 of the Education Act 1980 (establishment etc. of voluntary schools) for a school or proposed school to be maintained as a voluntary school and the Secretary of State has made an order under section 15 of the Education Act 1944 (classification of schools) directing that the school be an aided school,

  make grants to the governing body in respect of expenditure falling within subsection (2) below incurred by them.
  (2) The expenditure referred to in subsection (1) above is expenditure in respect of the provision, alteration or repair of premises or equipment for the school or proposed school.
  (3) The amount of any grant paid under this section to the governing body in respect of any such expenditure—

  (a) shall not exceed 85 per cent. of the expenditure, and

  (b) in the case of any prescribed class or description of such expenditure, shall be such as may be determined in accordance with regulations.

  (4) The times at which, and the manner in which, payments are made in respect of grant under this section shall be such as may be determined from time to time by the Secretary of State.
  (5) A governing body to whom any payment is made in respect of grant under this section shall comply with such requirements determined by the Secretary of State as he may from time to time impose.
  (6) Such requirements—

  (a) may be imposed on or at any time after the making of any payment by reference to which they are imposed, and

  (b) may at any time be waived, removed or varied by the Secretary of State.

  (7) Such requirements may, in particular, if any conditions specified in the requirements are satisfied, require the payment to the Secretary of State of the whole or any part of the following amount.
  (8) That amount is—

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

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

  whichever is the greater.
  (9) No grant may be paid under this section—

  (a) in respect of any expenses incurred in the provision of any premises which it is the duty of the local education authority to provide, or

  (b) in the case of a special agreement school, in respect of expenses incurred in the execution of proposals to which the special agreement relates or of repairs or alterations for the execution of which provision is made by the agreement.

  (10) In relation to a proposed school, the references in this section to the governing body, in relation to any time before such a body is constituted, are to the persons who propose to
  186
  establish the school; and where requirements are imposed in relation to grant paid under this section to such persons, the governing body, when it is constituted, as well as those persons shall comply with the requirements.'—[Mr. Patten.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have an announcement to make. Madam Speaker earlier today undertook to look again at amendments 98 and 99 to clause 156. In view of the explanation of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) of the intention about amendment No. 97, Madam Speaker is now prepared to allow amendments Nos. 98 and 99 to be debated in the same group. This debate will be reached after the guillotine at 10 pm in the group that is led by amendment No. 4:2 to clause 148.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, concerning new clause 19 and amendment No. 56. These are a new clause and an amendment, in the alternative, which would allow those children whose parents have a special view about the effect of sex education the right to opt out of the lessons at school, and for those matters to be taught within the family. This affects not only the Plymouth Brethren but also a number of other children in respect of whom—I will leave that. I ask that Madam Speaker reconsider the selection of this new clause and/or the amendment because this affects many children throughout the country.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I assure the hon. Member that Madam Speaker has very seriously considered her selection and no doubt she will have taken those points into consideration when she made her decision. The Speaker has decided the selection and I can say no more.
  Mr. Bermingham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does that mean that if matters and issues are not considered, and they are of great importance, once a selection is made it can never be altered? We had representations a little while ago which led to an alteration in the selection. I merely ask that the Speaker reconsider the position.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Member well knows, representations can be made at the proper time. I am sure he will do that.

New clause 1

  MUSIC AND LIBRARY PROVISION
  '.—(1) A local education authority may for the purpose only of assisting the governing bodies of maintained or grant-maintained schools in their area or any other area in the performance of the governing bodies' power to provide music tuition and library facilities supply goods or services to them.
  (2) This section is without prejudice to the generality of any other power of local education authorities to supply goods or services.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: new clause 14—Provision of assistance with music—

  187

  '.—(1) A local education authority may for the purpose only of assisting the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools, or grant-maintained special schools, in their area in the performance of the functions mentioned in subsection (2) below, supply goods or services to them.

  (2) This subsection applies to—

  (a) teaching and assessment of music in accordance with the national curriculum, and

  (b) tuition of registered pupils in playing any musical instrument (where such tuition is not provided individually).

  (3) This section is without prejudice to the generality of any other power of local education authority to supply goods or services.

  (4) In this section "national curriculum" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Education Reform Act 1988.'.

  Government amendment No. 126.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am sorry to see that the Secretary of State has decided to absent himself from the Chamber yet again. It seems that he is interested in this Bill only when it gives him more powers and not when it affects the education of millions of children.
  I start by explaining that we have given priority to the issues in new clause 1—music provision and the future of library services—because we think that these issues should have a high priority and are causing great concern outside this House among all those involved in education. I cannot believe that, on this important issue, Ministers will not be willing to think again.
  During the Committee stage, which was subject to the guillotine, we managed to protect one morning's sitting to debate what was then clause 244 dealing with the services which local authorities could provide in future to grant-maintained schools. One sitting was not enough to express all our fears; that is one reason why we have chosen to come back to this subject this evening.
  Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady so early in her speech, but she referred to the introduction of the guillotine. I heard her speaking eloquently on the BBC this morning. I wonder whether, when these debates are over, she will look at the recommendations in the second report of the Procedure Committee, dealing with procedure in Standing Committee. She will find that, if that had become part of the procedures of the House, the objections she has been making to the guillotine could well have been overcome, because the members of the Committee themselves would have decided how to use its time to debate every part of the Bill.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those comments, and I think that there is some substance in what he says. I have always resisted the idea of automatic guillotines on Bills, but there is much attraction in the prospect of a special Committee before going on to consider a Bill, and I am willing to think about that idea. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has made a study of the matter, and I appreciate his comments.
  In Committee, I moved the amendment to what was then clause 244 in what I hoped was a non-confrontational way, because I wanted to reflect the concerns of people in various political parties about the Government's proposals. Partly because of that, I was genuinely amazed
  188
  and disappointed at the Ministers' response and at that of some, although perhaps not all, Conservative members of the Committee.
  Ministers did not use the opportunity fully to explain their thinking on clause 244, which in the reprinted Bill is now clause 257. In view of what Ministers said at the time, I can conclude only that they do not comprehend the full impact of their own legislation, especially on the provision of music and on the future of the school library service.
  We shall be able to debate clause 257 in detail tomorrow. It provides a time limit for the provision of services by local education authorities to grant-maintained schools. New clause 1 seeks to exempt music and school library services from the general provisions of clause 257. Those are not our only concerns about the clause—we shall wish to discuss other matters tomorrow —but they are the two major concerns. I hope that Conservative Members will pause and give some thought to the full implications of the clause if it goes through unamended. Perhaps they will consider that the way forward suggested in new clause 1 will be beneficial for all concerned.
  We have two major worries about what might happen if our new clause is not accepted. I am sure that Ministers and Conservative Members, like Opposition Members, have received many representations on the subject. The concerns have ranged over a wide variety of issues. Some local authorities are worried about the continuation of their own services.
  Perhaps the aspect that should appeal to Conservative Members most is that, in future, grant-maintained schools will not be allowed to buy the services they choose from wherever they choose. The Government propose that local education authority schools may use or not use local authority services, according to their own choice. However, grant-maintained schools will not have that choice. They will have to rely on the private sector, whether or not the private sector can provide the services required.
  I cannot see any circumstances in which the private sector will move in to provide a school library service such as that provided by many local authorities. It is impossible to conceive of the private sector being able to provide the service on the scale that presently exists in many local authority areas. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said that, in Durham, the school library service had assets, and owned books and equipment, worth £2 million a year. I do not think that the private sector will come in with that sort of money in the hope of being able to make money out of schools wanting to buy its services.
  My other concern is that if fewer schools use local authority services the provision of those services to local authority schools, too, may be threatened. That is less likely to happen in Labour-controlled authorities than in Conservative-controlled authorities, because grant-maintained schools are more common in Conservative authorities. Indeed, Tory Kent and Tory Essex have more grant-maintained schools than exist in all Labour authorities put together. So it is in those areas that the pressure for the maintenance of music services and school library services for pupils in local authority schools will come first.
  I said that my hon. Friends and I had received many representations on those issues. I do not want to go into them all in detail, because that would take too long, and

  189
  I know that my hon. Friends want to raise specific points, but I shall quote from a letter that Larry Westland, the director of Music for Youth, wrote to all hon. Members:
  "The superlative standards reached by our young musicians, youth orchestras and choirs is one of the United Kingdom's greatest educational achievements."
  My hon. Friends and I concur, and we appreciate the work that Music for Youth has done over the years. Larry Westland went on:
  "The Education Bill will, I believe, bring about a diminution in the quality and range of this aspect of music teaching".
  What Larry Westland says is just one indication of the whole range of concerns expressed by people outside the House about what will happen in the future. Today I received a letter from the Centre for Young Musicians, which used to be funded by the Inner London education authority; the London boroughs now pay the tuition fees. The Centre for Young Musicians is worried that the allocation of funds to grant-maintained schools will pose future problems for it, and will mean that it will not be able to provide tuition to students irrespective of their financial means, as it has done hitherto.
  I know that Conservative Members share some of that concern about the future of music. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) agrees. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), too, expressed some reservations in Committee. I must admit that he and I went to the schools prom together, so I know that he appreciates the musical work of many young people. Following the hon. Gentleman's remarks in Committee, the Minister circulated a letter which tried to allay some of the fears by saying that there could be co-operation over a wider area with orchestras containing pupils from both grant-maintained schools and local authority schools, and other similar arrangements.
  However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be misled by the Minister's letter. The issue is wider than that. Larry Westland's letter which I quoted also says that, although the national curriculum may provide for some basic music education, there is no requirement whatever for instrumental tuition or specialist vocal tuition to be provided. If the music service in an area were broken up,that could lead only to a reduction in the amount of tuition available.
  If the Secretary of State manages to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will show that his concerns on the matter are genuine. I hope that he, and perhaps other Conservative Members, will consider voting with us on this new clause.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I want to speak briefly, and to confine my remarks entirely to the subject of music.
  I have corresponded with my hon. Friend the Minister on this matter, and he knows my concerns. In writing to him, I was merely reflecting the widespread concern of a great many of my constituents. It has been a long time since I have received so many letters on a single subject as I have on the Staffordshire music service. It is a service of high excellence and one which is held in high repute by people not simply in Staffordshire but throughout the country.
  Those constituents who have written to me are fairly enthusiastic, for the most part, and they are certainly not
  190
  opposed to the idea of grant-maintained status. However, we have had three ballots in my constituency which have gone emphatically—two of them very emphatically—against grant-maintained status. From the correspondence I have received, I believe that one of the reasons—it is only one, and I would say that it is not the most important one, because the campaign has been rather a political one—which has certainly moved many of those who would normally vote with alacrity for grant-maintained status has been the fact that they have felt that the music service is under threat.
  I should like a reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister. Frankly, as I said in my letters, what he has said up until now has not been convincing enough. Of course I fully accept that it will be possible to buy in services. I also accept that it is conceivable that some organisation might come into being which can provide musical services of quality and distinction. However, nothing that my lion. Friend has said in his letters has convinced me of the likelihood—as distinct from the possibility—of that.
  Conservative Members should always be concerned to conserve what is good. The music service in Staffordshire is not only good but excellent. Over the past few years, many young people have learnt to master instruments who would never have had that opportunity before. That knowledge and mastery has given them a new self-confidence, as such knowledge and mastery often does. Sometimes, they are not academically bright children. It also gives them the opportunity to work and play in the best sense with others, and to come together across a county.
  Only two years ago, the county took over the Royal Albert hall. Parents came from all over the county and —although, sadly, I could not be there—it was by all accounts a most magnificent and moving occasion. It is something which those young people will never forget.
  In my constituency, I have a number of school bands and orchestras which are good, partly because young people have the opportunity to play in bigger groups and therefore to rub shoulders with those who may be more proficient than they are. They may also learn from those who may in some degree be more accomplished than the teachers in their own schools. That countywide cross-fertilisation—if I can put it that way—has helped to build up the tremendous reputation which the music service in Staffordshire rightly enjoys.
  My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I fully support the concept of grant-maintained schools. My concern relates to the quality of the Staffordshire music service and to its survival. I ask the Minister not to do anything which will put that service in jeopardy. Until now, neither he nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, nor anyone else, has convinced either the parents or me that we have an answer in the Bill. Perhaps the answer is to change the present music service into a trust. The Minister referred to a trust in one of his letters.
  For goodness' sake, the Government should keep the service, the people, and those who have brought the service into being. They should not simply say, "It can happen. It might happen." They should take positive action to ensure that it does happen.
  This matter is much more important to the young people involved and their parents than any doctrinal difference which might separate us across the Floor of the

  191
  House. Music is a great unifying force. It brings people out of themselves. It is a language which transcends so many barriers.
  Some years ago, I had the privilege of being involved in the establishment of the music therapy charity. One saw at first hand and in a most moving way how those who are often severely disadvantaged can, through music, reach out to goals which they never thought they could attain. Although this centralising Bill—one must say that it is a centralising Bill—may have many fine and good things in it, and although I do not for a moment doubt the total integrity of the Secretary of State and all my ministerial colleagues, and their genuine desire—which we all share—to see the education services in this country not only preserved but made even better, I tell my hon. Friend that the Staffordshire music service is at risk.
  I hope that the Minister will take that on board and realise that something must be done to allay the fears of parents in my constituency, throughout Staffordshire and—I am sure—in other parts of the country. I hope that he will undertake to re-examine how such excellence can be preserved in a new era and in new circumstances, so that, whatever label the schools bear which children will go to next year, the year after and in the year 2000, there will still be an opportunity for collective music-making and collective excellence across the country.
  The Bill still has quite a way to go. There is another place in which there are many people who are well versed in the matters which we are talking about. Those people have high qualifications and great eminence. When the Bill comes back from another place, I hope that this specific point will have been fully, properly and competently addressed. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to re-examine the matter, because I am sure that he would not like to go on record as one of those who assisted, however unwittingly, in the demise of a service of great excellence and high repute.
  Mr. Steinberg: The object of the new clause is to ensure that the schools library facilities and music service are available to all schools, whether they are local education authority maintained or grant maintained. School library facilities and music services require special treatment in the Bill. I believe that they are different from other support services in that they provide a service which is specifically educational. They are not simply providers of goods or administrative support.
  I should like to examine specifically the role of the schools library service. School library services are usually run either by the public library service as an agent of the local education authority or directly by the education authority itself. They support the work of the library and information services in primary, secondary and even special schools. Schools library services will typically provide a book exchange scheme for schools, a project loans scheme to support projects undertaken within schools, an advisory service on all aspects of school library management and use, training for teachers in information handling skills and work in schools to promote the enjoyment of reading.
  Such services provide essential back-up to library and information services within schools. No individual school could hope to provide all the learning resources necessary to support the curriculum. The schools library service
  192
  provides a network of professional support for school librarians. Such services are highly commended in most HMI reports. On occasion the reports highlight that the schools library service is the only good thing about a school library.
  I hope that the House will support the inclusion of new clause 1 in the Bill. I shall give local examples from the schools library service which my local authority of Durham provides for schools in Durham. The service is known as Durham Learning Resources. It was formed by the amalgamation of the schools library service and the museums education service. It is managed and operated by the arts, libraries and museums department as part of the strategy for serving children within the authority. The costs of the service are re-charged to the education department. The purpose of the service is to give teachers access to materials to support the national curriculum. The materials either supplement the school's resources or are provided in a quantity or quality which the school cannot obtain.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) quoted the information that I had given to her in Committee. Last year the local authority's learning resources service lent almost £2 million of stock to schools in the Durham county area. If that service was not available, what would schools lose? We have to remember that at present no school in Durham has opted out. I hope that none will. However, one or two may opt out in the near future.
  If the children in an opted-out school did not have access to the local authority schools library services, they would lose information books. About 25,000 books are kept centrally by Durham county council to enhance the national curriculum. They would lose fiction books. The service has a huge supply of wall charts, picture packs and slides. It has "spoken word" tapes, which is a range of 300 children's stories to stimulate children who have reading difficulties.
  The service has a wide collection of almost 3,000 objects, including natural history specimens, geological specimens and costumes from the 19th and 20th century. 1 could go on and on. All those items are available to the schools in the county. If grant-maintained schools were not allowed to use that service, they would not have the benefit of the articles kept centrally by Durham county council. The service keeps about 4,000 works of art, originals and reproductions, and lends them to schools. If grant-maintained schools were created in Durham, after two years they would not be allowed to borrow such items.
  The HMI report which was released recently showed that libraries within schools are badly off. The Book Trust report "Books in Schools" highlighted the importance of reading ability in relation to overall educational attainment. It opened with the statement:
  "Rarely have so many pupils had so few books."
  The majority of schools do not have adequate library facilities. The school of which I was the head teacher was sadly without a good library simply because books were so expensive that one could not buy them. One had to concentrate on other important items that were needed. The school library was particularly run down. However, I always knew that I had the back-up of the central schools library service. Periodically the staff and I went to county hall and took away literally thousands of books for use within the school.

  193
  6.45 pm
  What would be the alternatives for grant-maintained schools if they could not take advantage of the schools library service? They would have to operate independently. That would involve huge expense. It has been estimated that such schools would need at least £12,000 per year to develop library resources. That would not include the cost of staff to run the library. If they could not afford to buy the resources, they would have to go to the local library. It would be virtually impossible for a local library to provide the number of books that all the schools in the area would need. Local libraries are too small. They could not stock the range and quantity that would be required.
  No other agency, public or private, has established comprehensive collections of resources to support the curriculum. It would require capital investment of about £500,000 to start such a collection. We all know that that figure is too high for any private organisation. There is no evidence to show that the private sector could provide an alternative service in all areas. The private sector has shown little interest in providing public library services where tenders have been invited.
  The intention of new clause 1 is to give governors the right to use the local eduation authority schools library service and music service, whether the school is grant maintained or an LEA school. That would ensure that all pupils had access to their full entitlement of library and music services.
  I support the new clause with total conviction. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government are being so stubborn on the issue. It seems to be purely vindictiveness. I cannot see any political or sound educational reason for preventing grant-maintained schools from using LEA services. I can see only the Government's vindictive attitude to local education authorities. The Government's proposal would disadvantage the very children whom the Government say that they want to help—children in grant-maintained schools. I cannot understand it. I am baffled that the Government expect grant-maintained schools to thrive throughout the country yet deprive them of a valuable service which the local education authority can provide.
  If the new clause is not included in the Bill, it will prove once and for all without a shadow of doubt that the Bill is nothing to do with improving standards of education for children but is simply a vindictive and hostile move against local education authorities. At the end of the day the children are the ones who will suffer.
  Mr. Bowis: The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the library route. I believe that grant-maintained schools already have a good record on spending on books. Spending has risen and is above average in those schools. So I have more confidence on the issue of library services. I should like to concentrate on music, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack).
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am worried about what the hon. Gentleman suggests. Does he suggest that each school could be self-sufficient in not only books but articles such as works of art and artefacts, which schools library
  194
  services can provide? That was the implication of his suggestion that some schools were doing well on books. The debate is about more than books.
  Mr. Bowis: I was not suggesting that at all. I was simply saying that we should acknowledge that they already have a good record on spending on books. Of course, the issue of libraries and book provision goes wider than that. The facilities exist and schools have the option to take up existing and future services and I am confident that they will do so.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South, I shall concentrate on music. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) referred to the fact that she and I occasionally went to a concert together. I hope that that will not damage her reputation. While we are in confession mode, perhaps I should also confess to having been brought up with Larry Westland's wife. Although we could make many confessions, the only one I wish to put on record is a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the board of the South Bank which plays host to much of the youth and schools music to which we are referring, not least Larry Westland's festival of youth music at the Festival hall and the annual schools proms at the Albert hall.
  I know that Larry Westland shares some of my concerns. He would be the first to say that there are plenty of opportunities and I know that he is looking for ways around the problems. He is seeking to get together with the Government and those in the music profession to find ways of ensuring that music education continues. Although the letter that he has sent to hon. Members reflects his concern about existing provision, we have to ensure that the excellent provision in some areas is extended to all parts of the country.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury asked whether I would be supporting the new clause. My answer will have to be no because it does not address the problem that I raised on Second Reading and in Committee and shall repeat today. The new clause may even exclude a solution. It talks about the local education authority giving support and assistance for music tuition and to the teaching of music in accordance with the national curriculum. However, it does not refer to the establishment, nurturing and expansion of the orchestras, bands and choirs which produce the great joy of the music festivals to which I have referred. The new clause specifies
  "the purpose only of assisting governing bodies"
  with specific tuition, so I do not think that it will help.
  We need constantly to examine the problem of ensuring the future of what have become great orchestras. The schools prom involves a range of ages and backgrounds. There is everything from full-scale, top-quality county youth orchestras to bands from local schools for children with special educational needs. Those children are showing what they can achieve—perhaps we should call them special educational achieving bands—and they are particularly moving. I seek to find ways to preserve and conserve those opportunities.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools has gone a long way towards seeking solutions. The hon. Lady referred to one letter about partnerships between maintained schools and grant-maintained schools, but, as he promised in Committee, he has looked further. On 4 February, in response to the points I raised, he referred to:

  195
  "an issue that he and I might examine in the future—section 145 of the Local Government Act 1972."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 4 February 1993; c. 1374.]
  I am grateful to him for looking into the matter. Indeed the Local Government Act 1972 does provide a way through. Section 145(1)(c) provides that it is possible for local authorities, as opposed to local education authorities, to make provisions within or outwith their own local authority area. I asked whether they could spend money on pupils from outside the local authority area. Section 145 makes it clear that they can, and paragraph (c) refers specifically to bands and orchestras and presumably applies to choirs.
  Local government authorities are already looking for ways through. The London Schools Symphony orchestra has found a solution. The hon. Lady referred to Kent which has some 18 music centres and the local authority is liaising with the Association of Rural Music Schools. My hon. Friend has established the facts to find a way to ensure the future of the excellent provision of music in rural areas, and I understand that Berkshire has set up a charitable trust.
  I have two worries. First, what incentive is there for local authorities to take over the responsibility hitherto undertaken by local education authorities? In many cases it is the same authority, and that will apply more often as we move towards unitary authorities, but there are understandable concerns that those facilities should not be lost in the transfer of responsibilities. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend spoke to Ministers with responsibilities for local government to see what recommendations, guidance or steering can be provided by the Department of the Environment as well as directly through LEAs to stress that central Government looks to local government to continue such provision.
  Secondly, at present if a county youth orchestra is set up and maintained by the county education committee schools can send students to play in the orchestra if they meet the required standard. I am concerned to ensure that there will be nothing to stop that continuing and that grant-maintained schools will be able to send pupils to participate. However, there is an implication that there will be some requirement on those schools to contribute towards the cost of the county youth orchestra in future. I am not yet convinced that those schools will have sufficient incentive to contribute to the county youth orchestra, particularly in a year when they have no students playing in the orchestra or band.
  I ask my hon. Friend to continue to examine the issue as I know he has done in the past. I am grateful for the genuine way in which he has tackled the problems, but hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Government and local government and those in the world of music must get it right because it is a precious asset in our cultural heritage.
  7 pm
  Ms. Armstrong: As I was not a member of the Standing Committee, I intervene in the debate with some trepidation. I realise that hon. Members who were on the Committee are anxious to take part. However, I should like to make a brief contribution about the music service
  196
  in Durham, as my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) referred to the work that the library service does for schools in the county.
  I have a group of children coming to London tomorrow to present a petition at 10 Downing street. The petition relates to their concern and that of their parents about the future of the music service in Durham. They realise that if the service is under threat there, it is under threat elsewhere, and they want to ensure that it is maintained.
  I admire the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) for talking about progress and development and I wish to goodness that serious thought were being given to those aspects. A great deal is threatened with destruction and must first be protected if we are to secure progress and development. If we cannot preserve what we have, we shall not be able to extend good practice and high quality. That distresses me.
  We are told repeatedly that the Government are concerned about standards, yet when we have something of high quality they are content to ride rough-shod over it, such is their fixation that education should be dominated by market principles. Many hon. Members may not realise how difficult it is to run an orchestra on the basis simply of upholding individualism. The attitude that it is the individual that matters—and whether individual schools buy in—affects the ability of an orchestra and its members to work together. It may seem simplistic to say so, but we have to use simplistic language if we are to get Ministers to listen and to think about anything.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools visited the Durham music service in October. I am told that he was quite impressed and commended the work that was being done. A few weeks later I was at the school proms in the Royal Albert hall. Apart from anything else, that is an extremely enjoyable occasion, and for Members of Parliament such events are very few and far between these days. I wish that some Ministers had found time to attend. I understand that no Minister was present at the event last year or was able to go to the Festival hall this year or last. That demonstrates that Ministers are afraid to expose themselves to such quality experience. In their heart of hearts, they know that what they are doing threatens quality. Many people support what is currently being done by the music service. One is Eric Bolton, recently a chief inspector, and others have been mentioned.
  I want to refer to some wider educational aspects. The Government seem to have lost sight of what education is about. It is not simply about the three Rs. It is true that if children do not acquire a grasp of the three Rs, many other things remain outside their understanding, but if education were about the three Rs only, we should have a very narrow and stultified group of young people emerging from the system. Music is one area in which many otherwise ordinary children excel. I have received from constituents letters indicating that they did not realise that their children had such qualities, as music was not important in their families. But many children have found ways of expressing talent and have become high flyers through music. The Government are putting that at risk.
  In Durham, no one is expressing any interest in opted-out, grant-maintained schools. However, if such a development were to occur it would threaten the overall provision that the authority is able to make. In my constituency there are very small rural schools with only two or three teachers. The children there benefit from the

  197
  peripatetic music service. They have access to instruments and are able to go to group music sessions, leading to participation in county orchestras and bands. What the Government are doing will remove choice. Those children will be deprived of the opportunity of such involvement.
  But it is more than a question of simple involvement in music. Children in very small schools may have exceptional talent. How are they to be given an opportunity to work and play with others of similar ability? That can be done only if the county is able to make the appropriate provision. If the Government honestly want to empower authorities, why are they removing the means whereby pupils can be enabled to participate on a wider basis? Why are the Government determined to remove that power?
  There is no logic in the Government's attitude. The Minister knows that there are ways of maintaining this provision; but that would involve the enabling of local education authorities. The Government do not want to allow that, so they are adopting this vindictive attitude. We have heard a great deal about children and young people getting involved in nasty activities. Mr. Paul Haworth, a parent from the village in which my parents live, has written to me:
  "At a time when there is increasing concern about rising levels of crime and lawlessness among young people, it is short-sighted to take measures which could deprive many young people of the opportunity to take part in constructive activities which could not only enrich their own lives but also those of others. Where are future musicians to come from? Presumably, as a nation, we wish to have quality orchestras in the future. My own son is coming to the end of his school career but is willing to pass on his knowledge and expertise by helping younger musicians at his school. He does not get paid for this; it costs the school nothing; It costs the county nothing. It is one of those invisible spin-offs which do not appear on a balance sheet. Similar things happen in many schools. They cost nothing but have tremendous value. The present obsession with budgets and costs will destroy many valuable activities, but at the end of the day we will all count the cost."
  I hope that the Minister will listen. I realise that he will not accept the new clause. Indeed, it is beyond the ability of the Government to accept anything that the Opposition put forward. However, I hope that the Minister will at least have the humility to accept that the Government have got it wrong this time. They have been unable to assure people that services such as music and libraries, particularly in counties like mine, where schools are often dispersed widely across the countryside, will be preserved. The children in small rural schools must be offered the same opportunities as are available to those in large, grant-maintained schools. They deserve our attention. The Minister has an obligation to secure for them the future of the peripatetic music service and other such services. I hope that, despite the Government's ideological approach, the Minister will agree to the introduction, in another place, of provisions to secure the future of the peripatetic music service in the county of Durham.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: I add my voice to those heard tonight expressing anxiety about the future of the music service. I agree entirely with the concerns expressed by the hon. Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong).
  I speak as a London hon. Member who has experience of the extraordinarily good work of the Centre for Young
  198
  Musicians. It has provided truly excellent training and opportunities for London children from a variety of backgrounds to achieve extremely high standards. It has given them the experience of playing together in orchestras and bands. Only a fortnight ago I listened to a concert at the Blackheath concert halls given by three of the brass and wind ensembles of that organisation. They achieved remarkable standards. The house was packed and the occasion provided those children with important and valuable opportunities.
  Skill of that quality is possible only because of co-operation between people over a wide area. The Centre for Young Musicians was a product of the Inner London education authority, which achieved considerable gains by bringing together people from throughout the London area to achieve what would not have been possible by the individual efforts of one borough.
  When the ILEA was abolished, which many of us regretted bitterly, we felt that it was vital to retain the provision of bodies such as the Centre for Young Musicians. Lengthy negotiations took place, as a result of which a formula was established to allow that body to continue, with individual boroughs agreeing to meet the fees, along with a foundation for young musicians to provide financial support for the core services.
  That worked for a while, but it is now under threat. Individual boroughs, including my borough of Greenwich, the budgets of which are threatened by the pressures on their standard spending assessments and the Government's capping legislation, have been forced to withdraw funding. That is proving a tragedy for many children in those areas. Other boroughs are again examining their funding of the Centre for Young Musicians. In Greenwich, other music projects have been put at risk as a result of budget cuts. No individual borough in London could possibly sustain the activity necessary to achieve the standards that have been achieved by the Centre for Young Musicians. If that is true for a borough, it is all the more true for individual schools.
  We are witnessing the risk of fragmentation. One does not know how many schools will opt for grant-maintained status. There are few in those parts of London with which I am familiar. In other areas—for example, in the London borough of Wandsworth and a few others—a significant number have opted in favour. In Greenwich, little interest in the option has as yet been expressed by schools. But if the option develops and schools are taken outside the normal ambit of the local education authority so that they cannot opt into the joint provision of music service in a borough framework, the fragmentation of which I spoke will become more serious.
  That will put at risk the continuation of the high standards that have been achieved and which hon. Members in all parts of the House have emphasised. All have said that high quality has been achieved and is at risk. So it is vital for the Government to listen to the voices that are being raised. They must think again about the matter.
  I hope that the Government will accept the new clause, which would provide a framework within which individual authorities could continue to provide music and library services to schools, be they grant maintained or otherwise. The clause would be logical, it would avoid the fragmentation to which I referred and it would help to maintain the unified service and the high quality of music education that has been achieved. But even if the Government will not accept the new clause, I hope that

  199
  they will think again about the implications for music education, not only in London, but throughout Britain, if that process of fragmentation is allowed to proceed.
  In his White Paper which preceded the Bill, the Minister chose, rather curiously, to quote from John Ruskin's "Unto This Last". One of the most memorable phrases in that work—I fancy that it is not a quotation that the Secretary of State would wish to hear—runs:
  "Government and co-operation are in all things the laws of life; anarchy and competition, the laws of death."
  Co-operation in music has been the basis of achieving high standards in musical education. It is to be hoped that the Government will accept that continued co-operation on a wide scale, rather than anarchy and fragmentation, are the way forward. Otherwise, that high-quality service will be put at risk.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), I was not a member of the Committee, so I speak without the benefit of having been part of the discussion that preceded tonight's debate.
  Coming to the debate afresh, I find it strange that a Government who claim to be committed to choice, competition and quality should be taking steps that will inhibit all of those. It will preclude choice for grant-maintained schools so that after two years they will not be able to choose from where they buy their services. What the Government propose will make it impossible for local authority library and music services to compete with the schemes and companies that are already being set up.
  The Government say that they are keen on local authorities going into the market place and competing and trading. The Bill as drafted will prevent local authority services from trading their services to grant-maintained schools.
  Mr. Forth: No.
  Mr. Fisher: The Minister disputes what I say?
  Mr. Forth: It is precisely because the Government are not keen on local authorities trading that the whole provision exists. The hon. Gentleman has it the wrong way round.
  Mr. Fisher: The Government are keen on competitive tendering by local authorities.
  Mr. Forth: That is not the same thing.
  Mr. Fisher: Perhaps I should have referred to certain sorts of trading and various types of competing in the market place being considered desirable by the Government. If the Minister believes that the plural provision of music and library services is good, he is denying the sense of that by what he is proposing. Looking at the provision from the point of view of the Government, I am baffled. I do not understand their rationale. I trust the Minister will explain it when he replies to the debate.
  I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to Larry Westland. Most contributions to the debate have been about music services, and we are agreed that Mr. Westland has performed a superb service for the quality of music education and the enjoyment of music for 20 years or
  200
  more. I join the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) in saying that going to the schools' proms and musical events at the South Bank and the Albert hall are among the most moving and enjoyable musical experiences. It is remarkably exciting to see such a range of young musicians achieving high standards and coming together to express their excitement.
  We are speaking of children who in many cases have not been great achievers academically. They find in music a subject in which they can communicate well with others. The excitement of that communication comes across like electricity in their concerts at the Albert hall and the South Bank. If the Minister joins us in paying tribute to Mr. Westland—the country owes a considerable debt to him —he should heed Mr. Westland's warning, given from his experience of more than 20 years of working with young people and music, that the action of the Government in this matter is profoundly wrong. It puts at risk something that is extremely precious and probably, in European terms, unique about our education service. We have provided in Great Britain a quality of music education that is the envy of every other country. People come from all over the world—I am sure that the Minister understands this—to talk to music advisers in local authorities, to hear the music in our schools and to go to concerts like Mr. Westland's. They come here because of the traditions that have been built up.
  As the hon. Member for Battesea (Mr. Bowis) said, geographically throughout the country there is still somewhat patchy provision, as indeed there is in every hon. Member's constituency. It is one of the most baffling and worrying aspects of education in each of our constituencies that one can go to one school in one constituency and find wonderful music education, everybody playing an instrument, very good singing, and excitement and a buzz in the air; then one goes to a school half a mile away in the same catchment area, and therefore the same range of natural ability in children, and almost nothing is happening. So the patchiness of provision is not only geographic, but also within each constituency.
  That should give us cause for concern, but it should not distract us from the essential point that music education in this country is superb. It Mr. Westland is right, that we are putting it at risk with what the Government are doing, surely the Government ought to pause for thought. Surely they should talk more to people in both the public and the private sector in music, people like Mr. Westland and people in professional music as well, to see whether they are acting wisely.
  Certainly, from what Mr. Westland has said and from what has been said on both sides of the House in this debate, there is a fear that what the Government are doing is a threat to the quality of teaching in grant-maintained schools as much as in other schools, and to the music services that local authorities provide. With that two-pronged threat, there will be a threat to music education generally.
  The other thing that strikes me as curious about what the Government are doing is that it seems to be at odds with their own desire for music education in the national curriculum. Many of the provisions in the national curriculum are extremely good and should be applauded; they will add to the quality of music education.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) pointed out that the basic music education

  201
  required between the ages of five and 14 does not include specialist instrumental or singing teaching. I regret that, and believe that it is a weakness in the national curriculum.
  What the national curriculum does require, particularly at key stage 2, is a lot of specialised knowledge of music. It requires the teaching of notation and composing; it requires a quality of listening and appreciation of music that is really quite specialised and cannot be provided by just any teacher. The Minister would not fancy his hand at teaching a group of young children at key stage 2 ostinato, or to appreciate Stravinsky on the one hand and reggae on the other.
  What the Minister, quite rightly, is asking for in the basic music education in the national curriculum is some quite specialist skills and knowledge, specialist music teaching. Yet he must understand that the Government's proposal would have the effect of cutting back on specialised music teaching, both peripatetic and through the music services and music advisers. So here we have, on the one hand, the Government rather admirably wanting very specialist knowledge to be taught to our children, yet, on the other hand, taking action that will drive out specialist music teaching, both through music services and in schools. There seems to be a contradiction there.
  The Minister may say in his reply that this can all be addressed through enhanced in-service training. He will probably refer to such things as the Reading consultancy service, which are beginning to get off the ground and will certainly improve the quality of teaching of non-specialist music teachers. But he knows that they cannot, by themselves, fulfil the needs or develop the full potential of the basic music education in the national curriculum. There is a contradiction which the Minister really ought to address.
  I am sure that the Minister knows that the quality of the music services that my hon. Friends and I are seeking to preserve is dependent on the quality of the music advisers. I believe that this view is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I join the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) in paying tribute to the service there, which I am sure is replicated in many other constituencies. Yet, as the Minister will know, the music advisers national association did a survey at the end of last year which showed in the last three months of that year that the threat of this action by the Government and of other cuts in local authority education services meant that, out of 108 music advisers in the country, 17 lost their jobs—roughly 15 per cent.—and that they will not be the last to lose their jobs. So the very people who provide the specialist skills are leaving the service.
  The Minister will also know, having done his homework, that the United Kingdom Council for Music Education and Training, too, did a survey last year. It suggested that, if what the Government are seeking to do tonight becomes law, only 12 per cent. of local education authorities plan to keep a full music service going. That cannot be right if the Minister shares the applause and congratulations on the quality of music teaching; something surely is wrong.
  We should not be talking about clinging on to the quality of our service. This debate should be about improving it, getting more music teachers, more support in schools, more professional musicians into schools, and more children leaving the classroom to experience a concert. How can we say that we have a comprehensive education in this country when so many children leave
  202
  school at 16 never having had the opportunity to hear live music in a concert hall? That does not seem to me to be a comprehensive education. That is the debate that we ought to be having tonight. Instead, we are scrabbling around trying to persuade the Minister not to destroy something which is a jewel of the British education service.
  Most of the debate tonight has been on music education, but I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West spoke about school libraries. Surely there can be agreement on both sides of the House about the importance of books and libraries for education. Indeed, the idea of an education service without libraries, without books, is a contradiction in terms.
  However, the Minister knows that the pressure on local authority finances in recent years has meant that on the whole schools have been buying fewer books and that the books that are on the shelves are old and out of date. When the Labour party did a survey 18 months ago of school library provision, we were literally flooded by examples from school libraries all over the country which had books on the shelves that were 30, 40, 50, or 60 years out of date. There were books about the British empire, with the wrong maps; and one book said that radio was the technology of the future. That was on the science shelf of a secondary school. They might seem rather laughable examples, but there is something wrong with school libraries when they have such out-of-date books for teaching our children which have not been weeded out and replaced by the best.
  The Minister should know that four out of five schools have fewer than the 10 books per pupil recommended by Her Majesty's inspectors. Of course, the Government will not have the benefit of HMIs' advice in future, but, while they have it, they ought to take that professional advice and agree that 10 books per pupil is not a reasonable aim for a school and a school library. I cannot believe that the Minister will disagree with that. But four out of five schools in all our constituencies do not have 10 books per pupil. Only one school in four nationally has a library policy. Hon. Members may not realise that children in their constituencies are going to schools that do not have a policy about how to develop the library services that are the core of their constituents' children's education.
  Schools spend on average less than one third of the level per pupil recommended by Her Majesty's inspectorate. Less than one school in five has a qualified librarian. Far from being like music, in which we have a glorious tradition, our library services are buckling and sagging, and the Government are likely to make a bad situation worse through the Bill.
  As school libraries decline, the need for school library services becomes more acute. If the picture painted by Her Majesty's inspectorate is correct—and it is—that service and the common share provision is the only thing saving children's access to books. The Minister is putting that service at risk.
  As with the music debate, we should not be talking about trying to salvage a school library service. The Minister should be considering the existing superb library services—I am sure that he is—that are often in Conservative-controlled or non-Labour-controlled authorities such as Hertfordshire, which has possibly the best school library service in the country. I am sure that he has visited it. If he has, he will realise that it is a credit and an enhancement to education in Hertfordshire, and there are other success stories.

  203
  7.30 pm
  We should be setting such standards everywhere. Every school should have a library, which should be open throughout the school day. Every library should be adequately staffed by qualified librarians, and every local education authority should have a school library service.
  Those remarks should be totally uncontentious and should be endorsed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but the Government seem deaf to such common sense. As I understand it, through the Bill, the Government are seeking to destroy the library and music services and they could be saved from doing so if they accepted new clause 1. The music service is a jewel of our education system, and the library service is absolutely essential, but is in a bad state of repair. Both need support and succour from the Government, but they are getting damage and neglect. That cannot be right, and I beg the Minister to think again.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to intervene, if only briefly.
  The comments of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) do not bear closely on my experience of my constituency where, in the brief time that I have been associated with the schools, I have found an excellent music and library tradition. Some of the primary schools have taken their choirs to the United States and to Poland and some of the other schools regularly co-operate with one another. For example, all the schools have got together to fund the purchase of an Indonesian instrument, whose name escapes me—it is a series of amazing drums, and sounds almost West Indian. All the senior schools use the instrument—if someone could possibly feed me with its name I should be exceedingly grateful.
  It is heart-warming to hear the music made in both senior and junior schools in Hastings.
  Ms. Armstrong: As I understand it, East Sussex, which is the authority, has a good music service and that is precisely what we are trying to preserve through the new clause.
  Mr. Cormack: The hon. Member for Durham. North-West (Ms. Armstrong) has not given my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) the name of the instrument.
  Mrs. Lait: Yes, my hon. Friend reminds me that I was grasping for the name of the instrument.
  Some hon. Members in the Chamber know that I have been critical of East Sussex, but I do not deny that its music and library services are of a high standard.
  I do not think that music teaching and the library service in schools will be less good merely because the local education authority no longer has over-arching control. The Bill would free teachers and pupils to make their own decisions, because if they go grant maintained they will have the budget to make decisions about the sort of music that they wish to provide.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central that music provision is patchy, but head teachers are the key. If a teacher is exceedingly interested in music, the school will provide a wonderful music service, but one
  204
  tends to find that if the head teacher is less interested in music, the school is less likely to provide the quality of music teaching to be found in some other schools.
  I accept that many pupils demonstrate a skill that one would not necessarily expect. Once the head teacher and the teaching staff have control of their budgets and pupils have shown signs of interest, we can provide a superb music service. Under the new system we shall continue to do so.
  I confess that I am impressed at the quality of the library service in my constituency—the space, the number of books and how modern they are. I suggest that if we are looking for 60-year-old books in school libraries, we might look to see whether they are first editions and therefore of some value, as they could be sold to buy the more modern and up-to-date books that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central seems to recommend.
  Mr. Clappison: Such as an Indonesian dictionary.
  Mrs. Lait: Yes, I agree.
  The fundamental argument is that when schools have control over the totality of their budgets there will be no reason why they cannot buy in services, nor will there be any reason why schools that are deeply involved cannot sell such services, as that will not have to go through the local education authority.
  Mr. Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this short debate and do so with some trepidation because I know of the great distinction that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) bring to the debate, with their knowledge of the arts and the authority with which they can speak on the subject.
  I wish to contribute partly because of the remarks that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central made about Hertfordshire. As he said, Hertfordshire has a tradition of excellence in its school library service, so the debate is of concern to my constituents. Hertfordshire also has excellent music provision. Those services are of great interest to schools, teachers, pupils and parents in Hertfordshire, and they will look for a continuation of that tradition of excellence.
  The question of provision has a greater urgency in many Hertfordshire schools because they are moving rapidly towards grant-maintained status. Five schools in my constituency have recently balloted and each has opted, by a large majority, for such status. The Hertfordshire tradition of excellence in music and library provision is represented in those schools and they will be greatly interested in the debate. I have listened carefully to the debate. Opposition Members in particular have spoken with great feeling on the subject. I look for an assurance from Ministers about the position of library and music services.
  As I listened to the debate, I remembered what was said in Committee when we considered the provision of services by LEAs. Similar points have been raised in both debates, but I am not as pessimistic as Opposition Members are about the alternative provision of supply. I do not believe that experience in other areas has shown that the independent sector is inadequate or unenterprising in making alternative provision. In the future I look for

  205
  diversity and enterprise in the provision of music and library services. There is a great deal to be gained from that.
  I have sought to put the debate in the context of a more general one about the provision of local authority services. I have listened with interest to what has been said about the provision of music and library services.
  Mr. Forth: With the indulgence of the House, I shall start by moving amendment No. 126, as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would expect.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. No, I would not. Moving the amendment comes later.
  Mr. Forth: I am most relieved, as that means that I can spend more time answering the debate.
  What is somewhat depressing about this debate—like that in the Committee—is the negative attitude that prevails on the Opposition Benches, which is contrasted by the more positive attitude displayed by my hon. Friends. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on his long-standing interest in these matters. He was kind enough to acknowledge that he and I have considered this issue and, although I have not been able to satisfy my hon. Friend completely, I am sure that he will agree that the problems that he envisaged are not as great as he originally thought. The views expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) reflected that positiveness.
  Contrast that with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), who said that only the county can enable joint and co-operative provision in the supply of music services. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) suggested that a plural provision—an interesting term, I thought—would somehow be denied by the measures in the Bill, which the new clause seeks to amend. I hope to demonstrate that nothing could be further from the truth.
  One of the other ironies of the debate is that Opposition Members have been at pains to point out the inadequacy of some of the existing provision, but that provision is made by the very LEAs that they argue should continue to have some sort of monopolistic control over the provision of music and library services.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central spoke about the inadequacy of school library books stock, a concern which was echoed by his hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). It is difficult to argue that one must hold on to the existing provision, because anything else will be fatally damaging, while arguing, almost in the same breath, that that existing provision is somehow inadequate. I am at a loss to square those two arguments, as was the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central.
  Mr. Fisher: Perhaps I can help the Minister to understand my point. Because school libraries have been so run down in recent years, the school library service—the common provision across an authority to which all school libraries can turn to bolster their stock—is essential. The Minister has threatened the existence of the school library service.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful for that clarification and I shall deal with that point later.
  206
  It is important to recall that whatever threat the Opposition may see and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) envisages is not immediate and its effect will not be uniform across the country. The choice is not as stark as has been portrayed. An alternative provision of services will be considered only when LEAs start to reach and exceed the margin of capacity of their provision—that will occur only when a significant number of their schools have decided to become grant maintained. That decision will be taken by schools in the full knowledge of what independence means.
  I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South said. If parents decide that relying on the continuance of LEA provision of the kind to which their school is accustomed is of paramount importance to them, perhaps that school is not the right sort to become grant maintained. If, on the other hand, a school is ready to accept the independence, responsibilities and the funding regime that come with grant-maintained status, and it can contemplate looking more widely for the provision of services, it can go forward with confidence. I shall cite examples of schools that have done just that.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Cormack: I must make it plain that I merely said that that was a factor in certain recent decisions that I personally regretted. I believe that those schools would be better if they were not left as they are, as do many of the parents. If their anxieties could be stilled on this particular point, I suspect that a lot of them would vote in a different way.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, for that is precisely the argument that I want to make.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I wonder whether the Minister is aware of a little booklet entitled "Education for the Next Century", which the Government have placed in most public libraries and which has the approval of the Plain English Campaign. It says about grant-maintained schools:
  "LEAs can offer services to GM schools where there is a need for them and the schools can buy from the LEA or elsewhere."
  Many parents will have read that document and will be totally unaware that if their school does become grant maintained it will be unable, once the LEA has gone beyond the margin that the Minister has mentioned" to buy services from that LEA. Can the Minister make a definitive statement about that, so that the position is absolutely clear?
  Mr. Forth: I shall certainly look at the wording of the publication to which the hon. Lady referred. It is somewhat at odds with the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South, who suggested that parents were being scared by the thought that they would no longer be able to look to their LEA for those services. The hon. Lady is suggesting that, somehow, they are being conned into believing that they can get those services from the LEA. We cannot have it both ways and the matter must be resolved one way or the other. I shall look at that publication.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister will be aware that under an amendment to clause 25 the Secretary of State has taken powers to declare ballots void if he believes that misleading information has been presented to parents for

  207
  a grant-maintained ballot. If the circumstances surrounding the supply of services to grant-maintained schools became an issue in a ballot, what would the Minister consider to be misleading information—that given by his hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) or that quoted in the booklet?
  Mr. Forth: I shall look at the wording in that publication to see whether it is in any way misleading.
  As I said a few moments ago, one of the problems with this debate is that none of us can be specific about the point at which the margin of capacity of a particular LEA may be reached and, therefore, when the restrictions on its trading powers and provision of services to grant-maintained schools may be reached. That will vary authority by authority, it will vary over time and it will vary up and down the country.
  The alternatives that are available to schools are numerous and I should like to come to the point rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South. There is the option of co-operation between schools —co-operatives even—that seek to come together to make use of the funds made available to them either through the local management of their schools or grant-maintained status. They may seek to make joint provision for certain services. In the case of libraries, for example, if a school has its own library that is one matter, but primary schools may want to form themselves into consortia. Similarly, secondary schools may provide library services for their local primary schools. All those possibilities can be explored. Local authority public libraries might find ways in which they could make provisions available to local schools on a much more broadly defined basis. The margin of capacity for a local authority, as a whole, as opposed to a local education authority, tends to be wider and would allow the public library service to range more widely than normal.
  There is a range of possibilities, but, at present, as we are in the relatively early stage of development, those possibilities have not yet been fully explored or come to full fruition. I shall give examples of where the possibilities have been explored.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I remind the Minister of what he said during our debate on the subject in Committee on 4 February—Hansard, column 1373? He said that local authorities should not be able to offer services to grant-maintained schools because they were "non-profit-accountable bodies." Is the Minister saying that he will allow grant-maintained schools to trade with each other? If so, is he saying that they are profit-accountable bodies and one of their main purposes should be to trade with other schools in their region? What is the difference between one publicly funded organisation—a local authority—providing the services and another publicly funded organisation—a grant-maintained school—doing so?
  Mr. Forth: I think that the hon. Lady is making slightly heavy weather of the issue. There is nothing to stop schools using their funds for educational purposes, which is what the funds are for. If the schools believe that by joint activity or co-operative activity or forming consortia for educational purposes they can achieve that end, I know of no inhibition on them.
  Mr. Steinberg: I do not believe that the Minister understands what a resource centre is. He is talking about using a public library. Does he realise that a resource centre provides all the facilities that I mentioned earlier, such as projects and history objects, which a public library does not hold centrally? Such provisions are specifically held by learning resource centres. It is impossible for a central library or local library to hold objects that schools can borrow. They are held only by the local education authority. I believe that the Minister does not understand the difference between a central public library and a learning resource centre.
  Mr. Forth: I know that it is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to expand his mind beyond what is at present. We have sat through 140 hours of debate in Committee, so I know that Opposition Members are profoundly conservative. In normal circumstances, I might welcome that. But the fact that Opposition Members cannot get their minds beyond what is at present and cannot imagine anything other than a local education authority providing anything is bedeviling the debate. The Government are suggesting that it is highly likely that given the fact that we are now liberating schools, their governors, head teachers and everyone else involved—through a combination of delegated budgets and local management of schools and the possibility of grant-maintained status—they can make decisions about their priorities and how they use their funds.
  Mr. Steinberg rose—
  Mr. Forth: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but if his intervention is as long as his previous one, it will be the last time that I give way.
  Mr. Steinberg: Does not the Minister realise that he is talking about liberating schools, but saying that they cannot purchase from a local education authority? Where is the liberation in that?
  Mr. Forth: The liberation comes from the fact that schools can look to other provision which is now beginning to materialise. Examples of LEAs that are looking to trusts to provide music services include those in Kirklees, Kent, Berkshire, East Sussex and Derbyshire. That trust status would be an interim stage towards the fully independent provision of the services that we believe that schools will want to consider.
  I can give a number of examples of grant-maintained schools that are already purchasing catering, payroll, music, legal, architectural, cleaning, catering, auditing, outdoor education and ground maintenance services. I could continue with the list, but I think that those examples of grant-maintained schools purchasing such services—including music—will serve. In all those schools, music is included in the service. Some of them maintain that the provision that they are now able to purchase freely, and of their own choice and source, is better than the one that they used to obtain from the monopoly local education authority provider. That is what I mean by liberation, local decision making and local management using its resources.
  Mr. Enright: Will the Minister give a concrete example of one service that is so much better than the ones that already exist?
  Mr. Forth: I know of at least one school that claims that its provision is superior to that it had previously—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Which one?"] If the House will bear with me, I hope to be able to give that example—[Interruption.] —I cannot find the example immediately, and shall come back to it in a moment, as I want to speak to my amendment before I sit down. [Interruption.]
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I think that the Minister has been given the information, so if he wishes to resume his speech, give us the name of the school and give way in a moment, I shall happily let him.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. The school is Bingley grammar school—[Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members find it amusing.
  Mr. Enright rose—
  Mr. Forth: No, I shall not give way, as the hon. Gentleman must allow me to tell the House about Bingley grammar school. It claims to have tripled the interest in music for a better price since it has not received its music service from the local education authority. It now buys in peripatetic music teachers.
  Mr. Enright: I was laughing because Leeds already gives an excellent service, which I doubt has been bettered by the purchases suggested by the Minister.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman can come to the Chamber as an apologist for Leeds, but, in answer to the question that I was posed, I am giving an example of a school that has demonstrated the principle that underlies the section of the Bill that we are discussing, and shows why the new clause is so misconceived. The example also partly answers the important question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South.
  There are growing numbers of grant-maintained schools that have demonstrated their capacity and capability to go to the hardly developed market place for services and purchase them to their satisfaction, competitively and with choice. That is a completely different approach from the monopolistic LEA-driven approach that previously existed. I concede straight away that it is different for people, who have the education of children at heart and who have known only local education authority provision all their lives, to see beyond that. Even at this early stage, long before we have reached margins of capacity and the provisions begin to bite, we see encouraging examples of schools that are able to obtain library and music provision to their satisfaction from the marketplace.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I think that I am right in saying that Bingley is unique in another aspect: it is the one grant-maintained school that has applied to take out a mortgage. I do not know what the connection is there—perhaps it is to pay for the music. I hope that the Minister will respond to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong). Small schools, where the marginal cost of the provision of music lessons is excessive, may find themselves excluded from the sort of provision that the Minister mentioned. Will the Minister read new clause 1, which states that the local authority may provide those services and the grant-maintained schools may buy them? No one is forcing either the local authority to provide the service or the grant-maintained school to pay for it. That option
  210
  should be available both to the local authority and the grant-maintained school—to use the Minister's word, it is "liberating".
  Mr. Forth: As long as local education authorities are allowed to continue to make that provision, it is most unlikely that others will be able to come in or provide an adequate alternative—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
  As a courtesy to the House, I will explain amendment No. 126. Its purpose is to allow LEAs in prescribed circumstances to charge grant-maintained schools for such services. If a GM school decides to use a particular LEA-provided support service, it is reasonable for the school to pay for that service if it is already funded to do so.
  To deny LEAs the opportunity to charge would mean that grant-maintained schools would otherwise be double funded—money being given to the school on the one hand but the service being provided free on the other. In effect, and as important, that would choke off the development of a free market in such services, since alternative suppliers could not compete. We shall of course consult widely on the necessary regulations.
  I hope that the House will accept that the Government amendment is entirely reasonable, is very much within the spirit of the Bill, and will enable local education authorities to charge where it is necessary to do so, to avoid double counting.
  It being Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the clause be read a Second time:
  The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 275.

  Division No. 165]

  [8 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clapham, Michael

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Allen, Graham

  Clelland, David

  Alton, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Coffey, Ann

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cohen, Harry

  Ashton, Joe

  Connarty, Michael

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Barnes, Harry

  Corbett, Robin

  Barron, Kevin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Battle, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cryer, Bob

  Bell, Stuart

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Dafis, Cynog

  Benton, Joe

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Darling, Alistair

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Davidson, Ian

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Blunkett, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Boyce, Jimmy

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

  Boyes, Roland

  Denham, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Dewar, Donald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dixon, Don

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dobson, Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Byers, Stephen

  Dowd, Jim

  Caborn, Richard

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Eastham, Ken

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Enright, Derek

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Etherington, Bill

  Cann, Jamie

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Faulds, Andrew

  211

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Marek, Dr John

  Fisher, Mark

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Flynn, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Martlew, Eric

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Maxton, John

  Foulkes, George

  Meacher, Michael

  Fraser, John

  Meale, Alan

  Fyfe, Maria

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Galloway, George

  Milburn, Alan

  Gapes, Mike

  Miller, Andrew

  Garrett, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  George, Bruce

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gerrard, Neil

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morley, Elliot

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Mudie, George

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Murphy, Paul

  Grocott, Bruce

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gunnell, John

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hain, Peter

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hall, Mike

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hanson, David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hardy, Peter

  Parry, Robert

  Harvey, Nick

  Pendry, Tom

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Henderson, Doug

  Pike, Peter L.

  Heppell, John

  Pope, Greg

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hoey, Kate

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hood, Jimmy

  Purchase, Ken

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Redmond, Martin

  Hoyle, Doug

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Rogers, Allan

  Hutton, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Jamieson, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Janner, Greville

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Short, Clare

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jowell, Tessa

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

  Keen, Alan

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

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Snape, Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Soley, Clive

  Leighton, Ron

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lewis, Terry

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Litherland, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Livingstone, Ken

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Stott, Roger

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Straw, Jack

  Loyden, Eddie

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Tipping, Paddy

  McAllion, John

  Turner, Dennis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Vaz, Keith

  McCartney, Ian

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Macdonald, Calum

  Wallace, James

  McFall, John

  Wai ley, Joan

  McKelvey, William

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wigley, Dafydd

  McMaster, Gordon

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  McWilliam, John

  Wilson, Brian

  Madden, Max

  Winnick, David

  Mahon, Alice

  Wise, Audrey

  Mandelson, Peter

  Worthington, Tony

  212

  Wray, Jimmy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Mr. John Spellar and

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dykes, Hugh

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Elletson, Harold

  Amess, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Ancram, Michael

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Ashby, David

  Evennett, David

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Faber, David

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Baldry, Tony

  Forman, Nigel

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Forth, Eric

  Bates, Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Freeman, Roger

  Bendall, Vivian

  French, Douglas

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fry, Peter

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gallie, Phil

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Booth, Hartley

  Garnier, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gorst, John

  Bowis, John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brazier, Julian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bright, Graham

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hague, William

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burns, Simon

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burt, Alistair

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butcher, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butler, Peter

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cash, William

  Heald, Oliver

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clappison, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Horam, John

  Congdon, David

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Conway, Derek

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

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jack, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Cran, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Devlin, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dicks, Terry

  Knapman, Roger

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dover, Den

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

  Duncan, Alan

  Knox, David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  213

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lidington, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lightbown, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maclean, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spring, Richard

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  Madel, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Steen, Anthony

  Malone, Gerald

  Stephen, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stern, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Allan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Streeter, Gary

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sumberg, David

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Sweeney, Walter

  Merchant, Piers

  Sykes, John

  Milligan, Stephen

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thomason, Roy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Needham, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

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

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Tracey, Richard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Trotter, Neville

  Norris, Steve

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Ottaway, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Paice, James

  Walden, George

  Patnick, Irvine

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Waller, Gary

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Ward, John

  Pawsey, James

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pickles, Eric

  Wells, Bowen

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Porter. David (Waveney)

  Whitney, Ray

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Whittingdale, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Redwood, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Willetts, David

  Richards, Rod

  Wilshire, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wood, Timothy

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Yeo, Tim

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Mr. Robert C. Hughes.

  Sackville, Tom

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

  FUNDING AGENCY FOR SCHOOLS
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 181, in page 1, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert
  'The Secretary of State shall by order appoint not less than ten nor more than fifteen persons to be the members of the agency, of whom one he shall appoint as Chairman'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this we may take the following amendments: No. 183, in page 1, line 25, at end insert—
  '(5) Any order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.
  No. 38, in clause 2, page 2, line 7, at end add
  '; and the names of those whom the Secretary of State proposes to appoint shall be submitted to the Welsh Affairs Committee of the House of Commons which may report thereon.'.
  Mr. Lloyd: I welcome the Secretary of State's return to our proceedings: it is a rare treat to see him in the Chamber to observe our deliberations on the main part of the Bill. As it is his own Bill, he is more than welcome.
  Amendment No. 181 concerns what the Secretary of State recently described on television as the A-word—in this case, the arrogance of the Secretary of State. The amendment asks whether a check should be placed on such arrogance, in the form of parliamentary scrutiny.
  Throughout the Bill's Committee stage, the Secretary of State was not prepared to put himself to the test of accountability—least of all to Parliament, and, through Parliament, to the general public. The purpose of amendments Nos. 181 and 183 is to ensure that, once the Secretary of State has decided on the names of the 10 to 15 persons who are to be members of the funding agency, and on the chairman's name, the list of names will be submitted to the scrutiny of the House. That is reasonable in itself, but it is particularly reasonable in view of the many lessons that we still have to learn about the opting-out process.
  We know that the information on which opting-out decisions are made is changing on a fairly regular basis as the Government change their mind about which bribes to offer those whom they wish to persuade. A number of such bribes have been offered to certain schools recently—bribes which, although they are up front at the point at which opting out is under consideration, have been rapidly withdrawn when it has already taken place. Schools that have opted out are beginning to find themselves in crisis.
  8.15 pm
  The Government are concerned enough about the failure of the process for their tone to become more and more strident, and their apologists are finding it necessary to make increasingly extreme statements. I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) is present. He and I have engaged in a brief discussion about a recent article in The Birmingham Post. As an apologist for the Government's opting-out policy, the hon. Gentleman accused Conservative-controlled Hereford and Worcester county council of all manner of unpleasant things: in particular, he said that the council had engaged in a dirty tricks campaign to prevent the opting out of the Nunnery Wood secondary school, which in fact voted against the whole concept of removing itself from LEA involvement.
  The hon. Gentleman's remarks drew an almost immediate response from the Conservative chairman of the county's education committee, Dr. David Moffett. He described the hon. Gentleman's comments as "intemperate and snide"—extreme comments, given that they came from a member of the hon. Gentleman's party. Dr. Moffett went on to launch an astonishing onslaught on the hon. Gentleman, saying that his was

  215
  "an unworthy attack made by an ignorant man totally out of touch with the views of the overwhelming majority of those constituents who were involved."
  I think that it was grossly unfair of Dr. Moffett to single out the hon. Member for Worcester. It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman was acting merely as the voice—the poodle, or lapdog—of the Ministers who are really responsible for the total lack of contact with constituents. It is they who are completely out of touch with not only the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but with constituents throughout the country.
  Mr. Peter Luff: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for indicating his intention to mention me in his speech. I suspect, however, that he is not fully informed of the situation relating to Hereford and Worcester county council, and Nunnery Wood high school in particular; I also suspect that he is unaware of the totally misleading campaign involving literature put out by Dr. Moffett and the education authority, which I rightly criticised.
  Dr. Moffett's attack on me may owe more to the fact that he is losing the argument in the county. Only today, I received a letter from my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, informing me that the Blessed Edward Oldcorne Roman Catholic high school in Hereford and Worcester had had its application for grant-maintained status approved. That is probably at the root of Dr. Moffett's concern.
  Mr. Lloyd: It would not be fair for me to become over-involved in the domestic policy of the Conservative party. If Dr. Moffett is wrong—and the hon. Gentleman is not an ignorant man—I am prepared to listen to evidence to that effect over the weeks, months or years during which he may remain in the House. I look forward with interest to any evidence that he is in touch with his constituents; Dr. Moffett's view suggests the opposite. However, it is not only the Dr. Moffetts in the Conservative party who are very worried about the opting-out process and, especially, about the centralisation process implied in opting out and the funding agency.
  In a previous debate, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) made it clear to the Minister in an almost throwaway remark—it was noticeable that the Under-Secretary of State for Schools declined to respond to him—that the funding agency is a centralising measure. I believe that his words mirror part of mainstream Conservative thinking.
  Conservative Members might want to leap to their feet to say that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South is not representative of mainstream Conservative thinking, but as no Conservative Member is rising, I can assume only that his view—that it is a centralising measure—is also their view. The hon. Member for Worcester is indicating dissent but we know that, when all is said and done, he is already condemned out of the mouth of the chairman of the Conservative Worcester and Hereford education committee.
  It is worth quoting again the words of Dimitri Coryton, the close friend of the Minister and the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). He actively campaigned for the Conservative party during the previous general election, once on the Prime Minister's bus. It was the same Dimitri Coryton of the Conservative Education Association who said of the White Paper:
  "The Government's present emphasis on GM schools, however, is something we have grave doubts about …in effect, the Government is nationalising the schools of England and Wales …We believe that it represents a massive and
  216
  dangerous increase in the power given to central government …All that will happen is the replacement of LEAs with a far larger, more bureaucratic and less accountable national education authority".
  Those are not the words of disinterested neutrals; they come from the very heart of the Conservative party.
  This is a nationalising Secretary of State, who gives us little lectures and homilies about the modernising process within the Labour party. The tendency within the Conservative party to centralisation and nationalisation has been evident during the past 14 years, during which time we have witnessed the very failures about which the Secretary of State sometimes exercises himself. As an old lag in the Government, the present Secretary of State has once again been caught with his political fingers in the till by a number of bodies who, on other occasions, could be regarded as supporters of the grant-maintained principle.
  As far as I am aware, the Association of Heads of Grant Maintained Schools has not changed its views. Before the Committee stage, it said that it found it difficult to accept the
  "total inconsistency between the powers proposed for the FAS …and the earlier assurances of the greater autonomy and accountability of schools".
  The Church of England also made its views known. It said:
  "We note that the Funding Agency will assume responsibilities for strategic planning but feel that the White Paper is somewhat light in indicating how this will work out in practice and, in particular, in explaining how the Funding Agency will relate to the other bodies that will be involved in this activity".
  Those bodies were cited in Committee, but it is worth repeating their comments. Although he attended every sitting, unlike the Secretary of State, and took genuine pains to try to explain it, the Minister did not explain satisfactorily even to his own Back Benchers how the contradictions and confusion in the Bill would work out in practice.
  The Funding Agency for Schools is a centralising measure. That form of centralisation runs through the White Paper. We are assured that the Secretary of State was the author of the White Paper, so he wrote that the funding agency will have powers for quality assurance in schools. It is a massive step towards centralisation for a body consisting of only 15 members to exercise quality from the centre.
  The funding agency is to take on the duty of securing adequate places and will have to accept the duty of closing schools. That responsibility is inevitable because of falling rolls in some areas. Where there are falling rolls, the Secretary of State's personal funding agency will find it difficult to make decisions from the centre. Such centralisation has so far persuaded a considerable number of authorities and outside commentators and, indeed, a considerable number of those involved even in the opting-out process that the whole system is fraught with danger and difficulty, which is why there is increasing stridency and greater bribes from Ministers.
  The Cambridge Evening News recently reported comments by the Under-Secretary of State. Perhaps he might like to comment now. He was reported as having told the governors of the Netherhall secondary school that it was more likely to get a new building if it opted out of local authority control. The Secretary of State is looking at the Under-Secretary with absolute amazement, as if he is confused and bewildered by the fact that the Under-Secretary would have the temerity to offer a bribe that he had not got round to offering. Does the Under-Secretary

  217
  want to leap to his feet and deny the newspaper story? It would be most helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) if he were to place on record the fact that he disowns the story. However, perhaps he wishes to confirm that that particular bribe to Netherhall secondary school is on offer.
  The Under-Secretary prayed in aid the Prime Minister. It is unusual for the Prime Minister to have any firm views—it is a case of "Will he, won't he?" and "What's the policy this week?" However, in this case, at that time the Prime Minister's view was that there was to be no level playing field. The Under-Secretary made it clear that he does not believe in level playing fields. He believes in backhanders here and the odd fudge there and keeping the concept of fairness for all young people out of schools.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: My hon. Friend might not be aware that this issue has caused considerable controversy in my constituency. I am sure that some parents, teachers and governors are anxious to get some word from the Secretary of State, or the Minister if he prefers, to find out precisely what was said to the head and chair of governors on that occasion. The onus is on the Minister to clarify that.
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me make it clear that I am quite happy to allow the Minister or the Secretary of State to stand up. If the Secretary of State feels that it is necessary to disown the Minister, he should not feel embarrassed about coming to the Dispatch Box to do so because I will certainly give way to him. My hon. Friend will notice that there is a deafening silence. I know not what conclusions to draw. However, I know what conclusions I might draw if I were a parent—the promises issued at dead of night by Conservative central office in a press release are not worth the paper they are written on.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: In the absence of the Minister, of course I shall give way to the hon. Lady. Is she answering for him?
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am pointing out that that is exactly what happened in practice when Lancashire county council tried to stop Morecambe high school opting out, and also what happened to a school in my constituency when Lancashire county council gave it a sixth form for which it had been asking for 14 years. Just when it had a chance to opt out, it got its sixth form.
  Mr. Lloyd: My colleagues are pointing out to me the fact that the Secretary of State must have approved that. If the Secretary of State is deliberately undermining the hon. Lady, I shall bring them together during the Division and insist that he gives her the answer that he is certainly not going to give to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. As one of his own, the hon. Lady at least is entitled to an explanation of why he gave that approval to that school. Is it not in the nature of the process?
  Is this not the serious complaint we all have? The Government are intent on saying or doing anything in order to persuade schools to opt out and will come up with almost any argument or line that they think will be persuasive. We have a Minister—because I have not had an opportunity to warn him about this, I will not name him, but a letter exists and I shall make it available to
  218
  anyone who doubts—who wrote unsolicited to the majority of school governors in his constituency. He wrote on House of Commons notepaper—I think he was probably in breach of the rules of the House, although that is something that others need to take up. He said:
  "As a school governor I hope that you will seriously consider whether your school is benefiting from local authority control."
  He also wrote:
  "In order to combat the … council's spending cuts, many local schools have already sought their independence under grant maintained status. The next twelve months offers the opportunity for many schools to do likewise."
  8.30 pm
  The Minister, who is a spending Minister, does not mention that his own Department is making the same kind of cut. The Secretary of State can certainly see who it is if he wishes to take the matter up and rebuke his colleague. I am quite happy if he wishes to do that, but it is not my role to squeal on Ministers who are simply doing the bidding of their superiors in Cabinet.
  The reality, when it comes to the crunch, is that the picture is very different. This is a message that the House has to understand. The Secretary of State's bribes, and even those uttered by the Secretary of State at his behest, do not add up to anything, because, time after time, we come across schools which have taken the little bit extra that has been offered and have then found themselves seriously disadvantaged. I will not quote an old case. Let me quote a new case, of Pate's—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having a little difficulty in relating this to the amendment about the agency and the numbers and the decentralisation of that.
  Mr. Lloyd: All will be revealed.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: All will be revealed. I am most grateful.
  Mr. Lloyd: The point is that, so distrustful are we of the Secretary of State's word, we feel that it is necessary to have a body operating from the agency in whom Parliament can repose some trust which we cannot place in the Secretary of State. We need such people and can only have them and have faith in them if the parliamentary scrutiny of the appointments system takes place. The reason is that the promises that have been lavished on schools opting out have been so badly betrayed, as in the case of Pate's grammar school in Cheltenham.
  That is one of those schools that opted out and had, even under the Government's recent league table, what is considered to be an excellent set of examination results. It had 98 per cent. of pupils taking GCSE examinations getting five or more A to C grades. It is a school that I think the Government would parade as one of their star achievers, but it has funding cuts of about £190,000, which it cannot make up by savings in funding. Apparently, it can find savings of £30,000 but will have to cut £160,000 or propose to parents that they accept making voluntary payments of £210 a year from each family to stave off that crisis. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member, but it is normal for meetings to be held outside the Chamber.
  Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that the Minister often has a facility for ignoring his Back Benchers. I cannot seriously believe that he was listening to them. I think that his attention was almost certainly on the debate.
  The point at issue in this school is that the head teacher, Mr. David Barnes, said:
  "It's a dreadful shame that, because of cuts in income, the free grammar school that has been here for 400 years should have to ask parents to consider helping to fund the school."
  That is the reality of opting out. That is why we need—
  Dr. Robert Spink: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member's comments are completely irrelevant. The evidence is that schools choose to opt out for management control so that they can get decisions that will benefit their children; they do not opt out for financial reasons. I have the evidence to support what I say. I had a meeting of all the schools that had opted out in my constituency. All the secondary schools in my constituency opted out. They all say that they took that decision for management control and for that reason only.
  Mr. Lloyd: It is not for me to comment on the circumstances of the hon. Member's constituency, except to ask why, if that is the case, it is necessary for Ministers to offer bribes to schools. Perhaps the hon. Member will join me in castigating his Ministers for offering this kind of crude financial bribery. Would he want to associate himself with that kind of comment? Can I couple him with the comments I have just made? He seems to be at something of a loss, not sure whether to play the honest Back Bencher which he is earnestly striving to do or the sycophantic lickspittle.
  It will be interesting to See what happens when we come to the vote, but I understand that the hon. Member's local education authority is Conservative controlled. I have a similar problem, because one of the two authorities with which my constituency is concerned, Trafford, is also Conservative controlled. Trafford has boasted for many years of an education system second to none, and has castigated the city of Manchester for what it provided by way of education.
  It is instructive that Labour-controlled Manchester LEA has faced only one opting-out ballot, and that was defeated, but Conservative-controlled Trafford has now had a number of ballots which will bring it to the magical 10 per cent. structure. The LEA, because of its incompetence in the past, as with the hon. Member's Conservative-controlled LEA, finds itself in a position where the public are saying, "Anything other than Conservative control; even faceless bureaucrats are better in some circumstances."
  Dr. Spink: The hon. Member's comments continue to be irrelevant. First, I see the Minister not as offering bribes but as meeting the quite proper phasing-in and capital costs, so that parents show a very popular school. On the matter of my local education authority, the schools opting out of that control are not showing that they have any quarrel with that authority but that that authority has treated them well in the past and brought them to a state of maturity in which they can take control of their own affairs and deliver better education for their children.
  Mr. Lloyd: I can only assume that that was written on the cuff of every Conservative MP who possesses cuffs, because it is straight out of the Conservative central office hand-out. "Brought to a state of maturity"—it is an
  220
  interesting line, and a good one, but it does not explain why Ministers tell schools that they are more likely to get new buildings by opting out. It may not be a bribe in the hon. Member's terms, but it is an inducement or a sweetener in words that we can all agree upon as a compromise.
  Dr. Spink: Anything that will induce schools to improve their standards is something that I support.
  Mr. Lloyd: Of course it is, and that is what we should be having—a Bill that is really about improving standards for all our children, not just those in privileged little ghettos which suit the Secretary of State's ideology, but across the board in every LEA area so that there is proper access to decent high quality education that stretches them.
  The reality is that this is so alien to the ideology of the present Government that we have this divisive piece of legislation—which is precisely why we say to the Secretary of State that it is so important that Parliament should have some control over the people who sit on his funding agency. I am aware that the Secretary of State will want to intervene in this debate to explain his own position on these matters.
  Given the amount of centralisation implicit in the Bill and in the funding agency—that is the view not only of Labour Members and other Opposition Members but of people up and down the country, too—and given that many people are accusing the Secretary of State of a mindless centralisation that places dangerous powers in his hands, it is of critical importance that the House should have some control over the composition of the funding agency.
  Throughout the debates on Second Reading and in Committee answers were not given about how the funding agency would operate, and whether the playing field would be so unfairly laid out that schools that wanted to stay within the LEA remit would be forced out. Answers were not given about how to resolve the confusion between the role of the funding agency as a provider of places and as a monitor of surpluses or shortages of places, and the role of the LEA in conjunction with it. In the not-too-distant future that situation will be the common one in a number of local authority areas in which there is joint control. Those answers have not been placed before Parliament.
  For all those reasons, if we are not to be given answers during the passage of the Bill we must have some control over those whom the Secretary of State places in the funding agency. It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to put the normal Tory place people there. Parliament should have the right to say that we want people of the highest possible calibre, in whom we can repose trust. The Government's track record shows us that, if the matter is left to the Secretary of State, we cannot possibly have that trust. Parliament must reserve the right to overrule the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Pawsey: I did not intend to intervene in the debate, but I have been brought to my feet by the provocative comments made by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and his hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor).
  One of the objects of the Bill is to make it easier for schools to apply for and receive grant-maintained status. Opposition Members have made clear their hostility to grant-maintained status. Indeed, the hon. Member for

  221
  Dewsbury has said that, were Labour ever to win a general election, it would abolish grant-maintained status. Schools would then again be taken over by the local education authorities.
  That is a remarkable assertion, given the fact that, as we heard in Question Time today, more than 250,000 of the nation's children are already being educated in grant-maintained schools. The Labour party is adopting a position extraordinary even by its standards. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dewsbury is not in the Chamber.
  Mr. Patten: Missing again.
  Mr. Pawsey: My right hon. Friend, speaking from his usual place, says that the hon. Lady is absent as usual.
  To the hon. Member for Dewsbury, parental opinion as expressed through a free and secret ballot means nothing. I find it odd that she is so far out of step with her right hon. and hon. Friends—for example, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who are all clearly moving away from the old clause 4 socialist mentality in which only state ownership and local education authority education is right.
  The hon. Lady seems to be in a time warp. No doubt she will change her mind on the matter, precisely as she was forced to change her mind on the sale of council houses. I do not believe that, when thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, of the nation's children are being educated in grant-maintained schools, she can seriously tell the House that the Labour party will abolish those schools and take them back into local education authority control.
  I was intrigued by what the hon. Member for Stretford said about the opting out process. Let me tell him as fairly and as honestly as I can that there has been no change of principle on this side of the House. We remain firmly committed to the principles of grant-maintained schools and their opting out. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be confused. He referred to alleged bribes, but then went on to say that the bribes did not add up. There was a clear confusion in his mind.
  If freedom is a bribe, there is indeed a bribe on the table. We are giving schools freedom from the local education authority, and freedom to decide for themselves the course they should pursue. If they wish, for example, to specialise, let them specialise. Freedom is the only bribe we offer. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools used the word "liberated" in a previous debate. That was the correct verb to use. Clearly, we are taking powers from the LEAs and giving them to individual schools.
  The funding agencies are there to allocate funds; they are not in any way quality assurance agencies. Their only job is to distribute funds. We are not going down some centralist route, as suggested by Labour Members; we are providing powers to parents and governors. Nothing in the Bill remotely suggests nationalisation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has echoed a phrase used by our right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) when we discussed the 1987 Bill which became the Education Reform Act 1988: he said that we were moving powers from the hub to the rim of the wheel. Exactly the same comment describes the Bill before us. We are giving
  222
  powers to parents, and there is no centralisation in the Bill. I therefore hope that we shall soon deal with the amendment and move on.
  Mr. Patten: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Pawsey: It is always a pleasure to give way to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who so frequently sits in the Chamber answering debates as fully and completely as he possibly can.
  Mr. Patten: Does my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Nuneaton—[HON. MEMBERS: "Kenilworth".] I mean, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Nuneaton—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] What is it?
  Mr. Pawsey: Rugby and Kenilworth.
  Mr. Patten: Does my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth think that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen would benefit from visiting a grant-maintained school or two? Does he not think it shameful for them to refuse to visit grant-maintained schools?
  Mr. Pawsey: I am pleased that I gave way to my right hon. Friend, because I suspect that he has given the House some information. I had not previously realised that Labour Members had become so petty that they would not visit a grant-maintained school.
  Mr. Patten: Does my hon. Friend not agree that refusing to visit grant-maintained schools is a form of educational apartheid on the part of Labour Members? They will find it more and more difficult to make that principle stick as more and more schools become grant-maintained. Do they not want to learn?
  Mr. Pawsey: My right hon. Friend makes a salient point, with which few hon. Members would disagree. Of course he is right.
  Let me press an invitation on Labour Members. In my constituency, there is one grant-maintained school and another for which grant-maintained status has been approved. I shall willingly take any Labour Members to either of those schools and show them how we, and those schools, can deliver good, efficient education to the nation's children.
  My right hon. Friend originally called my constituency Rugby and Nuneaton. He may have had in mind possible changes when the boundary commissioners examine the boundaries. My right hon. Friend may have been looking into the crystal ball more efficiently than I can.
  Dr. Spink: Before my hon. Friend moves off that subject, will he invite Labour Members, when they visit grant-maintained schools, to note that, in such schools, the average percentage of children passing five GCSEs at grades A to C is 45 per cent., whereas in other schools the figure is 35 per cent.? Labour Members will then be able to see how grant-maintained schools are delivering higher standards. That is why parents are voting to send their children to them. It is as simple as that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That does not relate to this amendment.
  Mr. Pawsey: I shall conclude on this point. So far, some 453 schools are grant-maintained, with a further 220 applications still to be considered. Of that number, the

  223
  vast majority are secondary schools. Some 14 per cent. of the nation's secondary schools have acquired grant-maintained status. That is a most significant figure.
  A Labour Government would abolish grant-maintained schools at their peril. Labour Members should realise that grant-maintained schools are liked by parents and governors. If Labour Members want to lose the next general election, they should simply continue saying that a Labour Government will abolish grant-maintained schools. There is no easier or quicker way to ensure that we are returned to office again.
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: It is always a great joy to follow the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). He made similar compassionate but totally irrelevant comments to those which he made in Committee, although he did so with a verve which was unfortunately not available to us in terms of seeing the Secretary of State in Committee. The Secretary of State was never in his place in Committee. He was so interested in this major Bill that he did not manage to turn up to hear what some of his colleagues had to say about the clauses.
  The Bill makes major changes to our education service. In so doing, it fails to pay attention to the structure of local government. Effectively, local education authorities will be abolished. The Secretary of State might not have put it quite so bluntly, but I dare say that before the end of this evening he may admit that that is the Government's intention.
  Worse than that is the fact that the changes in education are not even being done in a coherent way. Certainly the Government intend that all schools should be grant maintained. They talk about giving parents choice and, presumably alongside that, accountability. Local accountability in terms of education depends on having local education authorities. Clearly the Secretary of State and the Government do not wish to have local education authorities.
  I should like to examine the effect of the funding agency, grant-maintained schools and the opting-out ballot. In Committee, we pressed the Government about the fact that only one vote will be taken by one set of parents in one term and that it will count for all time. Every generation of parents thereafter will not be allowed to reverse that decision or comment on it. Once schools have gone grant maintained, that is the end of the matter. For a Government who talk about choice, that seems to be a rather one-sided choice to Labour Members.
  I should like to examine the effect of those ballots in London and across the country. The fact that there will be no opportunity for schools to return to local education authority management underlines the undemocratic nature of the procedures for the acquisition of grant-maintained status. It further emphasises that the Secretary of State will allow ballots to be declared void if he believes that there has been interference with ballot papers or votes, if information has been disseminated which might be false or misleading—that will apply only if the Secretary of State thinks so—or if the information suggests that grant-maintained status might not be the best option for a specific school. That gagging mechanism flies in the face of any legitimate expression of a range of views.
  Mr. Hall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way in which this clause will operate is if the parental ballots go against the application for grant-maintained status? In such cases, the Secretary of State will have the power to instruct that the ballot be carried out again because he does not like the outcome. I cannot think of any other reasons why he would want the ballot to be rerun.
  Mrs. Prentice: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in saying that the choice relates only to the Secretary of State; it has nothing to do with parents. If parents choose to remain within local education authority control, the Secretary of State will say that they are wrong in making that decision and that the ballot must be re-examined. He will find reasons for throwing out that democratic decision so that he can have the decision which he wants.
  The Bill proposes to allow a school governing body to ballot parents on opt-out by passing a single resolution. The Education Reform Act 1988 provided for double balloting. That is another example of the Government saying that they are not prepared to take any risk that parents might make up their own minds. Parents might decide that local education authorities are good for them, their children and local communities. On that basis, the Government will skew the balloting process to ensure that they get the decision they want. That means that the local community will have no influence whatever over the decision and schools will opt out. If 10 per cent. of schools in a local education authority area opt out, the funding agency will have to share the funding of schools with the local education authority.
  I should like to examine the role of the funding agency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said, the funding agency is a remote and unaccountable quango. It is a centralisation mechanism by a Government who talk about handing power back to the people, local areas and local democracy. That is especially galling when it comes from a Government who abolished the London education authority because they said that it was too centralised. They pushed education back down to the boroughs in order to give power to parents in the local community.
  The Government are now taking that power away from parents and centralising it. They are establishing a remote, unaccountable funding agency which will have little to do with the local area. The funding agency will have little knowledge of the local area and will not know what is happening in local areas in terms of new developments in housing, although I dare say that under the Government there will not be many new housing developments. It will not know what is happening in local areas in terms of new developments in the economy, although I do not suppose that there will be much of that in the recession. Perhaps, in that sense, we should not be too worried.
  If new houses were to be built in local communities and if the economy in local communities were to be regenerated, one would think that there should be some organisation which is close to the local people and which would know what is happening in local areas. Such an organisation could help to develop and plan the local education system in local communities. But that is not to be.
  The funding agency will be a national quango which is appointed by the Minister. It will probably have to

  225
  establish local officers and it will basically become a non-elected local education authority. That says much for choice and accountability.
  Dr. Spink: Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the funding agency will distribute funds on the basis of a pre-fixed formula? Essentially, that is what local education authorities do at present. The formula will be similar. Grant-maintained status gives real ownership of schools to parents, governors, teachers and local communities. Real ownership breeds responsibility and an increased stake in society. That is real accountability at work. The Bill is not a centralising but a decentralising measure. It is about the philosophy of giving choice and responsibility to people. That is what distinguishes the Conservative party from the Labour party.
  9 pm
  Mrs. Prentice: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is grateful that I allowed him, in an intervention, to make the speech that he intended to make. I know that he did not have the benefit of being a member of the Standing Committee and hearing about some of the more detailed aspects of the funding agency. If he reads the Bill and the White Paper which preceded it, he will find that the funding agency is not a decentralisation mechanism. It will not include local representatives. No one from local government will sit on it. No one with any educational expertise will sit on it. People will be appointed by the Minister. If we go by the experience of the health service and other services, the appointees will simply be nodding heads who will go along with whatever the Government's line happens to be. [ Interruption.]
  Mr. Hall: The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) admits that.
  Mrs. Prentice: I am grateful if the hon. Gentleman admits that they will be nodding heads who will simply carry out the Government's wishes.
  Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Lady allow me to explain? The only thing that the funding agency will do is distribute funds. It will not control the schools.
  Mrs. Prentice: I have given the hon. Gentleman two opportunities to intervene, but he still has not understood the provisions of the Bill or the role of the funding agency. I ask him to speak to the Ministers and find out exactly where he is going wrong so that he can understand the devastation that the creation of funding agencies may have on local education and local communities.
  The Secretary of State loves to prate on about the Labour party chopping and changing its policies. Yet the creation of funding agencies is a real turnaround from his policies on the Inner London education authority and decentralisation. He is recentralising education and faking power away from people and parents. He is grabbing power. He will cosset the power and not allow anyone else to have any say or express any view.
  Let us examine how the funding agencies will work. The changes in the calculation of the annual maintenance grants for grant-maintained schools and the suggestion that their budgets will have special protection under the current common funding formula cause us serious anxiety that the Government will penalise pupils in LEA schools because they are determined to pursue their opt-out policy.
  226
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) talked about creating a level playing field. It is clear that the Government do not believe in a level playing field if that does not suit their narrow and blinkered policies. That cannot be more starkly illustrated than by the system of the 10 per cent. trigger for the creation of funding agencies. I shall take as an example the effect of the trigger in London. I raised the matter in Committee and I do so again on the Floor of the House because it is important.
  At present each London borough looks after the schools in its area. I can give two examples of where the creation of a funding agency would be triggered by the number of children in certain schools in the relevant borough. Only 3·9 per cent. of Camden's school population goes to the Jewish Free school. Yet if the parents of children at that school agreed in a ballot to opt out, the whole of Camden's education budget would have to be shared with a funding agency. That is not democratic. It is certainly not accountable. I wonder whether any of the parents who send their children to that school know that that would happen if they made the decision to opt out.
  The other example is even more stark. In the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham the London Oratory school educates some 1,197 pupils. Only 196 of them are residents of the borough. Those 1,197 pupils represent some 20 per cent. of all the pupils taught in Hammersmith and Fulham. When the Bill becomes law, unless the Secretary of State can tell me otherwise, the funding of education in Hammersmith and Fulham will be shared between the borough and a funding agency because the London Oratory school is already a grant-maintained school.
  The decision to share funding between the LEA and a funding agency was not made by the parents of the children in any of the Hammersmith schools. I am sure that if they had known, they would not have been happy to agree with it. Residents of Hammersmith and Fulham, who now decide who represent them, will have funding of education in their schools decided by someone else.
  Mr. Bowis: I do not understand why the hon. Lady is making such a fuss. If a school which has a large number and therefore a high percentage of pupils votes to become grant maintained and that exceeds the 10 per cent. threshold, funding will come through the funding council and not directly from the Department. I cannot understand why she is so worried. The benefit to the school will be that it will also get the 15 per cent. additional funding which currently goes to the LEA and is not always passed on.
  Mrs. Prentice: I am deeply disappointed that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) does not understand. He was in Committee when we discussed the matter at length. Let me explain the problem once again.
  Only 3·7 per cent. of the pupils who live in Hammersmith and Fulham and whose parents vote and pay their poll tax there attend the London Oratory school. Why should parents from outside Hammersmith and Fulham determine the funding for every other school there as a result of the trigger mechanism under the clause dealing with the funding agency? It is perfectly clear to Opposition Members that it is a totally undemocratic and unaccountable system which we find unacceptable.
  Mr. Bowis: I wish simply to correct the wrong impression that the hon. Lady seems to be getting. Unless they become grant maintained, all the remaining schools will continue to be funded through the LEA, so what is the worry?
  Mrs. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. Between 10 per cent. and 75 per cent. the funding is shared between the funding agency and the local education authority. The Bill makes it quite clear, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not grasped the point.
  We are considering a huge Bill—the biggest Education Bill ever. The Government have tabled hundreds of amendments because they have started to realise that they have got much of it wrong. It is poorly thought out and major changes have not been made to fundamental aspects of it. Scant regard has been paid to the concerns of parents, pupils, teachers and, indeed, all those directly concerned with education in Britain. As will probably become clear in the debate on special educational needs, the Government have paid little attention to all those organisations concerned about the effects and side effects of grant-maintained status.
  I believe that we have a particularly undemocratic Government. The longer I spend in the House the more obvious it becomes. They have taken powers away from local education authorities and local government and they refuse to tell people exactly what they are doing and why on a number of fundamentally important matters.
  It will not be surprising if we get little information from the Secretary of State on the effects of the Bill as I do not believe that he understands it. He paid little attention to debates in Committee and he occasionally makes what he calls a statement to the House about education and how everything will be all right so long as it is in his hands. I hope that, as a result of this evening's debate and the continuing debate on education, people will realise that the education system is not safe in the hands of the Government any more than the health service, the pits or any other part of the country's economy is safe with them. We will continue to oppose them on every aspect of the Bill because they have got it absolutely and totally wrong.
  Mr. Simon Burns: In speaking to these amendments I should like to put my remarks in context. In Chelmsford we have three secondary schools and one primary school that now have grant-maintained status, and a number of ballots are pending, including one at a school called Hylands which is of crucial importance for the purpose of my comments tonight.
  It is important to bear in mind that grant-maintained status is determined by a ballot of parents. In Chelmsford, each ballot of parents has produced an overwhelming vote in favour of grant-maintained status because the parents believe such status to be in the best educational interests of their children. To give the education authority of Essex county council due credit, I have to say that it has done nothing to impede parents' wishes in any way.
  Mr. Cormack: Given the number of grant-maintained schools in his constituency, will my hon. Friend consider inviting Opposition Members to visit some of them?
  Mr. Burns: I should be more than happy to have anybody come and see the fine grant-maintained schools in Chelmsford and how enthusiastic parents have been about
  228
  securing for their children the benefits of such an education. However, I do not want to diverge; I want to stick to the amendments in this group.
  It is crucial that the funding agency, which will consist of not fewer than 10 and not more than 15 individuals, should be of the highest possible calibre. It is hardly likely that anyone will disagree with that contention. Clause 1(3)(a) says:
  "In appointing the members of the agency the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including—

  (a) persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of primary or secondary education or to have held, and to have shown capacity in, any position carrying responsibility for the provision of such education".

  That is crucial.
  On the other side of the coin, my right hon. Friend must exercise extreme care with regard to individuals who would be totally unsuitable for membership of the agency, notwithstanding any qualifications that might put them in the running under clause 1(3). Let me say why I urge my right hon. Friend to think extremely carefully about the composition of the agency. When considering any retired primary headmaster for inclusion, he should take great care with regard to calibre and background. In Chelmsford it has been shown that there is very good reason for such care. At present the Hylands school is balloting parents on whether to seek grant-maintained status. The ballot period will not end until next Monday. During the half-term break, when teachers were not readily available and when ballot papers were being delivered, a semi-anonymous leaflet was distributed to all households. This leaflet gives 10 grounds for saying no to grant-maintained status.
  Mr. David Evennett: It must be the Liberals.
  Mr. Burns: I am sure that the heavy hand of the Liberals is to be found somewhere.
  As I develop my argument, my right hon. Friend will discover that the individuals responsible for this leaflet do not satisfy the criteria for membership of the funding agency. However, given the underhand measure of putting semi-anonymous leaflets through letter-boxes—
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: Semi-anonymous?
  Mr. Burns: Yes, semi-anonymous. The leaflet has no proper imprint, gives a bogus name for the umbrella group, and gives no address or telephone number. And when people delivering it were challenged by parents they refused to divulge where they came from, whom they represented or why they were doing what they were doing. According to the Essex Chronicle of last week, the individual responsible for this skulduggery is none other than a retired head teacher of the King's road primary school in Chelmsford. I hasten to add that, as a child, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), chairman of the Conservative party, attended that school.
  The individual in question also happens to be a prominent member of the National Union of Teachers —[Interruption.] That former headmaster—who should not qualify, regardless of what the Bill might say, for consideration by my right hon. Friend as a member of the funding agency—who has nothing to do with Hylands school, took that action off his own bat for narrow party

  229
  political purposes on a totally fictitious basis, the 10 points mentioned in his scurrilous leaflet being completely irrelevant and untrue.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Patten: I remind my hon. Friend of three points. The first is that, as he knows, I have visited Chelmsford within the last fortnight. The second is that whenever I go to Essex to refresh my political and ideological roots, I always meet the strongest possible support for grant-maintained schools.
  The third is that in Essex, as elsewhere, people will have to beware the announcement that I shall make tomorrow about further counter-intimidation measures, to be part of the Bill, which will stop many of the actions of which my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members have rightly complained because of the anti-democratic antics of some Opposition Members.
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. My constituents, in particular parents and teachers at Hylands school, will welcome the announcement that he will make tomorrow to tighten up on intimidation and the issuing of misleading information in an attempt to bamboozle parents into not voting on the basis of an even playing field. Correct information must be available.
  I have urged my right hon. Friend to exclude certain people from consideration for appointment to the funding agency. On the other hand, he should remember that the activities of that retired headmaster have enraged the present headmaster and teachers at the school, who are anxious for it to seek grant-maintained status. So when my right hon. Friend is drawing up a list of people for consideration, he should not overlook the many decent, hard-working, first-rate teachers, such as Mr. Tony Mulholland, the present headmaster of Hylands school, who are disgusted by the tactics that have been aimed at Hylands school.
  My right hon. Friend should bear in mind that there are many fine individuals throughout the education establishment who utterly repudiate underhand tactics and would welcome a funding agency comprised of those of the highest calibre to ensure that grant-maintained schools continue to flourish, resulting in more parents taking the democratic route and voting for their children to benefit from being educated in first-rate grant-maintained schools.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I hope that we can move from the antics of Chelmsford some hundreds of miles across the Severn estuary to Wales, where the remit of the Secretary of State does not run. I am glad to see the Minister of State, Welsh Office in the Chamber; we trust that he will answer the points that my hon. Friends and I raise.
  I refer specifically to amendment No. 38, which proposes that
  "the names of those whom the Secretary of State proposes to appoint shall be submitted to the Welsh Affairs Committee of the House".
  I do so also because the case for England has been ably put by my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice).
  There is no doubt that those of us who served on the Standing Committee on the Bill are particularly worried about the need for proper and impartial scrutiny of the
  230
  membership of the new schools funding agency. Nothing that happened in Committee allayed our fears. In fact, worse has occurred, for in Wales, during the three months that the Bill was in Committee, the whole debate in education and local government circles about opt-out schools and membership of the schools funding agency resulted in a civil war.
  Headlines in our national newspapers to the effect that the Bill will put Welsh education in crisis are now commonplace. Indeed, one article mentions that parent-teacher associations in Wales are deeply troubled by the content of the Bill. Mr. Ylltid Lewis, who is the treasurer of the Parents for Welsh Medium Education, which the Minister has championed, said in February:
  "Already we have children in primary schools where there is not adequate provision for them at secondary.
  We are facing a situation which could be a critical one."
  He goes on:
  "We represent parents and, hand on heart, we have not had a single parent who has told us, we want this."
  I addressed the Welsh meeting of the parent-teacher associations for the Principality in Cardiff some two weeks ago, when there was unanimous disbelief at the way the Bill is going.
  I believe also that, so desperate has the Minister of Slate become to persuade secondary schools, particularly in Wales, to opt out, that he has had meetings in his office of various head teachers who might be inclined to go that way. Certainly he addressed the secondary schools associations in mid-Wales a couple of weeks ago.
  The latest attempt to persuade schools in Wales to go down this line is a letter sent to all secondary schools, which included the statement by the Minister of State, Welsh Office, on the completion of the Commons Committee stage of the Bill. I am sure that it is unprecedented in terms of what goes to governors of schools, whether it be in England or in Wales, for the Minister to send out copies of his speeches and statements to try to persuade schools to go down this road.
  Another complication which has arisen and which we believe is ripe for the Welsh Affairs Select Committee to deal with is the lack of openness that has surrounded the whole business of opt-out schools and the consultation process, which was started, as we know, back in the summer when all the schools were on holiday. When I asked the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether they would make public the result of the consultations in Wales, the answer was no. They refused to make those responses available for public scrutiny, on the ground that it would breach confidentiality. I am convinced that if the majority of those consultations had been in favour of grant-maintained schools, they would have been made public the following day.
  The other problem that we face is that the Bill sets up at least two new quangos in Wales—the Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the Schools Funding Council, with which the amendment deals. The whole business of quangos in Wales, as the Minister knows, is becoming a national and a public scandal. It will be debated in full next Monday in the city hall in Cardiff when the Welsh Grand Committee meets in that city for the first time.
  The problems with quangos in Wales have meant that the opposition to the establishment of the Schools Funding Council encompasses all political parties in

  231
  Wales, save the Conservative party, all teaching associations and teaching unions, all the local education authorities and all the directors of education.
  At this point, I have to mention that all the Welsh directors of education have resigned over these proposals. There was reference earlier today to Oscar Wilde, and a Western Mail editorial on this matter last month said:
  "With apologies to Oscar Wilde, to lose one director of education may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose four looks like carelessness. What's going on?"
  It adds that Geoffrey Drought, one of our finest directors of education in Wales, resigned only last week because of the problems and the complications of opt-out schools and what that would bring.
  Education is in a sorry state in the Principality, not only because of the resignations, but because of the cuts that the Minister has imposed, and because of unease about the membership of the new quango, if it is set up.
  Can we ensure that the quango will include professional and local education authority membership and people representing the churches in Wales—a vital element? What about the Welsh joint education committee, which the Minister and the Government have consistently bypassed since the beginning of the debate on grant-maintained schools and opt-out education? That, too, should be involved.
  Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Wales made a statement about the introduction of new unitary authorities in Wales. If the White Paper is made into an Act of Parliament, there will be about 21 new unitary authorities, which will all be local education authorities. What will be the impact on grant-maintained schools and the Schools Funding Council? We were not told in Committee when the Schools Funding Council is to be set up. With smaller unitary authorities, is it on the cards that the funding council will be set up sooner rather than later?
  About 90 years ago, when the House debated education legislation introduced by Mr. Balfour, reference was made to the situation in Wales, where a partnership between local and central government had been established at the end of the 19th century. There is no doubt that that partnership has worked remarkably well and has meant that Welsh schools are some of the finest in the United Kingdom. I fear that unless we accept the amendments and others like them, education in Wales will be in a sorry state.
  Mr. David Congdon: Clause 1 concerns the funding agency and some hon. Members seem to have a misleading impression about its exact role. Given the success of grant-maintained schools and their growth, many people argue that there had to be a body similar to the funding agency simply to fund on an equitable basis schools that have become grant maintained. As we fully support grant-maintained schools, it is right and proper that a funding agency should be set up.
  The confusion seems to have occurred over the agency's planning role and the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) compounded misunderstanding about its role in that respect. As I understand it, when 10 per cent. of primary pupils in a local education authority area have
  232
  gone grant maintained, the funding agency for that sector of education in the area is likely to be set up; we debated that at great length in Committee.
  The funding agency's planning function is very narrow: it must plan places for schools in the grant-maintained sector. It will not be in a position to dictate to parents of children in all other LEA schools in the area. Rightly and properly, there must be some liaison between the LEA and the funding agency, to put proposals to the Secretary of State. It is easy for Opposition Members to make a mountain out of a molehill over those arrangements.
  The reality is that grant-maintained schools are likely to be heavily over-subscribed and LEA schools might be under-subscribed. It would be for the LEA to determine which schools in its area need to be closed. Conversely, grant-maintained schools might feel that demand was so great that they ought to expand, and in that case I am sure that proposals would be put forward to the funding agency to set up new and much-welcomed grant-maintained schools.
  There is a danger of Opposition Members protesting too much about the role of the funding agency when the 10 per cent. figure is reached.
  Mr. David Jamieson: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the funding agency would increase the number of places in grant-maintained schools even if there were vacancies in LEA schools in that particular area?
  Mr. Congdon: No, I am not. That issue would, quite rightly, be for the Secretary of State to decide. It may well be that it would be right and proper for a school that is undersubscribed in the LEA sector to be closed and reopened as a successful grant-maintained school.
  Conservative Members want schools to be provided to which parents wish to send their children. We do not want schools to be provided simply because the bureaucrats at the LEA town hall wish to provide schools in a particular location. The education system must adapt to suit the source of the demand for places so that it meets the legitimate choice of parents of school for their children.
  9.30 pm
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I have been dying to ask him this question for some time. Given that he is so keen on parental choice, why, when he was a member of the education authority in Croydon, was he prepared to sell off Sylvan high school, despite the fact that 97 per cent. of the parents wanted it to remain as an LEA school?
  Mr. Congdon: I am delighted by that intervention, because it reveals that the hon. Lady's research is somewhat inadequate. In reality, only about 45 Croydon parents put the school as their first choice out of a possible intake of 240. That school did not serve the needs of Croydon parents; it is particularly revealing that it served the needs of parents who were otherwise forced to send their children to inadequate schools within ILEA. Those parents voted with their feet by sending their children to a Croydon school. The LEA had no problem with taking the important decision to provide a city technology college in north Croydon, which is in my constituency and is now massively over-subscribed
  Mr. Dafis: Great emphasis is laid on the fact that the move towards grant-maintained status is a matter of parental choice. The hon. Gentleman has now offered another possibility, which the Minister might like to consider. He has suggested that if a school can be identified as a failure and closed, it can be reopened as a grant-maintained school. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that provides an interesting possibility for the Government to push ahead the movement towards grant-maintained status?
  Mr. Congdon: With all due respect, two separate issues are involved. One issue relates to a school that has failed and the setting up of an educational association, which will lead to a grant-maintained school. The other issue, of equal importance, relates to schools that are under-subscribed. In those circumstances, the LEA should look at the number of places that need to be provided.
  I am hypothesising—I cannot predict with certainty exactly what will happen in a particular LEA area. One could envisage a situation, however, where it would be proper to bring about change to ensure that another grant-maintained school was provided to reflect parental demand better.
  We have heard a lot from Opposition Members about the fact that the measures designed to create more grant-maintained schools are centralising ones, which represent the nationalisation of schools. What a load of nonsense. The fundamental point about the Bill and previous measures is that the only way in which an existing school can become grant maintained is by exercising a democratic—I stress the word—ballot.
  I find it odd that Opposition Members are so afraid of parents exercising a democratic vote to decide whether their children's school should go grant maintained. We have heard a lot about the scare tactics that have been adopted and the rumours that have been spread to try to influence the vote of a particular school on grant-maintained status.
  In many ways the Bill, contains few measures to increase the GM balloting process because we have a lot of faith in parents voting firmly for their schools to go grant maintained. I very much regret the talk of bribes given to schools to go grant maintained. Schools were given an extra amount of money to cover the costs of setting up, and, more importantly, to reflect LEA central costs. If LEAs find that difficult, they should look at their central costs to reduce them in line with their specific needs. I do not call that bribery. We need to encourage more schools to become grant maintained so that we have diversity in the education system.
  I do not know why Opposition Members are so afraid of the setting up of a funding agency with two key powers. The first one is to ensure the funding is calculated on an equitable basis to the schools—as the numbers grow, that will become more important. Its second key power—a comparatively limited role—involves the planning process. Grant-maintained schools will not tread on the toes of the massive number of LEA schools in the region.
  If Opposition Members are right and grant-maintained schools will not grow in numbers and flourish, Opposition Members have nothing to fear as the funding agency will barely come into effect. But if, as Conservatives expect, grant-maintained schools flourish, we need to have—and will have—funding agencies that exercise a valuable role.
  Mr. Jamieson: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon), who was telling us about the city technology college in his district. I thought that he would say that it had obtained the poorest results in GCSE mathematics, modern languages and technology in Croydon in 1992, but he stopped short of telling us that.
  Mr. Congdon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jamieson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in time, when I have developed what I have to say a little further.
  In Committee we were told that, in 20 out of 116 local education authorities, more than 10 per cent. of their schools had opted out. I repeat the statistic for the benefit of the Secretary of State, who was not present at any time during the Committee stage and might not be aware of the figure. It means that, in those districts, control of the education system will soon be in the hands of two competing organisations: the funding agency and the local education authority. Both will have responsibility for providing places, closing and opening schools, and admissions procedure.
  We know that the two organisations will be competing, because the Secretary of State told us so on Second Reading. He said:
  "There will be two bodies—the LEA and the funding agency—with parallel but not shared responsibilities. A little healthy competition will be no bad thing for some LEAs." —[Official Report, 9 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 635.]
  It will be the surest recipe for chaos and confusion, as the two organisations compete to provide the same services. In the confusion, what will be missed is a clear and unequivocal chain of accountability for public funds to parents and local taxpayers. Who will the parents contact with their queries and who will have the responsibility of resolving disputes?
  Are we to anticipate struggles ahead between the two bodies as they battle it out over the interpretation of key powers—perhaps in the courts, and certainly at the taxpayers' expense? It is intended that, when the 75 per cent. opt-out threshold has been reached, the funding agencies will take over total control of delivery of the education service in the region, hitherto delivered by the LEA. I hope that the Minister will answer the following question: what rights and democratic procedures will be followed for the 25 per cent. of schools that have not at that time held ballots on opting out? Will they compulsorily become grant-maintained schools against the parents' wishes?
  We know that the Secretary of State has funding for his unelected quango to mushroom its bureaucracy. The White Paper stated that that was the only organisation to receive extra funding. For the benefit of the Secretary of State, who was not present during our deliberations in Committee, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education, who is present now, told us in Committee that there would be funding for party placemen on the education associations—but more of that tomorrow.
  Only the most perverse logic would lead one to believe that two bodies running in parallel and performing the same tasks will lead to lower costs and less bureaucracy. Eventually, as more schools opt out, the funding agency's costs will rise, because it will have to perform many of the

  235
  functions currently undertaken by the LEA and administer many of the new powers that the Secretary of State has taken to himself.
  The right hon. Gentleman tried to give the impression that the agency will be little more than a streamlined post office, sending monthly cheques to grant-maintained schools with the aid of the funding formula, with a minimal need for individual judgment. That view was reinforced by the hon. Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Castle Point (Dr. Spink). I think that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth was being ingeniously misleading, while the remarks of the hon. Member for Castle Point, who I note is not in his place, stem from his ignorance of the Bill.
  For the information of those two hon. Gentlemen and other right hon. and hon. Members, the funding agency's responsibilities will be more than handing out funds to GM schools. Once the 75 per cent. threshold has been passed, the agency will have responsibility for opening and closing schools, regulating the number of school places, admissions procedures, appeals, capital allocations, and many other tasks. It will not be a simple organisation whose purpose will merely be to hand over funds to GM schools, for it will replicate many of the responsibilities and duties now vested in LEAs.
  Although the Minister said that there will be one funding agency, he stated that it would be free to develop in response to the rate at which the GM school sector grows. It will not therefore be a carefully regulated body of limited size. I thought that it was being likened to an educational bonsai tree—of limited size but mature growth. Instead, it will be more like an educational Russian vine, spreading its bureaucratic tentacles into every part of the country.
  I turn to the Prime Minister's extraordinary comments at a Tory local government conference at the weekend. I am surprised that such a body still exists, given the Government's constant erosion of local authority powers. Perhaps in future the Prime Minister will be addressing the Tory quango-goers conference. The Prime Minister said that
  "it's time to set a structure for local government that will last. We need to define its responsibilities once and for all. And then let you carry them out."
  I contrast that remark with a recent report that received approval from Tory-controlled Devon county council. Commenting on the Bill, it stated:
  "Many people now believe that the future of local government and local democratic accountability are themselves at stake."
  At last weekend's Conservative local government conference the Prime Minister spoke also of
  "a new accountability that goes directly from those who run public services to those who use them."
  Devon county council commented on the White Paper:
  "At times the White Paper seems to lose sight of the role of the LEA as a resource and protector for the individual parent or pupil and as a focus of local knowledge and accountability. It is difficult to see how a funding agency could be other than remote, unresponsive, ignorant of local issues and unaccountable to local feelings."
  The Prime Minister is totally out of touch with local government and is even out of touch with those in his own party who are in local government.
  As to GM schools, which are taking a one-way ticket to Government control, Government arguments about
  236
  parent power and local democracy would have had more credibility if Ministers had accepted the Labour amendment to allow schools to opt back in to LEA control. That amendment gave the Government an opportunity to demonstrate their confidence in the opting-out system, but it was rejected.
  One of the first schools to become grant maintained was the highly successful Dorset comprehensive, Woodroffe school—once hailed as the flagship of opt-out philosophy. I am sure that the Government would agree that it is instructive to examine establishments that have direct experience for indications of the worth of the policies on which they are now embarking. After its first year of trading in the grant-maintained market place, the school was reported to have debts of £100,000, culminating in the loss of seven teachers, the disarray of the PTA and the suspension of the head teacher.
  9.45 pm
  I shall not dwell on all the problems experienced by the school, but it is interesting to note that the chairman of the PTA, Ken Whetlor, was reported to have said, after a year's experience of grant-maintained status,
  "If you had another vote on this among parents, you'd have a landslide against it."
  That is why the Government do not want parents to have the power to take part in a further ballot to opt back into LEA control. They are afraid to extend democracy to parents, because they know that their dogma would be threatened.
  The Bill represents a greater move by the Government towards central state control than any other provision relating to our British way of life. It will take control of education out of the hands of local, democratically elected bodies, and place it in the hands of quangos packed with politically vetted appointees of the Secretary of State. In the past 10 years, Tory Governments have implemented a number of measures. I was interested to hear the Minister describe the current proposals as "liberating". Do we consider the national curriculum liberating, or the national testing system—a system to which the Secretary of State and the Minister have received so many objections in the past few months? In fact, they have had to give way on part of their own policy. National inspection is another example.
  Now, the Government want to envelop the whole system with national control of the delivery of children's education by means of the funding agency, which we are led to believe will be based in Darlington. I have no argument with anyone in Darlington, but it is a long way from Plymouth and Devon, and from many other constituencies. We are moving rapidly towards a tightly controlled, bureaucratic, centralised system, with Tory party placemen in key positions and no voice for those with opposing views. Above all, there is no place for parents to be involved in the funding agency, and to shape its thinking.
  If the Bill is passed in its present form, we shall have the most centralised, state-controlled education system in the democratic world. How dangerous is an education system when the hands of politicians control every apsect of the delivery of service—when the Government decide which schools should close or stay open, who and what should be tested and even which books children should read? I fear for our democracy when a political party wants to control every aspect of our children's minds.
  Mr. Rod Richards: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his announcement that he is to give details tomorrow of measures to stop the intimidation of schools and parents who favour ballots to opt for grant-maintained status. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will make a similar announcement. The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said that there was a civil war in Wales on the issue: those are his words, not mine. His party and its bully boys have been running around Wales intimidating schools for the past two years.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Richards: No; I have not much time.
  The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) said that once the schools have held a ballot, that is the end of the matter. Is she seriously suggesting that she would wish schools to ballot time and again? If so, how frequently would she wish them to undergo such uncertainty and how frequently would she wish teachers' careers perhaps to be threatened if schools were reintroduced into the local education authority system?
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: It is ironic that Conservative Members should question the notion of balloting when they are so insistent that every governing body must make a decision every year about grant-maintained status. The point that I was making, but which the hon. Gentleman failed to grasp so I shall repeat it for his benefit, is that one set of parents ballots to opt out of the local education authority, but the next set of parents—their children and their children's children—does not have the opportunity to ballot to opt back in. That is undemocratic.
  Mr. Richards: My point is that it would create uncertainty for schools.
  The hon. Member for Torfaen said that four directors of education in Wales had resigned because of the Government's policy. Is he seriously suggesting that those directors set themselves up as martyrs for education in Wales? Of course they did not. The four directors of education in Wales could see the writing on the wall. They could see the prospect of their empires crumbling, so they took early retirement with very generous settlements.
  The hon. Gentleman also says that there is no demand for grant-maintained schools in Wales. There are already 90 schools ready for grant-maintained status. Once my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stops the bully boys in jackboots riding roughshod over Wales there will be an avalanche of schools wanting to acquire grant-maintained status.
  Mr. Dafis: I shall be brief and try to hammer home some of the points already made by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). I speak especially to amendment No. 38 and wish to emphasise the near unanimous opposition to the Bill in Wales.
  I draw the House's attention to a declaration signed by a coalition of 10 bodies involved in education in Wales. The Western Mail described the declaration as an unprecedented act. The declaration states:
  "It is the joint and considered view of the representatives that the Education Bill is inappropriate to the current needs of young people across Wales, and it is likely to have a detrimental effect on educational opportunities and educational standards within the schools of Wales. Such is the
  238
  strength of these concerns that it is vital that these anxieties are made known, as a matter of urgency, to parents across Wales."
  The organisations involved are the Parent Teacher Associations of Wales, Parents for Welsh-Medium Education, the National Association of Head Teachers in Wales, the Welsh League of Youth, the Wales Assembly of Women, the National Union of Teachers for Wales, the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers in Wales, Assistant Master and Mistresses Association in Wales, the National Association of the Teachers of Wales and the Welsh Joint Education Committee. If anyone speaks for education in Wales, those bodies do.
  I support amendment No. 38 because, although it fails to make a clear distinction between Wales and England, it nevertheless offers a way of dealing with the difference between England and Wales in one highly significant matter—the membership of quangos.
  If it were not so disgraceful, the situation would be laughable. It seems that the best method of advancement in Welsh public life is to be a Tory or, better still, a Tory candidate at a general election. In my constituency, two previous unsuccessful Tory candidates have found themselves on the East Dyfed district health authority. The wife of a third has been transferred from the health authority to the managing board of the local hospital trust. That is an appalling state of affairs and it is even worse that it should happen in education. It is bad enough that powers should be removed from local democratically elected bodies to a funding agency which is a quango. It is worse still that membership of the body should be in the gift of the Secretary of State for Wales, any Secretary of State for Wales, but particularly a Tory Secretary of State.
  If present evidence is any guide, the Secretary of State will select Tories for such a body—a high proportion, anyway. They will certainly be Tory sympathisers or people acceptable to the Tory party in Wales, in which case— and this is the point—by definition those people will hold values that are incompatible with those of the majority of the people in Wales. That is especially offensive in relation to education where our whole tradition is egalitarian, collaborative and co-operative. That is our tradition, particularly in education.
  It is crucial that membership of the Schools Funding Council, if it comes into existence, which is by no means certain, should, to some degree, reflect the values of the people of Wales.
  Such a council could have a far-reaching effect; it could open or close schools and, crucially, could propose a change of schools' characters. Clause 88 empowers the council to do that and that would mean, in most cases, a proposal to change the character of a school to make it selective. The council could profoundly change provision in Wales and adopt a master plan for restoration of a system of tripartite education that the Secretary of State thinks so highly of in the White Paper.
  It is true that electors and local education authorities could raise objections, but it would be idle to pretend that a funding council, backed by the Secretary of State, would not have an enormously influential effect on the development of education in Wales.
  The amendment offers a mechanism to provide some control and check on the nature and membership of the council and I support it because of that and because it would modify the deeply undemocratic nature of the Bill.
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): It seems the fashion in these debates to leave no time for a Minister to wind up and it is clear that Opposition Members do not want to hear what the Government have to say.
  I intended to speak only to amendment No. 38 which has a Welsh dimension, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) would probably not wish to share these three minutes with me, I hope that I shall be forgiven for saying a few words about the other two amendments. All are similar in subjecting the appointments to these two bodies to parliamentary scrutiny of one kind or another.
  I want to contrast the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), because my hon. Friend talked about the freedom that we were giving to parents, freeing power to go from the hub to the rim of the wheel, while the hon. Member for Torfaen began his speech by talking about fears. He was talking not about the fears of parents but about the fears of vested interests in the education system in Wales.
  Having sat throughout the Committee stage and having listened throughout the debate this evening, I am sensitive to the fact that the Labour party is somewhat embarrassed that it is not on the popular side in this argument. The Labour party wants to turn the argument somehow, so that it appears to be on the side of parents, but we are the ones who clearly believe in parental ballots, and we are transferring power to the parents.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) referred to 10 bodies, including the Welsh Joint Education Committee, which is very much a vested interest in the education system in Wales. I ask him to look beyond that facade of education. Let him go and talk to the headmasters and headmistresses, as I did when I spoke to members of the Welsh Secondary Schools Association in Llandrindod Wells. If he spoke to those people, the hon. Gentleman would get an entirely different view of the meaning of the Bill.
  It being Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [15 December] and Resolution this day, put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 272.

  Division No. 166]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Betts, Clive

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Blunkett, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Boateng, Paul

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Allen, Graham

  Boyes, Roland

  Alton, David

  Bradley, Keith

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Burden, Richard

  Ashton, Joe

  Byers, Stephen

  Austin-Walker, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cann, Jamie

  Bell, Stuart

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Clapham, Michael

  Benton, Joe

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  240

  Clelland, David

  Jamieson, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Janner, Greville

  Coffey, Ann

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jowell, Tessa

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Keen, Alan

  Cousins, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Cryer, Bob

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Leighton, Ron

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lewis, Terry

  Darling, Alistair

  Litherland, Robert

  Davidson, Ian

  Livingstone, Ken

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Loyden, Eddie

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

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Denham, John

  McAllion, John

  Dewar, Donald

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dixon, Don

  McCartney, Ian

  Dobson, Frank

  Macdonald, Calum

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McFall, John

  Dowd, Jim

  McKelvey, William

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McNamara, Kevin

  Eastham, Ken

  McWilliam, John

  Enright, Derek

  Madden, Max

  Etherington, Bill

  Mahon, Alice

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fatchett, Derek

  Marek, Dr John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Martlew, Eric

  Flynn, Paul

  Maxton, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Meacher, Michael

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Meale, Alan

  Foulkes, George

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fraser, John

  Milburn, Alan

  Fyfe, Maria

  Miller, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Garrett, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  George, Bruce

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gerrard, Neil

  Morley, Elliot

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Gordon, Mildred

  Mudie, George

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Mullin, Chris

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Murphy, Paul

  Grocott, Bruce

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gunnell, John

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hain, Peter

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hall, Mike

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hanson, David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hardy, Peter

  Parry, Robert

  Harvey, Nick

  Pendry, Tom

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Henderson, Doug

  Pike, Peter L.

  Heppell, John

  Pope, Greg

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hoey, Kate

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hood, Jimmy

  Purchase, Ken

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Randall, Stuart

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Hoyle, Doug

  Redmond, Martin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Hutton, John

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Illsley, Eric

  Rogers, Allan

  Ingram, Adam

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Ruddock, Joan

  241

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tyler, Paul

  Sheerman, Barry

  Vaz, Keith

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wallace, James

  Short, Clare

  Walley, Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

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

  Wicks, Malcolm

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

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Snape, Peter

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Soley, Clive

  Wilson, Brian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Winnick, David

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Wise, Audrey

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Worthington, Tony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wray, Jimmy

  Stott, Roger

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Straw, Jack

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mr. John Spellar and

  Turner, Dennis

  Mr. Gordon McMaster.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cran, James

  Aitken, Jonathan

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

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Amess, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Ancram, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, James

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dicks, Terry

  Atkins, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dover, Den

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bates, Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Batiste, Spencer

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bendall, Vivian

  Elletson, Harold

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evennett, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Faber, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bowden, Andrew

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bowis, John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forman, Nigel

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forth, Eric

  Brazier, Julian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bright, Graham

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Freeman, Roger

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  French, Douglas

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fry, Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Gale, Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  Gallie, Phil

  Butler, Peter

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butterfill, John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gorst, John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Cash, William

  Greenway, Harry (Eallng N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clappison, James

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hague, William

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Congdon, David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Conway, Derek

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyra For'st)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Harris, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  242

  Hawkins, Nick

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hayes, Jerry

  Redwood, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Richards, Rod

  Hendry, Charles

  Riddick, Graham

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Horam, John

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

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

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Sackville, Tom

  Hunter, Andrew

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Jesse 1, Toby

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Shersby, Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Key, Robert

  Soames, Nicholas

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Knapman, Roger

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Spring, Richard

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sproat, Iain

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

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Knox, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Stephen, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Stern, Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Stewart, Allan

  Leigh, Edward

  Streeter, Gary

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Sumberg, David

  Lidington, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sykes, John

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Luff, Peter

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Thomason, Roy

  Maclean, David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Thurnham, Peter

  Madel, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

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

  Malone, Gerald

  Tracey, Richard

  Mans, Keith

  Tredinnick, David

  Marlow, Tony

  Trend, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Trotter, Neville

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Merchant, Piers

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Milligan, Stephen

  Viggers, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Walden, George

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Waller, Gary

  Moss, Malcolm

  Ward, John

  Needham, Richard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Waterson, Nigel

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Whitney, Ray

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Whittingdale, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Norris, Steve

  Wilkinson, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Willefts, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Page, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Paice, James

  Wolfson, Mark

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wood, Timothy

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Yeo, Tim

  Pawsey, James

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Pickles, Eric

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  MADAM SPEAKER then put the Question on all remaining amendments up to the end of clause 143, moved by a member of the Government

Clause 6

  SUPERVISION OF FUNDING AUTHORITIES BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE
  Amendment made: No. 179, in page 3, line 10, at end insert—
  '( ) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the funding authority unless, for reasons of urgency, it is not in his opinion reasonably practicable for him to do so.'—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 8

  DIRECTION TO ADMIT CHILD TO SPECIFIED SCHOOL
  Amendments made: No. 83, in page 4, line 23, after 'area' insert
  'of a local education authority'.
  No. 84, in page 4, line 24, leave out 'in the area'.
  No. 85, in page, 4, line 31, at end insert—
  '( ) A direction under this section shall, unless it is given on the determination of the Secretary of State under section 9(4) of this Act or by the funding authority, specify a school in the area referred to in subsection (1) above.'
  No. 86, in page 4, line 41, leave out from 'Act' to 'references' in line 42.
  No. 87, in page 4, line 43, after first 'authority' insert 'subject to subsection (6A) below'.
  No. 88, in page 4, line 45, leave out from second 'schools' to end of line 5 on page 5 and insert—
  '(6A) Where the education which is suitable education for the child is also education of a kind to which an order under section 7(1)(b) of this Act applies made in respect of the area referred to in subsection (1) above, references in this section and section 9 of this Act to the appropriate authority are to be read in relation to—

  (a) that child, and

  (b) any maintained school (other than a maintained special school) or grant—maintained school in that area, and any such school in any other area to which an order under section 7(1)(b) of this Act applies which provides education which is relevant education in relation to that order,

  as references to the funding authority'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 15

  DUTY TO COMPILE INFORMATION AND CONDUCT RESEARCH ABOUT PROVISION OF EDUCATION
  Amendment made: No. 128, in page 8, line 31, at end insert—
  '( ) The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers under this section so as to secure, in particular, the provision of information relating to the provision of education for children with special educational needs.'—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 16

  "GRANT—MAINTAINED SCHOOLS"
  Amendments made: No. 57, in page 8, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 and insert—

  '(1) A school conducted by a governing body incorporated under this Part of this Act, or Chapter IV of Part I
  244
  of the Education Reform Act 1988, for the purpose of conducting the school shall be known as a grant—maintained school.

  (2) A governing body may be incorporated under this Part of this Act—'.

  No. 58, in page 9, line 5, leave out
  'under Chapter IX of this Part of this Act'
  and insert 'published under Chapter IX'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 25

  POWER TO DECLARE BALLOT VOID FOR IRREGULARITY
  Amendments made: No. 143, in page 13, line 8, leave out 'or'.
  No. 144, in page 13, line 10. at end insert—
  '( ) that persons other than those eligible to do so have purported to vote in a ballot so held,
  ( ) that ballot papers returned for the purposes of a ballot so held have been marked by persons other than those to whom they were issued or those duly authorised to act on their behalf,
  ( ) that persons who were eligible to vote in a ballot so held have been prevented or hindered from doing so, or from doing so freely in accordance with their own opinions, by any other person, or
  ( ) that voting in a ballot so held is likely to have been influenced to a significant extent by the dissemination of information appearing to the Secretary of State to be to a material extent false or misleading'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Schedule 3
  PROPOSALS FOR SCHOOLS TO BECOME, OR BE ESTABLISHED AS, GRANT—MAINTAINED SCHOOLS
  Amendment made: No. 138, in page 169, line 3, after second 'such', insert 'form and'.—[Mr. Patten.]
Clause 62

  POWERS OF GOVERNING BODY
  Amendment made: No. 59, in page 36, line 21, at end insert
  'except money lent under section ( Loans to governing bodies of grant—maintained schools) of this Act'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 73

  MAINTENANCE GRANTS
  Amendment made: No. 60, in page 44, line 13, at end insert
  'and grant regulations may provide for determinations (and revisions) to be made by reference to amounts determined or redetermined for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 75

  CAPITAL GRANTS
  Amendment made: No. 129, in page 45, line 16, at end insert—
  '( ) Before giving a direction under subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State shall consult the funding authority.' —[ Mr. Patten.]

Clause 76

  IMPOSITION OF REQUIREMENTS ON GOVERNING BODY IN RECEIPT OF GRANT
  Amendment made: No. 145, in page 46, leave out lines 21 to 25 and insert—
  'may, in particular, if any conditions specified in the requirements are satisfied, require the payment to the funding authority of the whole or any part of the following amount.
  ( ) That amount is—

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

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

  whichever is the greater'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 82

  IMPOSITION OF REQUIREMENTS ON GOVERNING BODY IN RECEIPT OF GRANT
  Amendment made: No. 146, in page 49, leave out lines 3 to 8 and insert—
  'may, in particular, if any conditions specified in the requirements are satisfied, require the payment to the Secretary of State of the whole or any part of the following amount.
  () That amount is—

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

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

  whichever is the greater'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 86

  PROVISIONS CONSEQUENTIAL ON SECTION 84
  Amendment made: No. 61, in page 51, line 46, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 47 and insert
  'by virtue of regulations under section 51 or 52 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 107

  DISPOSAL OF SCHOOL PROPERTY: SUPPLEMENTARY
  Amendments made: No. 62, in page 66, line 14, leave out
  `such an order'.
  No. 63, in page 66, line 15, at beginning insert 'such an order'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 137

  CASES WHERE NO REQUIREMENT FOR CHRISTIAN COLLECTIVE WORSHIP
  Amendment made: No. 130, in page 84, line 9, leave out
  '122 of this Act' and insert
  '127 of the Education Act 1993'.—[Mr. Patten.]

Clause 148

  QUALIFIED DUTY TO SECURE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS IN ORDINARY SCHOOLS
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 80, line 27, leave out from 'school' to end of line 26.
  Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
  No. 173, in clause 149, page 89, line 39, leave out 'use their best endeavours,'.
  No. 74, in page 89, line 40, leave out `to secure' and insert 'ensure'.
  No. 50, in clause 155, page 93, line 12, leave out 'and' and insert—
  '(c) where the named school in subsection (b) above is a special school, specify which of the conditions listed in section 148 subsection (2) above apply, and'.
  No. 51, in schedule 9, page 180, line 36, after 'school', insert
  'or other school providing education solely for children with special educational needs, approved under section 172 of this Act'.
  No. 97, in clause 156, page 93, line 36, leave out `subsection (2)' and insert 'subsections (2) and (3)'.
  Mr. Griffiths: In this group of amendments, there are five different debates. The first can perhaps be dealt with quickly, because it is to some extent a semantic exercise, but it needs to be put on the record that, strictly speaking, the words in clause 148—
  "unless that is incompatible with the wishes of his parent"—
  are not necessary, because the statementing process in clause 155 adequately covers all the rights that any parent has.
  In correspondence with me, the Under—Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), dealt explicitly with the point. He said that, if a parent decided that the choice offered under clause 148 was incompatible with his or her wishes, the rights and duties of LEAs contained in clause 148 would fall away completely. The rights of parents in clause 155 and schedule 9 to appeal against the choice of school that a local authority may nominate in the statement will be upheld. I would maintain that the words referring to incompatibility with parental choice are an unnecessary veto in clause 148, because the parents have exactly the same rights in clause 155. The special educational consortium pointed out that those words in clause 148 were undesirable.
  10.15 pm
  The purpose of the following amendments in the group is to strengthen the duties of the governors to provide for children with special educational needs. The Bill as drafted mirrors the Education Act 1981, yet part III of the Bill is designed to improve the provisions in the 1981 Act, because it has been shown over the past 10 years that there are very good reasons for including provisions, some of which are in part III, to strengthen the rights of parents of children with special educational needs.
  In the Bill as drafted, the governors are enjoined to
  "use their best endeavours"
  in providing for children with special educational needs. Amendment No. 73 would place a duty on governors to ensure that the special educational needs of any child were properly met without question. There is no doubt that, over the past decade, governors could say that they used their best endeavours but that, unfortunately, it was impossible to provide for the special needs of a particular child. The Government could have taken this opportunity to be more positive and to place a definite duty on governors to make sure that children with special educational needs received the support they required.

  247
  The Government could argue that the provisions in part III will strengthen the statementing process, so that governors and LEAs will be duty-bound to make sure that the provisions in a statement will be met by the LEA and the school governors. That still leaves children who have special educational needs but are not deemed to be in such need as to require a statement, dependent on the best endeavours of the governors, which in the past decade have sometimes been inadequate.
  There are two possibilities. First, governors could say that they had used their best endeavours but that the emotional or behavioural problems of a child were such that the school could no longer provide for that child, and exclusion rates could rise. Secondly, another child without a statement, a quiet child but a slow learner, could be left at the back of the class, and if the parents were not sufficiently concerned, the child's needs could be allowed to lapse completely, because the duty on the governors to use their best endeavours is subject to a wide interpretation.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: It is rather hard, in educational terms, to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. There is no reason for statementing children as slow learners. On the other hand, there may be some educational reason. Would the hon. Gentleman care to be more precise?
  Mr. Griffiths: It could be argued that, under the Bill, a child who has been statemented will have been subjected to a process tightened up to such an extent that the needs mentioned in the statement will be provided, whereas a child who is a slow learner but is not deemed to be so badly behind as to require statementing will have his provision determined otherwise. Unless the parents are particularly concerned and careful, such children will not get the attention they deserve.
  By suggesting replacement of the words "use their best endeavours" with "ensure", we are attempting to have the process tightened up. The governors would have placed on them a very real duty that they could not escape. In the past, it has been shown that the words "use their best endeavours" have been used as a means of opting out.
  Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman knows that no one is more anxious than I to have appropriate education provided for children with special needs, especially when statementing has been carried out, when needs have been precisely shown. But I have to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is being realistic. If he is simply probing and saying that we ought to push further and further, I am with him, but this amendment would mean that, even in the case of a maintained nursery school, the governors might have to adapt premises forthwith, whether or not they had the resources to do so. Surely the hon. Gentleman is being a little over-ambitious in pressing an amendment in these terms.
  Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman may recall the Chinese proverb to the effect that one should aim for the stars if one wants to get to the top of the tree. That is what we are doing. We are trying to impress on the Government the fact that the wording of the 1981 Act, which has regulated governors' actions over the past decade, has been shown not always to provide in the best possible way for children with special educational needs. We are seeking
  248
  to tighten up the way in which governors are required to provide for such children, and I hope that the Government will respond positively.
  I should like to move now to what is, in effect, the third part of the debate on this group of amendments. I refer to the need for a local authority, when providing a statement for a child, to specify in particular why it considers that only placement in a special school is appropriate.
  Clause 148 places upon a local education authority a duty to integrate, but the Government put some conditions on how that duty is to be carried out. Account has to be taken of the needs of the child and the views of the parents, as well as factors affecting the efficient education of other children in the same class and the efficient use of resources. Thus, there are very specific conditions that a local education authority must fulfil if it is to integrate a child into a mainstream school. We would make it incumbent on a local education authority to specify which of those reasons applied when, in a statement, it named a special school to which the child should go.
  It is important to consider the background to the amendment. In the HMI Audit Commission report "Getting In On The Act", 36 per cent. of parents with children in special schools said that they would prefer to have their children in ordinary schools, with all the specialist support needed to enable that placement to be maintained in an effective manner. On the other hand, 11 per cent. of parents with children in ordinary schools wanted their children to be in special schools. So there was a much greater desire among parents to have their children in ordinary schools, with the specialist support being available, rather than have the children placed in special schools.
  The Spastics Society did its own survey, which reached much the same view as the HMI report. It cited a particular case, that of a lady whom they called Mrs. Baldwin, with a son named Paul who had attended an integrated nursery and then went to a mainstream infant school. The head teacher at that school said of that child and of two other children, who were the first disabled children to attend the school, that he could not have them in the school because they constituted a safety risk.
  Mrs. Baldwin would have liked to have fought that decision of the head teacher, but because she was recovering from a nervous breakdown, she felt that she could not go through the trauma that would be involved. However, she looked forward to the day when a local campaign might help to provide integrated schooling in her area.
  So there is no doubt that many parents would like to have their children in integrated provision. In a case where the LEA felt that such integrated provision was not the best place for a child, at least by specifying the reasons, the parent could, in an informed way, decide whether to appeal against the decision.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a difficulty in the important area of special needs education is often that the circumstances that lead to a child being statemented can change over time? While I appreciate the reasons that lead the hon. Gentleman to advance the case that he is making, a local authority might be restricted to choosing a particular category when there might be a combination of categories.

  249
  Does he agree that it is crucial when dealing with special needs children to remember that the outreach which special schools provide—by providing peripatetic teachers to help in mainstream education—varies from one area to another? Is he aware that what he is suggesting could work only if that outreach was always available?
  Mr. Griffiths: That is not necessarily the case, but, in any event, we are talking about a situation that should prevail, with that combination of special schools and specialist support from specialist schools or centres going out to help in mainstream schools. Our proposal would give parents specific information to enable them to decide whether to appeal against a statement.
  It would also help the LEA, because by always specifying the reason for not integrating a child, the LEA could, within a year or so, review what it is doing to see whether there was some way of overcoming what might turn out to be a common problem to which there was a straightforward solution.
  10.30 pm
  The Spastics Society is very sure that there are good and acknowledged reasons for reducing the number of people in special schools to the bare minimum for whom there is genuinely no realistic alternative. But it believes that the continued existence of special schools should not be allowed to undermine the longstanding commitment to integration by providing an easily available alternative that bypasses the difficulties of adapting and supporting schools adequately in the task of catering for children with the widest possible range of needs.
  I just want to mention an amendment put down in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam). We debated this matter briefly in Committee, and the Minister said that he might wish to consider an alternative proposition, which he felt could perhaps be used by the generality of independent schools to seek state funding. I know that great care was taken to draft an amendment which would meet that concern.
  We are talking here of over 100 independent special schools in England and Wales, and over 80 non-maintained special schools. Probably all those schools make highly specialist provision. The Royal National Institute for the Blind did a survey which showed that, out of 21 special schools for blind and partially sighted children, 10 were outside the maintained sector; and that for blind and partially sighted children with other severe handicaps, there was only one school in England and Wales in the maintained sector.
  The issue at stake, as we see it, is that a parent should have the right to nominate such a school in exactly the same way as the Government are giving them the right to nominate a maintained school. It is entirely possible that a local education authority would decide that a particular child, because of his or her specialist needs, should be placed in one of these independent or non-maintained special schools anyway.
  It is also true to say that, if a parent is dissatisfied with the statementing process and with the fact that the LEA has not named an independent or non-maintained special school for the child as the most appropriate provision, the parent has the right of appeal. But that is right at the end of the statementing process and, even if we allow for the possibility of local authorities managing to do their statements in six months, going to the tribunal will take
  250
  another one, two or three months—who knows how long? —and it may mean that the child's needs will not be met for a long time.
  I hope that the Government will therefore agree that so many parents of children who are deaf, deaf and blind, partially sighted or have profound multiple handicaps can have a meaningful choice of schools only if they are able to choose from independent and non-maintained special schools, as well as from schools in the maintained sector. It would be a small step for the Government to move from giving the parent the same right to go to the tribunal at the appeal stage as at the beginning of the process.
  Earlier today, Madam Speaker was kind enough to add two amendments to the selection, because amendment No. 97 was a paving amendment for Nos. 98 and 99. We were a little disconsolate because amendment No. 40, which was suggested to us by the Centre for Studies on Integration in Education, was not selected. It would have put local authorities and schools to a greater test about making integrated provision. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) was deeply disappointed, because he has a long and successful track record in pursuing the rights of disabled people, and. I know that he would have liked to speak to that amendment.
  Our last few amendments in the group deal with providing for arbitration. Quite a number of voluntary organisations, such as the Spastics Society and the British Dyslexia Association, were keen that there should be a stage between the end of the statementing process and the appeal to a tribunal, when parents and the local education authority could reconsider why they had not reached an agreement on the statement, and to put it to an arbitrator —on whom both would agree—who could study the evidence and come to a decision.
  We are firmly of the opinion that anything that can be done to avoid the panoply of proceedings associated with a tribunal would be welcome. However user-friendly the Government may like to make a tribunal, it will be a place where highly legalistic arguments will be used about the provisions of the Bill or the clashing views of expert opinion.
  Many parents have said that they would not gladly go through the existing appeals procedure again. Parents, who already have a difficult and challenging job to try to ensure that the educational and other special needs of their children are dealt with properly, then find themselves in the middle of a fight over legalistic interpretations of whose duty it is to provide what, and over conflicting expert opinions about their child's needs.
  I hope that the Government will consider setting up an arbitration procedure. In Committee, we suggested that its deliberations should not take longer than 28 days, so that the statementing procedure is not held up unduly. Many parents want a new procedure to be introduced so that they can avoid having to go to the tribunal, which in itself means that the statementing procedure has been a failure.
  I hope that the Government will respond positively to all the amendments in the group, because I firmly believe that that is what children with special needs need and what their parents, as well as all those voluntary organisations that work long and hard in that sector, want.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker(Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I must point out that there is a slight error in the amendment. Where it reads:
  252
  "leave out from 'school' to end of line 26"
  it should read "line 28".
  Sir John Hannam: I am puzzled by the wording of the amendment which seems to take us backwards rather than forwards.
  I shall confine my remarks to amendments Nos. 50 and 51 which were tabled by me, members of the all-party disablement group and other hon. Friends. The amendments were tabled in response to representations from the Special Education Consortium and other disability organisations. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools has been extremely helpful in receiving numerous delegations and correspondence on special needs education. I had hoped to secure his acceptance of an earlier amendment that would have ensured that membership of the funding agency included someone with knowledge of special needs. For some reason, that amendment was not selected, so I now express the hope that we can achieve further progress in a slightly different direction for parents who want to be able to make the correct choice of school for their child.
  Amendment No. 50 would amend clause 155 so that if an LEA does not name an ordinary school in the statement, it will be required to spell out the reason or reasons for not doing so. As the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) pointed out, clause 148 sets out a qualified duty on LEAs
  "to secure education of children with special educational needs in ordinary schools."
  That duty is conditional on the needs of the child being met, the views of the parents, the efficient education of other children in the school and the efficient use of resources. Our amendment to clause 155 is designed to help parents by giving them information at an early stage to which they would ultimately have access should they pursue their case to appeal.
  It would be desirable and in line with the Government's policy on open government and access to information that that information should be noted on each statement and, therefore, be accessible to the parents as soon as a decision has been made. That information would also enable LEAs to monitor their procedures and take account of that information when reviewing and planning provision.
  The Government have clearly expressed their support for the principle enshrined in the Education Act 1981 that pupils with special needs should be educated in ordinary schools to the maximum extent practicable. Hon. Members who were here on Friday for the debate on anti-discrimination legislation will be aware that the move towards the integration of special needs pupils into ordinary schools has progressed slowly in many LEAs. It is an important matter.
  If the reasons given by LEAs for not offering integrated placements were monitored, it would establish whether the Government's intentions on integration were being frustrated. It could reveal if the reverse were the case and a particular LEA was proceeding with integration too fast, against the wishes of parents. That would also become apparent from the number of cases in which parental wishes were cited as the reason for not offering a placement in an ordinary school.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: My hon. Friend is talking about a fascinating and important sector of education. Is he implying that some LEAs would ignore, for some reason, suggestions made by the educational psychologists about
  254
  a child's education? Is it suggested that the educational psychologist might not give the full reasons for riot pressing for integration or non-integration? I am not quite clear—will my hon. Friend clarify that issue?
  10.45 pm
  Sir John Hannam: It does not relate to that subject. It is basically because the aim of the 1981 Act was to integrate as far as possible the 18 out of 20 pupils with special needs who would be best educated with their peers at normal schools. The other 2 per cent. were estimated to need special-school education. That was the Government's intention as clearly laid down in that Act. However, unless the amendment is accepted, evidence in the educational psychologists' reports or wherever will not be seen clearly to show why the child is not being integrated in a normal school.
  The local education authority will not have that information on the record in order to make its planning decisions for the future and to provide the necessary resources in normal schools for the provision of the special units for educating children with special needs. In addition, there will be no clear evidence of when an education authority is trying to integrate too many children after not providing the necessary special units.
  The amendment is designed to achieve information and would have a neutral effect on integration. It is important because it would produce information about integration, both to individual parents, so that they know what is happening, and collectively to the education service. The amendment was tabled in order to place information on the record for parents and the education authorities. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept the amendment's constructive intention which is very much in line with the Government's basic policy on integration.
  Amendment No. 51 switches to the special school sector and deals with what is considered to be a right of the parents of children whose needs are more complex or severe and who may need highly specialist provision that is available only in the non-maintained sector. Under schedule 9 to the Bill, the parent receiving a copy of the proposed statement from the education authority is enabled
  "to express a preference as to the maintained school or grant-maintained school at which he wishes education to be provided for his child and to give reasons for his preference."
  At the crucial stage of the drafting of the statement, when parents have already undergone the full assessment procedures with their child and are ready to express a preference for a school—whether maintained or non-maintained—a choice is not provided for them. To give them the right to express a preference for one sort of school, but not the other, at that stage may set up antagonisms that could run through and echo around the later decisions about the final statement.
  We all know from our experience with parents of children with special needs how totally involved they are in their children's upbringing and how incredibly hung up they can become if they feel that they are being frustrated by those in authority over them.
  Mr. Enright: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a particular difficulty for denominational special schools in the non-maintained sector? Will he add their cause to his cause, as they are of a piece?
  Sir John Hannam: I was not aware of that aspect, as I had not received any representations. However, I know that non-maintained special schools in my constituency are often linked with particular religious orders, and different groups and trusts set up to establish special schools.
  I believe that expressing a preference at that earlier stage should help to reduce reliance on the later stages of decision-making and on the use of the proposed tribunal system of appeals.
  As we all know from constituency experience, a large proportion of special education is provided by excellent non-maintained special schools for the blind, deaf and physically disabled. The hon. Member for Bridgend referred to the Royal National Institute for the Blind's 1992 survey, which showed that 22 per cent. of visually impaired children attend a special school for the visually impaired. Of the 21 special schools in the whole of England and Wales, 10—nearly half—are non-maintained.
  One such school for the blind, and a superb one at that, is in my constituency—where we also have the Royal West of Englnad school for the deaf. It is one of the schools that have successfully been developing vision for children with dual sensory handicaps, which is a tremendous step forward. Both are non-maintained special schools.
  The amendment does not argue for an unfettered right for parents to have their child placed in their preferred school, but seeks the right merely to express a preference from among available and appropriate provision from the same point that other parents are able to do so.
  My hon. Friend the Minister said that parents have the opportunity to express their views generally, as part of the statement process, and that if the final statement does not accept those views, parents can appeal. My hon. Friend the Minister argued therefore that non-maintained special schools, if they are good enough, will continue to be supported. If that system is sufficient to allow parental preference to be indicated, why not leave it as it is for all schools? Why pick out maintained and grant-maintained schools and leave out non-maintained special schools?
  The Bill provides an extra means of attending to parental preference by allowing parents to express a preference at the beginning of the process but only for maintained schools. Consequently, if a parent lives in an area where all special schools are non-maintained—such as in the south-west—their opportunity to have their preference is reduced. All schools in my area of the south-west are non-maintained. Certainly parents can appeal—but surely that is not the path that we want to go down, because it would be establishing a placement system based on litigation.
  My hon. Friend the Minister argued that the right to express a preference for a non-maintained or independent school would open the floodgates and that schools that choose to be independent should not expect the protection of statute. I accept that point in relation to independent schools because there is, in their case, the possibility of someone making a profit—though I do not necessarily accept that as a reason for excluding them.
  Parents will only have the right to express a preference —not to demand funding. The LEA would still be bound to decide whether such a placement represented an efficient use of resources. If it thinks that the school is too expensive, the LEA has a cast-iron reason for refusing. Non-maintained schools are different—they cannot make a profit. They are established not from a desire to be
  256
  independent of the LEA management but because many minority disabilities are best catered for on a regional basis. All their placements are LEA funded. They are eligible for capital grants from the Department for Education and they are extremely grateful for the generous amounts that they have received from the Department for extensions and developments.
  Those schools are an integral part of the education system, and even if independent special schools cannot be included in the choice, surely the excellent non-maintained special schools should be part of the expressed parental choice.
  I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider my request and will make the necessary change to schedule 9.
  Mr. Hall: When the White Paper "Choice and Diversity" was published and the promises that went with it were made, there was an expectation that special needs problems would be addressed by the Bill. We could be forgiven for thinking that because of the statement in chapter 9 of the White Paper, on page 40, in which the Government recommitted themselves to the principle that
  "pupils with special educational needs … should be educated in ordinary schools to the maximum extent possible".
  The interesting words are
  "to the maximum extent possible".
  The special needs lobby was given assurances by the Secretary of State that special educational needs provision would be improved in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Exeter—
  Sir John Hannam: Hon. Member.
  Mr. Hall: I stand corrected. No doubt the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) looks forward to the promotion that I have offered him, and perhaps it will be forthcoming.
  I have often commended the Education Act 1981 to the House as a forward-looking piece of educational legislation, with the proviso that it is the only educational legislation since 1979 that has had any educational merit. It was put on the statute book by Mark Carlisle, then Member of Parliament for Runcorn—my next-but-one predecessor, now Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. The Act enshrined in statute the 1978 Warnock report, which dealt with special educational needs.
  It is worth reminding ourselves that, although the Bill was enacted in 1981, it did not come into effect until 1983 when it was implemented by regulations. Commendably, it sought to remove the categorisation of handicap in education—a worthwhile move. It went on to say that pupils' special educational needs should be made specific in individual statements. That was an excellent piece of legislation: it really meant that provision for such pupils would be needs-led rather than resource-led. However, because of the limited resources allowed to local education authorities, the statementing procedure is clearly resource-led now.
  Mrs. Lait: Does the hon. Gentleman remember our debate in Committee on Baroness Warnock's later thoughts about her report? Last autumn, she suggested that she considered the report naive, and thought that many of her recommendations were not valid today.
  Mr. Hall: I do not agree that that applies to many of the recommendations; in any case, everyone is entitled to

  257
  revise his opinions. I still consider it good educational practice for the special educational needs of an individual pupil to be set down in a statement rather than being subjected to categorisation. That was the wonderful thing about the 1981 Act. We hoped that this Bill would include measures enabling the statementing procedure again to become means-led rather than resource-led. Unfortunately, when we put our views to the Minister on 26 January—I had questioned him before—he said:
  "No, I will not confirm anything of the kind."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 26 January 1993; c. 1136.]
  He went on to give an exposition of why the statementing procedure would still have to be resource-led. Clause 149 extends those arguments.
  We hoped that the Bill, bad though it is, would produce some increase in provision for special educational needs, but the Government have missed that opportunity in drafting clause 149. If, even at this late stage, the Minister accepted the amendment, we would go some way towards addressing the problem.
  I part company with the hon. Member for Exeter on another important issue. The Warnock report stated that, at any one time, approximately 20 per cent. of the school population would have special educational needs, that 2 per cent. of those would require a statement, and that 18 per cent. would have such needs at some point in their school careers. At no point did the report say that the 2 per cent. with statements should be educated in special schools. Both the report and the White Paper spoke of the integration of pupils with special educational needs into ordinary schools. That is another reason why those of us in education, with an interest in special education., find clause 149 very disappointing. It provides the Government, and schools, with a get-out.
  If integration is to succeed in the education system, it must have the necessary funding. Funds must be available to ensure that pupils' special educational needs are best met in their own schools. I see that the Secretary of State agrees with that.
  Clause 149 includes the words "best endeavours",
  which disappoints us. It states that schools shall use
  "their best endeavours … in exercising their functions in relation to the school … to secure that if any registered pupil has special educational needs the special educational provision which his learning difficulty calls for is made".
  It is a get-out clause. We are entitled to say that it contains two obstructions to integration. The first is registration.
  11 pm
  Until a pupil is registered in a school, the clause's provisions do not come into effect. Some pupils will then be excluded from schools either temporarily or permanently. However, more important are the words "best endeavours". If a school has a pupil with special educational needs but the school's best endeavours do not meet those needs, how will they be met? Will they be ignored at that school because of the operation of clause 149? The answer must be yes, which is why the words "best endeavours" must be removed. If they are removed, the school will have a duty to meet the needs of such a pupil. It is worth remembering that 18 per cent. of pupils with special educational needs might not have a statement and their needs could remain unmet.
  We have heard a great deal in Committee and again today about local management of schools. While the Secretary of State is here, I must tell him that if he goes to my constituency and visits any primary school which is
  258
  faced with falling rolls and which is told that it must make teachers redundant because of those falling rolls, the schools will tell him that local management of schools is sometimes not practical. Schoolteachers will be made redundant, which will disrupt the curriculum. In a couple of years' time, if the area begins to expand again, the school will have to re-employ teachers, which is an inefficient use of resources. The Secretary of State talks about the wonderful aspects of LMS, but he must remember that it means that governing bodies sometimes have to make teachers redundant, which does not go down well.
  If the Government were to say that there was a ring-fenced element for special needs in their funding formula for schools, it would go some way to ensuring that pupils' special educational needs were met in their present schools. The Secretary of State would do well to consider that idea.
  We have heard much about improving the statementing procedure. As someone who was directly involved in that procedure for seven years before coming to the House, I could not agree more with the Secretary of State. However, the way to do it is to employ more educational psychologists so that the professionals can get on with the job. That is the only way to reduce waiting lists and give more people access to a good tool of education. The Secretary of State may say that there is no money available, but we have to ask how he intends to put into effect the rhetoric of his promise to improve the statementing procedure.
  There are further problems. What happens where special units are attached to mainstream schools and where the admissions to the schools are the responsibility of the governing bodies if they are grant maintained, and the admissions to the units are the responsibility of the local education authority, which has a duty to provide overall cover for special educational needs? What will happen when clause 149 requires schools to use their "best endeavours" to meet pupils' special educational needs?
  I have a direct question about special schools applying for grant-maintained status. A later amendment deals with balloting in such schools, but will the Minister confirm now that admissions to special schools, as opposed to ordinary schools with special education facilities, will be at the behest of the local education authority, as he told the Committee? During consultation on the White Paper and subsequently, how many demands did the Minister receive from special schools that they be given the opportunity to acquire grant-maintained status? His reply could assure us that there is a demand for this move in special educational needs.
  I see education as having an intrinsic value. I would like to see education that provides equality of opportunity and is freely available for all who need it. We see in the White Paper and the Bill that the Government see education as something to be bought and sold in the market place and subject to the market economy; a commodity which subjects pupils to what the Government would call the rigours of the free market place. I wonder whether the Secretary of State sees any intrinsic value in education, or does he agree with me that there should be some equality of opportunity in our system which would give every pupil the opportunity to prosper?
  The Secretary of State was subjected to a television interview on Sunday when he took exception to being called arrogant. This Bill gives him 44 more powers to

  259
  exercise control over education. He seems to think that it is like "Dad's Army"-that everybody else is out of step but him. If he would listen to those in education about the demands for education, we might have a better Bill.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: Adverting to the last few sentences of the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), the last thing that any Minister should sensibly do is listen to the educational world for advice. The only advice I could give is to listen to what they say and then do the opposite. That seems to me a better way of behaving and I say so with all sincerity.
  I am very happy to speak in support of amendment No. 51, which commands all-party support in the House. I am grateful for the explanation of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and for the lucid way in which he advanced a very compelling case for the minor changes which should be made in wording—minor but significant in terms of the message that will be given to various teachers and governors who work so hard in both non—maintained and maintained schools dealing with those with visual and hearing handicaps, among others.
  The Minister will know, because he is a student of history, that I sat on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill that became the Education Act 1980. I also served with my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on the Standing Committee on the 1981 Bill dealing with disabled pupils. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) was also on the Committee. She was then translated out of the House but has now come back. She led very effectively in those days. She has now matured a bit and become much more stateswomanlike, or statespersonlike, which I think is the correct term now.
  That was a very good Bill because it attempted to give to parents of children who have a handicap the same rights and opportunities, inasmuch as they could be provided, as parents of children in the mainstream sector. I felt that that was a major step forward because, like the 1980 Act, it put into statute rights and responsibilities for parents. It is strange to admit in the House that, before 1980, parents had very few rights in the selection of a state school for their children. We passed the 1980 Act and gave parents more say and the right of appeal in the selection and provision of a place for their children. In 1981, we gave the same rights to parents of disabled children and introduced a range of concepts, some of which we can look back on with pleasure, but some of which need tightening up. Certainly, in my day, I felt that the statementing procedure was far too lengthy in arriving at a decision.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will embark on the attack on those authorities, rather like St. George of Worcester, slaying the dragon. I commend to the House the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter. For example, there are 21 special schools in the whole country that cater especially for visually impaired or blind children. I believe that 10 of them are non-maintained. There is a problem over indicating a preference, a problem over access and a problem of the downgrading of the choice of such a non-maintained school for those who teach and work in the schools. That aspect has not been mentioned tonight, but it is important in the context of perception.
  The fact that there are so few schools means that there cannot be one in every local authority area or every neighbourhood, as we should like, because of the sheer
  260
  difficulty of numbers. In Kent, there is a school for the blind—Dorton House, in Sevenoaks. That is our nearest school. It happens to be non-maintained. If it did not exist, if it were taken away, or if its numbers were reduced, some of my constituents' children would be denied access to their nearest school. We talk about extending choice, yet in that case there would be no choice-or at least no easy or immediate choice-for my constituents who might wish to send their children to a non-maintained school such as Dorton House, which is well respected in the south-east.
  Because of the scatter of such schools across the country, whether they are maintained or non-maintained, there will still be problems of access. The Minister must consider that. There is great uncertainty in those schools at present. A robust and positive response from my hon. Friend would go down very well, and would settle the nerves of the people who do such marvellous work in the schools.
  There is also the vital question of parental choice. We all live in a realistic world, and we know that we can talk only of preference rather than of choice, in that choice cannot be maximised in every case. If a school that takes 120 pupils is over-subscribed by a factor of four, clearly more than 300 people will be disappointed. We know that that is true of mainstream schools.
  The amendment deals with a smaller number of schools for the visually handicapped. It refers only to allowing parents to express a preference. If that preference cannot be met, just as preferences cannot always be met for children who attend mainstream schools, parents will fully understand, so long as the procedures are clear and they have a right of appeal and a right to an input. If my hon. Friend listens to the arguments on the subject that have been advanced from both sides of the House, the signal that he will give will be superb, and he will go down, as I believe that he will, as a superb education Minister—especially if he does as I ask.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I do not intend to detain the House long, because I had the opportunity in Committee to voice many of the arguments. However, I am aware that some hon. Members are hearing the arguments for the first time.
  I begin by talking about some of the difficulties regarding special needs that arise in my constituency—and, I am sure, in many others—which the Bill will do nothing to correct. Those difficulties are caused by the problem of funding. I know that funding may not be a popular subject to mention to Ministers at this time. In view of the general state of the economy, it may be unrealistic to think about more money for education just now. None the less, over the past few years local education authorities' funds have become increasingly tight, and their ability to supply additional support in the classroom for children with special educational needs has been reduced.
  Parents of pupils with special educational needs are now beginning to realise that their children can be guaranteed extra help in the classroom only if each child has a statement. I feel sad about that. Ideally, there should be a more informal relationship between children, parents, teachers and the local education authority. The LEA should be able to supply what children need without having to go through a lengthy formal procedure.

  261
  Unfortunately, many parents now realise that they must go through that procedure to ensure that their children get the extra help which is needed.
  11.15 pm
  In my constituency in the past two years, there has been a vast increase in the number of children who are receiving statements. The local education authority has increased the amount of money available for children with special needs, but it has not been able to keep pace with the increased number of statements. As a result, many children have found that the learning support they receive in the classroom is being steadily diminished year by year, which puts extra pressure on local education authorities. Parents find that difficult to understand.
  Local education authorities are often criticised because they take too long to make statements or they supply statements that are not meaningful documents. In that case, it is not easy for the parents to say, "The child's statement says this and you are not supplying it."
  I am not defending local education authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) ably said, we are not addressing the root cause of the problem which is the lack of resources and the difficulty of local education authorities in supplying the necessary resources for children.
  A real danger is that the process of statementing will gradually encompass a larger percentage of children unless definite criteria are laid down as to what constitutes special needs. Pressures do exist, and that fact needs to be addressed. The Bill does not address the problem.
  The Government's answer has been to provide tribunals for parents to challenge local education authority intransigence. Although we support tribunals, there is a danger that they set up confrontational situations between parents and local education authorities. We should be looking to a spirit of co-operation. We want parents, children, teachers, local education authority officials and educational psychologists to come to some amicable agreement on what is in the child's best interests. We rehearsed these arguments in Committee. We need a pre-tribunal arbitration stage that would enable the issues to be settled in a much more informal way. We would not need to go through a legalistic and what could be an expensive procedure. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that proposal, although it was rejected previously.
  There are other problems. I was interested in the number of statements issued by my local education authority. I am speaking from memory, but I think that my local education authority had completed two thirds of its statements in the six-month procedure period. The reason why one third of the statements had not been completed did not have anything to do with the local education authority. Some of the problems related to social services and others to the district health authority.
  It is difficult to understand that, although the local education authority has a duty to provide a statement within a six-month period—which seems to be reasonable and which we all applaud—statements may be held up because other agencies are involved. We need to address that matter seriously.
  When we asked the Minister about the matter in Committee, we were told that there were three possible answers. One was that parents had different means of complaining if other agencies were involved. However, if it
  262
  were a national health service complaint, parents would have to complain through the procedures for complaining about health services. They would have to go to the chief executive or general manager of their local health service or hospital. If that failed, they would have to take it up with the health service ombudsman.
  My district health authority takes, on average, approximately two and a half months to respond to my letters. Such a time scale would make nonsense of the NHS complaints procedure for parents trying to get a quick response from a health authority.
  It might be interesting for Ministers to reflect on another problem that I came across. One parent did not want her child to be statemented. It had not occurred to her that her child was in such serious difficulties that she needed a statement. But the child's head teacher could not supply her with the resources that she required unless she had a statement. So the parent was put under great pressure to have her child statemented when she did not want that. It caused some conflict. The parent felt, rightly or wrongly, that a statement was a stigma and she did not want her child to be labelled in that way. We must take that view on board and be sensitive to parents' feelings.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Lady is putting a most interesting point. However, children have to be categorised in many ways—in terms of IQ, special need and other needs. Special needs are simply one form of need. Does the hon. Lady agree that if parents are carefully and properly counselled they will accept the statementing process, if it is suitably sensitive? Sometimes it is not, I am sorry to say. That is when problems arise.
  Mrs. Campbell: My point is that it is perhaps anomalous to single out children with special needs for this treatment. I ask the House to consider whether it is always appropriate to meet those needs by a statement. Certainly in the past, when LEAs had more flexibility and perhaps more funds available, it was usually possible to provide a great deal of support for children in the classroom without their having to go through the statementing procedure. That is the main point.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend has reminded me of an interview that I had with a headmaster when I was recruited to my first school more than 35 years ago. We did not have statements. We had a remedial department which had as many as seven forms and seven qualified staff. The headmaster said, "This is the most expensive department in the school, and quite right too."
  Is not the challenge to the Secretary of State for Education tonight to explain how, in the circumstances of competitive performance and results of pupils which he is creating in the Bill, headmasters or headmistresses who think in that direction will be able to use their best endeavours to see that that position is maintained? Will there not be a problem of people taking action, possibly legal action, against the school or, indeed, the Secretary of State, to define what best endeavours are?
  Mrs. Campbell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Perhaps the Minister will take it up in his reply to the debate.
  Opposition Members who feel that schools are communities which provide for a wide variety of different needs and abilities feel that as much integration as is

  263
  physically and humanly possible should be achieved. Parents who have experienced mainstream integration for their children with special educational needs often speak highly of that experience and are anxious that, if they move from one local authority to another, their child can still be integrated into a mainstream school.
  Many good local education authorities have planned to integrate children into mainstream schools and, consequently, have had to make some difficult decisions about closing special schools. Making resources available in mainstream schools often means running down provisions in special schools and closing one in order to fund the other. I believe that is right, but the ability of local education authorities to make that provision and fund it sensibly will be greatly reduced by the Bill, because the Government have introduced a clause to allow special schools to opt out of local authority control.
  I can envisage a good local education authority that is trying to integrate children into the mainstream sector finding that the number of children in a special school is reducing and that the only sensible educational solution is to close down the school. If the school objects to that decision, it now has the opportunity to opt out of local authority control. The Minister has given repeated assurances that he will not allow that to happen, but we all know that, in practice, it does occur and schools opt out because they wish to fight local education authority closure plans. I am worried that if they opt out, grant-maintained special schools will do their damnedest to attract as many pupils as possible and, if they are successful, they will reverse the integration process and that will have a damaging effect on the community and, ultimately, on children with special educational needs.
  I have made some points. I am afraid that they may not all be related directly to the amendments under discussion, but I hope that the Government will respond to them.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I suggest that one assumption underlies all the amendments which have been tabled and supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that we debate and search for the best policies to benefit children with special educational needs with the minimum of political partisanship. Therefore, I take some of the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) as, to some extent, badinage.
  The assumption underlying the amendments, which reflects that of the Government in framing the Bill, is that there should be carefully planned and co-ordinated provision of education for children with special needs in a strategy that embraces both the grant-maintained sector and the local authority maintained sector. That is what the Government want and what we all want.
  However, the Bill does not make it clear how that is to be achieved. The roles of the Funding Agency for Schools and grant-maintained schools need to be interlocked almost at every point with the role of local education authorities in relation to special educational needs. We should be able to look forward to an intimate complementarity and partnership between them. But it seems to me that the mechanisms and processes whereby this is to be achieved are not made entirely clear in the Bill. The Government assume that it will happen, and no doubt
  264
  the sensible and well intentioned people who work in special educational needs will do their best to ensure that it does.
  I suspect that amendments Nos. 73 and 74 to clause 149 were tabled by Labour Front-Bench Members in a deliberately simplistic way to remove the qualification on the duty of all concerned to make appropriate provision for each child. I am much in favour of the deletion of the cliché "use their best endeavours". It is not appropriate that a Bill brought to the House by the Department of Education should contain clichés. Jargon is unavoidable, but clichés should be abhorred. However, it is not helpful to substitute for this cliché a summary insistence on perfection. How, in practice, are the powers and duties of all concerned to interlock in the best interests of children with special educational needs?
  11.30 pm
  In subsections (3) and (4), clause 5 requires a two-way sharing of information between the Funding Agency for Schools and local education authorities. Clause 142(4) requires the governing body of a grant-maintained school to provide information to a local education authority in the exercise of its duties. So far so good, but the precise nature of the mutual obligations remains unclear. The responsibilities of the two sectors are properly inseparable, as the drafting of clauses 148 and 149, without amendment, indicates.
  The funding agency has a duty to secure sufficient places in grant-maintained schools, including places for children with special needs who do not have a statement. As has been said, such children may constitute about 18 per cent. of the nation's school children, of whom an increasing proportion will be in grant-maintained schools as the sector grows. The funding agency must provide realistic funding to support these pupils. It must also provide capital and maintenance grants to cover, for example, the cost of physical adaptations and specialised equipment that may be necessary to enable grant-maintained schools to receive and educate children with particular disabilities.
  How does my hon. Friend propose that the funding agency should be provided with the necessary expertise and be enabled to give the necessary priority to this dimension of its responsibilities? Meanwhile, the local education authority, operating in its sphere, has responsibility for children who are to be statemented. It is responsible for the process of assessment, for the establishment of the statement, for ensuring that what is specified is provided and for subsequent review and reassessment. For many children, this whole process will begin and continue within grant-maintained schools.
  More broadly, local education authorities have a duty —set out in clause 147—to keep under review the whole range of provision for children with special education needs in their areas. It is clear that that duty will have to be undertaken in the closest co-ordination with others concerned. Obviously, in the case of the grant-maintained sector, it is crucial that it be carried out in conjunction with health authorities, to which local education authorities and schools look for the provision of speech therapy and physiotherapy. The interests of far too many children have been lost in the gap between the responsibilities of LEAs and those of health authorities. I should have liked to see

  265
  that aspect of co-ordination more firmly secured in this legislation. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) was right to draw attention to this issue.
  Local education authorities' reviews of provision for special educational needs should also be undertaken in close relationship with section 19 reviews under the Children Act. Department of Education circular 791 calls for clear and coherent authoritywide policies for special educational needs and for monitoring the performance of schools and support services. These amendments, in their various ways, seek to secure the achievement of this objective. I do not say that they all do so satisfactorily, but that, I think, is the Government's aim.
  PagAt all points, therefore, co-ordination is assumed, but it remains unclear—to me at any rate—how local education authorities are empowered to achieve it. Clause 149(3) sets out a duty to promote integration. Amendment 42 to clause 148 bears on that issue. I am glad that the Government have given renewed impetus to integration, but integration must be carried forward at a pace and in a manner that is in the interest of the child.
  That implies a full knowledge on the part of LEAs of the circumstances and nature of provision in all schools, including grant-maintained schools, and close cooperation between them. That will certainly be the wish of professionals, but what powers will the LEA have in the event that professionals in the grant-maintained sector disagree with the judgment of professionals in the LEA sector?
  Both sectors have a vital interest in the training and professional development of teachers. With more children with special needs being educated in mainstream schools and with our rising aspirations for children with special educational needs expressed in the national curriculum, there is an immense task for initial teacher training and for the in-service professional education of teachers.
  Every teacher will need at least a competence in the education of children with special needs, and every school will need special needs co-ordinators and possibly other staff trained to increasingly high expertise in the highly diverse field of special educational needs. All of that will need systematic organisation and monitoring, and I am not clear from the Bill how responsibility for that will be apportioned.
  The Funding Agency for Schools and the grant-maintained sector will have to work with LEAs to secure a rational and sufficiently extensive overall pattern of special needs provision. Every school will need to be able to cope with the most common special needs. No school should be able to shirk that responsibility, which is found enriching by schools that embrace it positively, as most do.
  In the middle range of needs, there will have to be carefully planned, differentiated provision involving specialist support staff and specialist units in the grant-maintained and LEA sectors. Then there will, certainly for the foreseeable future, need to be special schools. The Bill envisages that they may be grant-maintained schools, although overall responsibility to secure the range of provision will rest with the LEA. For rare and intensely special needs, there will have to be highly specialised provision at regional or national level.
  In that context, and bearing in mind amendment 51, I too am puzzled that the Government have not proposed to entitle parents to express a preference for their child to be placed at a non-maintained special school. Many of those schools, centres of excellence, must be considered to be an
  266
  indispensable part of the overall system. It is the duty of the LEA to provide suitable provision to meet the particular needs of the child, and placement at a non-maintained special school will, in particular cases, be appropriate.
  We, and LEAs, must have regard for the efficient use of resources in that incantation familiar from the 1981 Act and, properly, reproduced in the Bill. But if that objective is to be achieved, and if the formula is not to mean merely rationing and disappointment, the most careful joint planning and co-ordination will be essential. As the hon. Member for Cambridge suggested, we must avert the increasing tendency for more statements to be sought, because that does not tend to the efficient use of resources.
  So the lines of responsibility must be clear. The principal message of the Audit Commission and HMI in getting in on the act was the need for clearer definition of objectives and responsibilities and for improved accountability in the special needs sphere. The Audit Commission and HMI saw the LEA as the champion of the pupil with special educational needs, but how are LEAs to fulfil that role in relation to the Funding Agency for Schools and the grant-maintained sector?
  That is what the group of amendments variously seeks to address, and no doubt the code of practice which is adumbrated in clause 145 will clarify a great deal. But I should be grateful if the Minister would give some foretaste of it and explain how he envisages the necessary close co-ordination between the sectors being achieved.
  Mr. Bowis: One should begin speaking in any debate on special educational needs by paying tribute to the achievements of Conservative Administrations, who have made giant strides, as is recognised by the professionals who deal with children with those needs. We are light years on from the generation to which the hon. Member For Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred, and he recognises the progress that has been made.
  It is against that background that we are now looking to tighten regulations, take them a bit further and move them on. That is what this Bill does, in terms of the tribunal, speeding up statementing, and so on. The next stage may well be, as I have hinted to my right hon. Friend in the past, to look at ways in which the funding process for the achievement of statementing by local education authorities might be assisted by some mandatory award system which would take away any question mark over the determination of LEAs to proceed and remove any disincentive for them to do so on grounds of cost.
  Mr. Spearing rose—
  Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I think that, like me, he is looking forward to the Minister's response.
  When we reached this stage in the Committee, dealing with schedule 9, it was one of the moments when the Committee came together across the divide of politics. I think that that is recognised by the Hansard record, which refers to the amendment being proposed by "Mr. Win Forth". I can only suggest that that was a recognition that my hon. Friend was moving fast towards all-party agreement on this.
  More seriously, the debate that we had then was resisted by my hon. Friend on the grounds that the amendment was a little too wide and because of the precedent that he saw being set. I am grateful to my hon.

  267
  Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir. J. Hannam) for tabling his amendment and indeed to our colleagues for supporting him. He put a better way of achieving this to the House and to Ministers. The point that he made about these being charitable schools which depend almost exclusively for their fee funding on placements with the LEAs is an important one.
  My hon. Friend the Minister said in Committee that he would ponder on that and, I think he said, come back another day. I do not know whether this is that other day, but perhaps we can be thinking in terms of finding a way of securing the future of these schools and, more important, securing the right education for the children about whom we are talking. I have had too many cases in which the LEA eventually agrees to the placing of a child in such a charitable school only after a great deal of effort, campaigning and pressure from me and others. We need to shift the balance a little towards parental choice, if we can.
  I have the case of a child now going to the Department on appeal on the ground that the LEA believes that there is an adequate school for deaf children in the area maintained by the borough, but the parents believe that there is too much emphasis on signing in that school and feel very strongly that there should be an alternative school available. However, the only alternative is in the same category.
  I do not know whether we can put it into the Bill in the form that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter is seeking by giving the parents the right to name a school and the LEA the right to decide whether that naming is reasonable. I look forward to my hon. Friend's response, and I ask him to go on pondering, as he promised he would, until we can ensure that such children have the education that we know they need.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I do not wish to detain the House for long this evening, but if we are to achieve a limited number of statements and extra teaching for those with special educational needs within our schools, we will have to do at least two things.
  One is to change the training within our teacher training establishments so that teachers are trained to recognise and diagnose special educational needs at a very early age. When that diagnosis has taken place, they must know what to do about it and how to teach those children. They must have the modest additional resources in terms of teacher time within each school to give that necessary extra attention and intensive teaching.
  That will need additional money, but it could and should be encompassed within the budget for special educational needs. I fear that the worst cases—the statemented cases—will attract all the resources, and leave little to provide the extra teaching time for the 14 to 15 per cent. of the school population who will need it if they are to achieve their natural ambitions, and if their natural ability is to be realised.
  A revolution will be required in our teacher training colleges, and a change in the way in which education authorities and the Department of Education use the money necessary for special educational needs. I hope that the Minister will indeed ponder those matters, and will ensure that our teachers know how to teach, and how to teach children to read, using phonetic and other methods, as that is what those children desperately need and have
  268
  been denied by the avant garde experimental teaching methods so prevalent in our teacher training colleges and schools in recent years.
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Forth: In the time left to me, I shall endeavour to deal as fully as I can with the amendments that have been mentioned in the debate. I hope that I shall be able to cover most of the issues raised by hon. Members from both sides of the House.
  The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) claimed amendments Nos. 73 and 74 were designed to strengthen the position of children with special educational needs who may not have a statement of their needs. In trying to persuade the House that the amendments are unnecessary, I remind hon. Members that we amended the Bill in Committee to benefit all pupils with special needs, but particularly those without statements. To do so, we introduced two new policies: a requirement on governors to publish and report to parents on their schools' policies for all their pupils with special educational needs, with or without statements; and an explicit provision for local education authorities to continue to offer special educational needs support services to all children with SEN in maintained schools—whether grant-maintained or local education authority schools—who wished to use them. The amendments introducing those policies are now clauses 149(4) and 150 of the Bill.
  An underlying principle of the Education Act 1981 was that the school should meet the great majority of the special needs of its pupils, with support as necessary from the authority. The introduction of local management of schools and self-governing, grant-maintained status means that schools are now increasingly autonomous. But increased autonomy means increased responsibility towards pupils with special needs and increased accountability towards their parents. The school has the direct influence, constant contact with, and the prime responsibility for all its pupils, and the school is directly accountable to parents.
  I believe that we have strengthened the duties on governors in clause 149 to "use their best endeavours"—a phrase which has been repeated over and over again in the debate—to meet the needs of pupils with special educational needs. We want all school governors to think carefully about the provision that their schools make for pupils, and that is why we tabled an amendment to the clause.
  Our amendment—clause 149(4)—provides for a school's annual report to parents to include information about the school's policies for pupils with SEN. The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing the information to be included. The annual reports are required of LEA governors, under section 30 of the Education Act 1986, and of grant-maintained school governors under paragraph 8 of schedule 6 to the Bill.
  The Secretary of State will be able to prescribe the areas that governors' policy statements should cover, and I envisage that the statements will be very comprehensive. The Secretary of State will use existing powers, under section 8 of the 1980 Act and clause 137(1) of the Bill, to require school governors to publish information about their policies for pupils with SEN.
  We shall consult on the issues that schools' policies should address, but I should like to give the House some

  269
  idea of what we have in mind. A school's policy might cover basic information that parents might want, such as the name of any SEN co-ordinator—that was mentioned during the debate—the number of pupils with special needs in the school, admissions arrangements and any SEN specialism for which the school caters.
  The hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) should note that the admissions arrangements and other matters, including the policies I have outlined, would cover special units that were part of a school, as well as the school itself. For that purpose, units would be regarded as an integral part of the school.
  A school's policy might cover equipment and building adaptations, physical access for the disabled, teachers with specialist SEN qualifications and staff training provision. The policy might then set out the school's objectives for its pupils with special needs, including its arrangements for identification of such pupils. The policy statement might set out the school's recording and evaluation procedures, and the indicators which it uses to monitor the implementation of its policy. It might then specify how it meets those objectives through its arrangements for access to the national curriculum for special needs pupils, use made of support teachers, differentiated teaching practices, policy on short or part-time withdrawal, information on individual curriculum programmes and pupil groupings.
  Finally, it might be sensible if the policy set out arrangements with bodies and agencies outside the school. The policy might state what arrangements the school had with other special or ordinary schools and with the local health and social services. It might also set out its policy for obtaining SEN support services, either from the LEA or other sources.
  The degree of detail and comprehensiveness that I have outlined might reassure many of those who have spoken in the debate. It might go some way to providing a reply to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), because a school's policy might identify the role of that school, as defined by it, and the way in which it would be required to work with LEAs.
  On amendment No. 50, I have already stressed the Government's commitment to meeting the needs of all children with special needs. We recognise, however, that a proportion of them will require formal assessment of their educational needs and, therefore, a statutory statement of SEN. In addressing their needs in the Bill, one of our major priorities has, again, been to involve their parents as active partners in the whole process of determining their children's education. We are doing that by creating extended rights for parents, setting up an independent appeals mechanism and establishing a code of practice, which was referred to frequently in Committee and mentioned again tonight. That code of practice will govern LEAs' exercise of their functions under clause 155.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) tabled amendment No. 50 and said that he wanted to make LEAs justify, on a child's statement, their decision to specify a special school. The LEAs would not be similarly required to justify naming an ordinary school and I believe that the amendment is unnecessary, because the Government believe that LEAs should always discuss with parents all aspects of a statement. Those discussions
  270
  should include the name of the appropriate school, be it special school or ordinary. We are confident that the Bill makes full provision to that effect.
  The naming of a school is the final stage in writing a statement, and I believe that that is right. Surely there is little point in assessing needs and considering provision if the school has already been decided. The logical flow of the statement leads to naming the appropriate school, so the specification of needs and provision should justify that very naming.
  Of course, the LEA must explain its decisions to parents. Indeed, parents should have been closely involved throughout the process of assessing the child and drafting the statement. We have already issued clear advice to this effect. Our circular 22/89 states:
  "The relations between professional advisers and parents during the process of assessment are of crucial importance. Parents should be encouraged to feel that they are partners in this process".
  I hope that the House is assured that the further guidance that we shall issue under the Bill will underline the importance of that partnership. Beyond that, the Bill gives parents an important new right—to state a preference for their child's school. The statement will go to parents in draft form. They will have explicit rights to make representations to the LEA and to hold meetings with it. I believe that, therefore, there will be ample opportunity for parents and the authority to discuss the name of the school which should appear on the statement. When parents state a preference, LEAs will be bound to abide by that preference, so long as certain reasonable conditions are met. In that respect, the Bill makes fully adequate provision for parents to express their views and for authorities to explain their thinking. At the end of that process, it is for the LEA to decide which school should be named and to arrange the provision. But the LEA cannot, in fulfilling its duties, ignore—even if it does not always meet—the wishes of parents. Moreover, authorities know that they cannot act arbitrarily in naming a school. Their actions will be subject to scrutiny by the new SEN tribunal set up under the Bill. They must, under the Bill, tell parents of their rights of appeal to that tribunal. If a case goes to appeal, the LEA will have to justify itself before the tribunal, which will have the power to overturn an LEA's decision and to instruct that LEA to name the school of the parent's choice.
  I want to talk about amendment No. 51, because I know of the interest in the subject, which was so eloquently raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Exeter and for Dartford (Mr. Dunn). The amendment refers to the parents' rights, under the Bill, to influence an authority's decision on which school to name on the child's statement of special educational needs.
  I am not persuaded of the need for the amendment, and I shall explain why. The Government fully recognise the high quality of specialised provision offered by many non-maintained special schools and other institutions outside the maintained sector. I am confident that the Bill does not jeopardise their future—many people have expressed a fear that it will—as long as they continue to provide the best education at the most reasonable cost, as I believe that they do. We expect LEAs to take into account the quality and cost effectiveness of such schools when considering the placement of a child.
  Our intention in paragraph 3(1) of schedule 9 is to extend to parents of children with statements of special

  271
  educational needs the same right that the Education Act 1980 gave to other parents. That is the right to express a preference for the maintained school that their child should attend. If hon. Members consider the nature of non-maintained special schools, they will see why it might not be appropriate to include them in the provision. A non-maintained special school is a school not maintained by a local education authority, but which is approved by the Secretary of State as a special school—currently under section 9(5) of the Education Act 1944. There are at present 81 such schools, many of them run by major charities, such as the Royal National Institute for the Blind, Barnardos and other such organisations.
  Those schools are clearly distinct from those in the maintained sector. They are not subject to closure or alteration by local education authorities; nor will the Funding Agency for Schools have any jurisdiction over them. They exist in a market, and will continue to do so by offering what that market wants. They have no need to be propped up by specific legislative provision of the sort envisaged by the amendment. Moreover, if non-maintained special schools were brought within the scope of the provision, there would be a serious question about where to draw the line.
  Independent schools might take the view that they, too, should be included. Some hon. Members mentioned that possibility. In law, there is no such thing as an independent special school, but there are independent schools that may be approved to cater for children with special educational needs. There are more than 100 of those, and yet more that take in individual statemented children on the basis of specific approvals obtained by LEAs from the Secretary of State. Such schools do not even have to be "special" in character. They may be ordinary independent schools that happen to be able to offer provision for a particular disability. It would be hard to justify excluding any independent schools that had the appropriate approvals from an extension of the "parental preference" provision which took in the non-maintained sector. If all independent schools were given an incentive to try and get on the bandwagon, there would be a real danger of matters getting out of hand.
  However, we recognise that some parents may feel strongly that their child should be placed outside the maintained sector in, for example, a non-maintained special school. Let me spell out what the Bill provides for such parents. Instead of expressing a preference under paragraph 3 of schedule 9, the parents will make representations under paragraph 4(1)(a). In response to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, may I say that parents will do so at the draft statement stage—at the same stage of the proceeding at which they would be able to exercise their rights under paragraph 3 of schedule 9. Paragraph 4(1)(a) provides for parents to make representations to the LEA about the content of their child's statement—including making a case for placement in a non-maintained special school, independent school or any other institution that they may consider appropriate for their child. The LEA will then be under a duty, as in paragraph 5(1) of schedule 9, to consider all such representations before finalising the statement. It will have to do so against the background of its statutory duties to determine and arrange appropriate special educational
  272
  provision for the child. The LEA will be fully aware that if it cannot justify its decision not to name the non-maintained special school, the parent may, under clause 157, challenge the LEA's decision and appeal to the independent tribunal, which would then have the power to direct the LEA to place the child in a school outside the maintained sector.
  We have achieved a balance between recognising the special independent nature of such schools and their special privileges, which I briefly described, while allowing the full mechanisms available in the Bill, including those that I outlined, which I believe will give full rights to parents and full protection to non-maintained special schools. For those reasons, I am not persuaded that we should accept the amendment in the names of my hon. Friends. I hope that on reflection—
  It being Twelve o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER pursuant to Order [15 December] and Resolution [12 March] put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Amendment negatived.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Question on all remaining amendments up to the end of clause 195 moved by a member of the Government.

Clause 150

  PROVISION OF SEN ASSISTANCE
  Amendment made: No. 126, in page 90, line 35, at end insert—
  '( ) The terms on which goods or services are supplied by local education authorities to the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools or grant-maintained special schools under this section may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, include such terms as to payment as may be prescribed'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Schedule 9

  MAKING AND MAINTENANCE OF STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION I55
  Amendment made: No. 139, in page 182, line 35, leave out from 'after' to end of line 40 and insert—

  '(i) a request under this paragraph,

  (ii) the service of a copy of the statement under paragraph 6 above,

  (iii) if the statement has been amended, the date when notice of the amendment is given under paragraph 10(3)(b) below, or

  (iv) if the parent has appealed to the Tribunal under section 157 of this Act or this paragraph, the date when the appeal is concluded,

  whichever is the later'.—[ Mr. Forth.]

Schedule 10

  GOVERNMENT AND CONDUCT OF GRANT-MAINTAINED SPECIAL SCHOOLS
  Amendment made: No. 140, in page 187, leave out lines 35 to 41 and insert—
  '( ) there is a report of an inspection of the school in which the person who made it expressed the opinion that special measures were required to be taken in relation to the school,
  ( ) either that person was a member of the Inspectorate or the report stated that the Chief Inspector agreed with his opinion,
  ( ) if any registered inspector or member of the Inspectorate has made a later report of an inspection of the school under Chapter I of Part V of this Act, he

  273
  did not express the opinion in the report that special measures were not required to be taken in relation to the school, and
  ( ) the Secretary of State has received a statement prepared under section 193 of this Act or the period allowed by subsection (2) of that section for the preparation of such a statement has expired;
  and expressions used in this sub-paragraph and in that Part have the same meaning as in that Pare.—[Mr. Forth.]

Clause 171
  MAINTAINED SPECIAL SCHOOL BECOMING GRANT-MAINTAINED SPECIAL SCHOOL
  Amendment made: No. 137, in page 102, line 21, leave out 'such date as may be specified in the proposals' and insert 'the date of approval'.—[Mr. Forth.]
Clause 178

  SPECIFICATION OF SCHOOLS IN NOTICES UNDER SECTION 177(2)
  Amendments made: No. 131, in page 107, line 29, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
  '(b) if another local education authority are responsible for determining the arrangements for the admission of pupils to the school, that authority.'.
  No. 132, in page 107, line 36, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
  '(b) if another local education authority are responsible for determining the arrangements for the admission of pupils to the school, that authority.'.—[Mr. Forth.]
  Further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

  BROADCASTING
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Gordon McMaster be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting and Mr. John Gunnell be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

British Rail Maintenance Ltd. (Eastleigh)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
12.1 am
Mr. Stephen Milligan: I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to raise an issue of fundamental concern to my constituency. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for agreeing to reply to the debate, because I know that he has spent a very arduous day in the Committee considering the Railways Bill.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to pass on to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport my thanks for the visit that he paid to the railway maintenance yard at Eastleigh last September. I know that he is very aware of the problems that the works faces, and I am appreciative of the help that my hon. Friend has already given.
John Arlott, the well-known cricket commentator and Hampshire personality, was asked 30 years ago to comment on Eastleigh. His reply was a bit double-edged, but I will repeat it:
"Anyone who admires Eastleigh seems to me like the character evoked by a modern poet—
'As fond as a plain woman's lovers
Of charms that the world does not see.'
But Eastleigh has a heart, a huge fiery, steam-pulsed, hammer-beating heart."
The heart of Eastleigh is its railway maintenance works, which is the subject of this debate.
Since 1891, when the London and South-Western railway—an efficient and wisely managed private company —decided to bring its wagon and carriage works from south London to Eastleigh, the works has been the heart of the town. That is particularly so since 1909, when the company decided to move the locomotive building works there also.
Today, 1,400 of my constituents are employed at the Eastleigh works, and hundreds more elsewhere on the railways. The works is still the biggest employer in the town. Hundreds more—employees' families, shopkeepers and businesses—depend on the works for their livelihood or welfare. It is vital to my constituency that British Rail Maintenance Ltd. continues as a prosperous and successful employer.
BRML is not some antiquated nationalised industry but a well-run and efficient nationalised industry. It has a first-class record. Every year for the past five years the works has been able, because of its efficiency, to reduce its charges to the railway by 2·5 per cent. It is flexible, and because its work force has a wide range of skills, the works can adapt in times of crisis. Perhaps the most striking example of that happened two years ago, when thousands of passengers were delayed by the famous wrong type of snow. That situation was dealt with: they got the right kind of maintenance at Eastleigh. The work force worked 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and managed to repair all the electric motors that had been damaged; very soon, trains were back in service. Had it not been for the large, flexible and skilled work force at Eastleigh, that might not have been possible. The work is done with increasing rapidity. Work on the light-maintenance trains can be turned around within three days.
Eastleigh is also remarkable for the good relations between management and work force. I am glad to say that representatives of both are here tonight to listen to the debate.

275
Despite that record of achievement, jobs—alas—are at risk in the rail maintenance yards. There are two reasons for that. First, the recession has meant a reduction in the use of trains on the network, and therefore a reduced need for maintenance; secondly—rather ironically—the Government's investment programme means that new rolling stock is coming on stream which requires less maintenance. For example, the new trains with sliding doors need much less maintenance than the old slam-door trains. There is a serious risk that many BRML workers will lose their jobs in the years ahead, whatever happens as a result of privatisation.
I sought the opportunity to speak tonight, before the Government have made any decisions about privatisation as it affects the maintenance sector, to ensure that they are aware of the concern that is felt. It is precisely because jobs are at risk and the welfare of my constituency is threatened that I hope the Government will consider very seriously, before making any decisions on privatisation, the effect on the work force and my constituents.
The company recently announced that it had asked the management consultants McKinsey and Co. to establish the best solutions and the best way forward. I welcome that decision: McKinsey is a first-rate company, and I think that its advice could be most helpful. I note from its remit, however, that it has been asked to consider not only the best form of maintenance and what is best for the railways, but what is best for the employees. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us tonight that McKinsey will consider the employees' concerns, and will be prepared to meet the trade unions before making its recommendations.
I am principally concerned about the possible effects of the general privatisation of the network on railway maintenance. If the new franchisees are simply given terms of five, six or seven years to run the railways, they will naturally be tempted to cut corners—not to carry out proper maintenance, and to allow longer periods to elapse between maintenance sessions. That would not only be bad for the railways and for passengers; clearly, it would be extremely disadvantageous for my constituents who work for BRML.
I was very encouraged by a letter that my hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote to me last week in which he said that one option being considered by the Government was a special relationship between BRML and the new company set up to own the rolling stock—a company that would obviously have an interest in maintaining the quality of rolling stock, and would not be tempted to cut corners. I hope that the Government will explore that option further, with the aim of ensuring that corners are not cut in maintenance, and that the interests of BRML's employees in Eastleigh are taken fully into account.
I want to raise a number of points that are concerning my constituents and those who work at BRML; I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can answer them. The first relates to the time scale. For three or four years, those who work at BRML have been in suspense: they have not known what their future is. They have been worried about job losses; they do not know whether BRML will remain a separate company, or whether it will be privatised. Can my hon. Friend give us some idea when a decision will be made so that those workers will know their future?
276
Secondly, will my hon. Friend confirm that BRML in Eastleigh will probably continue to be the main centre for the long-term maintenance of Southern region trains, whoever owns or runs them?
Thirdly, will he deal with an issue that troubles many of my constituents—the future of their pensions? That concerns both those who work on the railways now and the thousands who have retired. Last Saturday, I held a meeting in my constituency to discuss the issue: it was attended by 300 or 400 pensioners, who were extremely concerned about some of the misleading newspaper reports that they had read, implying that the Government might do a Maxwell and filch the pension fund. I should like an assurance not only that the value of pensions will be maintained but that pensioners, especially BRML pensioners, will in no way be disadvantaged by privatisation. They have paid their contributions and are entitled to the full pensions which they have earned during their working lives.
If the Government decide to privatise BRML, I should like to put a number of points on the record. Will the Government make it their objective to ensure that there is a level playing field? There has been considerable concern in recent months because some of the electric traction motors which are overhauled at Eastleigh have been put out to tender without BRML having a chance to put in a bid. There should be a level playing field, but there is concern that some work might go to other depots. My constituents accept that the railway demands the best price, service and conditions, but they want to be reassured that they will have the benefit of competing on equal terms with other companies and depots which may want to do the work.
If privatisation occurs, will the Minister make every effort to ensure that any new company is well managed and that some of the lessons of what went wrong at British Rail Engineering Ltd. are learnt before new arrangements are made for BRML?
Privatisation will clearly bring benefits to the railway —as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I support privatization—but there will also be costs. I am concerned to ensure that those costs do not fall disproportionately on my constituents. In that respect, I should like those who work at BRML to gain some clear benefits if it is privatised. Would it be possible to have a shareholding scheme so that if the company prospers those who work there reap the benefit instead of it going to an outside organisation which merely bought it?
I have in mind the favourable experience of another company in my constituency, the shipbuilders Vosper Thornycroft, which was successfully privatised 10 years ago. It has doubled its productivity and has the largest order book in its history. It is one of the few defence firms in the south of England which is recruiting workers. It has been able to offer its employees shares in the company— about half have accepted—so they have drawn a direct benefit from the company's success. With the same thought in mind, would it be possible to expand the work for which BRML can bid? At the moment it is limited to trains on the Southern region. Could it hid for work elsewhere on the railway network or possibly for work in other sectors? The Minister may know that during the war the Eastleigh works produced bomb trolleys and worked on assault craft and a variety of other wartime needs. It is flexible and could do work for other industries.

277
Will the Minister offer some words of encouragement and assurance to my constituents? They are extremely worried about what will happen to their jobs. Unemployment in Eastleigh has traditionally been very low, but it has almost tripled in the past two years. The town of Eastleigh is very dependent on the railways. There is an air of uncertainty. We should be most grateful if the Minister could offer assurances that will enable my constituents and those who work at BRML to believe that they have a sound future.
I support the Government's privatisation programme because I believe that it will lead to greater use of the railways, which is what my constituents want. If any change to BRML can be managed in such a way that it benefits not only the railways but the employees, it will help the constituents of the railway town that I am proud to represent.
12.12 am
Mr. John Denham: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) and to the Minister for allowing me to make a brief contribution to this important debate. Many of my constituents work at British Rail Maintenance Ltd. and will also be listening carefully to the answers that the Minister will give. I shall be brief because I am as keen as anyone to hear the answers to the specific questions that have been asked.
I emphasise two points of particular importance. First, BRML is a public asset. Whether the Government intend to keep it in the public sector or move it to the private sector, it is in the public interest to ensure that it has a sound future. It is therefore in the public interest to ensure that no short-term actions are taken, or are allowed to be taken, which undermine BRML's ability to meet the heavy engineering needs of the railway network in the south-east and nationally.
How British Rail is privatised, if the Government persist in their intention to privatise it, and the links between the way it is privatised and the maintenance operations are critical to BRML's future.
I am one of those who believe that BRML's future will not be bright if it is left as an isolated unit, not integrated into the rest of the rail network, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give an assurance that BRML will not be left on its own to sink but will be linked in a positive way to the franchise operators—and ideally to those who will be operating services in the south-east—or to Railtrack, or to the leasing company that was referred to earlier.
I also hope that the Minister can give an assurance that BRML's core long-term viability will not be undermined by allowing light maintenance depots to asset-strip work which may be short term and profitable but which could end up by putting BRML out of business and denying the railway network the skills and expertise that exist at that important depot.
12.15 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Steve Norris): I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) on securing the debate. I am grateful to him for conveying his good wishes to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, who, sadly, cannot be with us. I know that one
278
of the things that my hon. Friend the Minister would have wanted to say is that we and our colleagues in the Department have been impressed by the consistent way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh has maintained his interest in the railworks in Eastleigh and has assiduously and constantly pressed us for the sort of assurance that he hopes to obtain from me this evening. The evidence for that is his consistent efforts to secure this Adjournment debate.
I am happy to join my hon. Friend's name with that of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who asked to intervene on behalf of his constituents. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), who I know is also keenly interested in the future of the railways in Great Britain, and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who leads for the Opposition on these matters, are also here.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh said, Eastleigh has a proud railway tradition. The locomotive works there was opened on the present site, as my hon. Friend doubtless knows, in 1910, for construction and repair of London and South-Western Railway locomotives. Today the works handles repairs and modifications to BR's fleet of multiple units and locomotives, especially the Network SouthEast stock. The aim of BRML is to achieve rapid turn-round times and get vehicles back into service quickly.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Public Transport visited Eastleigh with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh last September, he was impressed by the skills and adaptability of the BRML work force and, as my hon. Friend noted, the willingness of the work force to work constructively with management in producing a first-class product.
Eastleigh works has recently gained its British Standard quality certificate of which it can be justifiably proud. Over the years the Eastleigh work force has proved that it is capable of tackling any task that comes its way, displaying craftsmanship and achieving customer satisfaction of a very high order. I am sure that its good record will serve it well in the future. My hon. Friend is entirely right to want to clarify the future of all four of the BRML works as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend will know that, following the sale of BREL, the Eastleigh, Glasgow, Doncaster and Wolverton works became part of a new BR subsidiary—which is known as British Rail Maintenance Limited, and is responsible for heavy maintenance work for British Rail. That followed the board's decision that the design and supply of new traction and rolling stock should be competitively sourced from private manufacturers, with maintenance being undertaken in BR workshops on the basis of a component exchange system. That maintenance work is not, at present, put out to competitive tender, although components removed in BR workshops are overhauled externally following competitive tendering.
The Government's policy is that BR should widen private sector involvement in maintenance. We are still considering the options for BRML depots, but have made it clear that we see benefits in involving the private sector in the heavy repair work currently carried out by BRML. Private contractors do, of course, already carry out some heavier repair and refurbishment work for BR.
A number of options for the future of BRML are under consideration. One option would be to sell off BRML, either as a whole or by major individual depots, through

279
trade sales or through management-led employee buy-outs. BR and other rail operators would then contract for heavy maintenance. Although the outright sale of BRML has attractions, it might pose serious competition problems. Where major overhauls and repairs are concerned, the monopoly power of an individual depot would be less, provided that the individual works were distributed among different owners so that an effective monopoly was not established. But even if the elements were sold separately, it might be difficult or too expensive for a railway operator to use other than the nearest depot, particularly in the case of the electric third rail network.
A second option might be to transfer individual depots to that part of the railway which is their major customer. That might make sense in the case of the BRML Glasgow works and the ScotRail franchisee. But it might be less appropriate in the case of Eastleigh, given its wide role in servicing Network SouthEast stock south of the Thames, and the fact that more than one franchisee would be involved.
Many franchisees may, of course, want to lease their rolling stock. My hon. Friend made that point, and I shall return to it in a moment. Some may wish to do so through a simple finance lease so that the franchisee does his own maintenance. Others may wish to concentrate their efforts purely on marketing. For them, rolling stock lessors might offer rolling stock on a fully maintained basis, recovering their costs through rolling stock leasing charges. The lessor in turn could either contract out maintenance or supply it from in-house resources. Either route could make use of the valuable expertise and experience which currently resides in BRML. Some combination of those three options may prove appropriate, depending on the circumstances. Above all, we must retain flexibility to meet the emerging requirements of future operators.
My hon. Friend is right to identify the sort of relationship that might exist in future between BRML and a publicly owned company established for the purpose of leasing railway stock. Certainly that would avoid the risk, if their were to be a risk, of short cutting by any individual franchisee on long-term maintenance, the effect of which might be beyond the immediate terms of the initial franchise.
As my hon. Friend says, British Rail has appointed McKinsey as consultants to advise on the future of BRML and the Level 5 group of depots. I understand that the trades unions have been advised by BR of the terms of reference for the work. The remit is to consider what options exist in the light of the Government's emerging plans for BR privatisation and to report to BR in the spring. I confirm to my hon. Friend that the terms of reference for the McKinsey study specifically require the study to have regard to the interests of employees of BRML and of the Level 5 group of depots. We look forward to receiving the board's proposals for the future of its heavy maintenance depots. In that context, I must add that it would be inconceivable, to my mind, if in the course of its investigation and the preparation of the report McKinsey were not formally to meet the trade unions as part of that process.
I recognise that uncertainty about the future is causing anxiety among BRML workers. We will make an announcement as quickly as we can. Meanwhile, we are
280
giving further consideration to the relationship between rolling stock, franchising and access to maintenance facilities. The need to secure adequate maintenance facilities will be an important factor for franchisees, and could be a barrier to entry for new operators.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh and the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen asked several other specific questions which I shall attempt to answer in the time available. My hon. Friend asked that if privatisation took place there should be clear benefits for employees —such as, employee shareholding schemes and the opportunity to bid for a wider range of work. We shall certainly encourage employees to take a direct stake in the future of a franchised or privatised business in which they work. My hon. Friend will know that the BREL sale, for example, included an employee shareholding scheme. I am also pleased to confirm that a privatised BRML would have the opportunity to bid for a wider range of work. It would compete in the private sector on a level playing field.
BREL's experience demonstrates the greater repair opportunities that will be available following privatisation. For example, although British Rail and London Underground Ltd. remain the major customers, BREL —which is now ABB Transportation—has won significant contracts from various industrial sectors, including defence, utilities, the construction industry and transport operators. That sort of widening of the customer base must be beneficial to a company and its employees.
I should like to say a few words about the level playing field to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh referred. I understand that the BREL sale agreement contains legal limitations on what BR repairers can bid for. Certainly, that is an issue which would need to be addressed by BR before any sale of BRML. If Eastleigh were transferred to the private sector, the intention would be that it would compete fairly on a level playing field with other companies in the private sector. It will be important to ensure that franchisees and any rolling stock leasing companies have access to the full range of maintenance facilities.
My hon. Friend wanted an assurance that a privatised BRML would have top-quality management in order to take it forward. I am sure that he will agree with me that one of the benefits of privatisation is that railway management will be more free to get on with what it considers are priorities.
Obviously, the terms and conditions of the sale will be a matter for British Rail. The Secretary of State's role in that context is to give formal consent to the sale. The terms on which the sale will be offered make it clear that there would certainly be top-quality management available to BRML in a privatised form.
I shall spend a moment on the important matter of pensions which my hon. Friend raised. I regret that an emotive issue of such crucial importance has affected many thousands of people who are getting on in years and who are, understandably, worried, especially in the wake of the absolutely scandalous treatment of the employees belonging to pension funds in the control of the late Mr. Maxwell. It is quite reprehensible that pensioners in that circumstance should be worried by the sort of stories which have been going around suggesting that the Government might employ the technique ascribed to the late Mr. Maxwell when dealing with pensioners.
Let me make one thing clear. We accepted the rail unions' suggestion that a joint industry pension scheme

281
should succeed the present BR schemes after privatisation. We made it clear that the joint industry scheme will offer pension benefits which are "no less favourable" than the BR scheme for the staff transferring. We made it clear that successor employers who choose to leave the joint industry scheme will be required to make alternative arrangements which are "no less favourable" to meet that criterion.
Far from there being any intention to plunder the assets of the BR scheme, we have given two clear options to the trustees of the scheme as to how they want to see the future management of pensions for present and future BR pensioners. I give my hon. Friend an assurance which I am sure he accepts. The Government are not the slightest bit interested in making political capital out of this at the expense of some of the most vulnerable in society—the elderly who have genuine concerns about such issues and who are, understandably, concerned when they read some of the irresponsible reporting in the newspapers.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Norris: I have only three minutes, but, as I have dealt with all except one of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh raised, I shall be delighted to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene if he will be quick.
Mr. Wilson: I shall be extremely quick. We could solve a lot of people's worries if the Minister would give us an assurance that £4.25 billion will not be transferred from the British Rail pension fund to the Treasury under any circumstances.
Mr. Norris: This is my hon. Friend's debate. I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the traditions of the House. He knows that I cannot digress into the issue that he raises except to say that he is aware that the Government made two clear options available to the
282
trustees of the BR pension scheme. One involves the Government guaranteeing the payment of pensions, and thus taking over the assets of the scheme. The other involves the trustees determining a private arrangement which may well result in the pension scheme performing as well or perhaps even better. It has performed extremely well in the past.
I give the hon. Gentleman an unequivocal assurance that if the BR pension scheme trustees choose the latter course, the Government will respect that course and, indeed, urge it on the pensioners. It is important that the pensioners should listen to independent financial advice and take only the best quality advice available to them on the subject. I know that it is just as important to pensioners at Eastleigh as to pensioners everywhere else in the railway system.
Perhaps the most important point is that we are confident that, following BR privatisation, Eastleigh will be required to continue to use the well-established and extremely well-respected facilities at Eastleigh. That will make eminently good economic sense for operators in southern England—both franchisees and the residual BR. To train new staff to carry out maintenance functions is likely to be neither practicable nor economical in the required time scale. I am sure that the simple logic of that is the reassurance that the work force at BRML at Eastleigh seek. I am certain that successor companies and contractors will look for and require the considerable skills of the present work force.
I hope that in the time available I have managed to cover all the points that my hon. Friend raised. I assure him that if there are any other points on which he seeks further clarification I or my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport will be happy to write to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to One o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Languages Charter
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will specify the differences between(a) notification, (b) acceptance and (c) approval of the European charter for regional or minority languages.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Article 18 of the European charter for regional or minority languages provides that the charter will be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by the member states of the Council of Europe and that such instruments are to be deposited with the secretary general of the Council of Europe.

  Ratification, acceptance and approval are all ways in which a state indicates its consent to be bound by the treaty. They all have the same effect. Which method a state uses may reflect its domestic practice. But each method requires an instrument to be sent to the depositary specifying whether the state is ratifying, accepting or approving the charter.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which languages in the United Kingdom the Government are considering specifying under article 3 of the European charter for regional or minority languages.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We are still considering whether to sign the charter. That consideration is on the basis that it would apply to Welsh, Gaelic and Irish.

  Armenia
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking in relation to the economic blockade of Armenia by Azerbaijan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The European Community made representations to the Turkish Government on 29 January, asking Turkey to allow the transit of fuel supplies to Armenia from third countries and to fulfil earlier commitments to provide electricity to Armenia. Also on 29 January the president of the United Nations Security Council issued a statement expressing concern at the situation in Armenia and urging all countries in a position to help to facilitiate the provision of fuel and humanitarian assistance to Armenia. The British Government associate themselves with these calls and have taken the same line in their bilateral dealings with Turkey and Azerbaijan.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the continued economic blockade of Armenia by Azerbaijan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The President of Armenia has written to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and 62
  several Armenian Ministers have written to their British counterparts, about the dire effects the Azerbaijani economic blockade has had on Armenia. We have in recent months made nearly £700,000 available for relief work in Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh region. The European Community has made a 38 million ecu loan for food and medicines available to Armenia and is considering further emergency humanitarian aid.

  Macedonia
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on the application by Macedonia for admission to the United Nations; and what is his policy on moves to reach an early decision.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Macedonia's application for admission to the United Nations has now been circulated. The three EC members of the Security Council—United Kingdom, France and Spain—have put forward a draft resolution with the aim of securing Macedonia's early admission on terms acceptable to all parties. The president of the Security Council is consulting the Greeks and the Macedonians.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the British Government's policy on United Nations resolution 789 on Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We support the United Nations Secretary-General's mission of good offices and the Security Council resolutions, including 789, aimed at resolving the Cyprus dispute. We welcome the agreement by all parties to resume talks, and will continue to work for progress and help the Secretary-General.

  Departmental Officers (Travel)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many officers travelled first class to their posts abroad in the last year because of(a) their grade and (b) operational reasons.

  Mr. Goodlad
  In the 12 months to January 1993, 13 officers travelled first class from London to their posts abroad or returned to London from their posts abroad. One officer travelled first class by virtue of his grade, and 12 for operational reasons.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many diplomatic service officers travelled first class to posts abroad in the last year; at what cost; and in how many cases the families of such officers travelled in first class.

  Mr. Goodlad
  In the 12 months to January 1993, 13 diplomatic service officers travelled first class from London to their posts abroad, or returned to London from their posts abroad, and the total cost was £25,046. Nine officers were accompanied by their families, who also travelled first class: the total cost of the family fares was£18,697. In addition, private secretaries and advisers accompanying Ministers, and officers of the rank of deputy under-secretary or above may travel first class on duty journeys.
  63
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many return air tickets, per year, and of what class, are allocated to diplomatic service officers serving abroad for use by their dependants; and what is the maximum number of tickets available to each family each year.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Dependants at post have the same entitlements as officers. The entitlement for return air tickets allocated to diplomatic service officers serving abroad for use by their dependants is related to the difficulty of the post, and there are basically three categories: the least difficult posts—62—where representational officers and their dependants serve for four years with one fare-paid leave, and non-representational officers for 30 months with no fare-paid leave; the intermediate category—51 posts—where officers serve for three years with one fare-paid leave after 18 months, and the most difficult posts—85—where officers serve for up to three years with a fare-paid leave after each 12 months of duty. For such mid-tour leave journeys, the class of travel is dependent on the time taken to fly to post. For journeys of less than two and a half hours economy class is used. For journeys over two and a half hours, business class. Very senior officers—those of the rank of deputy undersecretary or above—have an entitlement to travel in a superior class by virtue of their grade.

  In addition, officers at most non-European posts—145—receive an extra economy class fare for each posting of at least three years, and in countries—55—with special difficulties, a contribution towards an annual short local trip outside the country of posting. The class of, and contribution towards, such journeys is based on economy class fares. Also, children at school in the United Kingdom may fly to post for three holidays per annum, by the cheapest possible means.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance has been set, and when, regarding the type of air ticket to which diplomatic service officers and their families are entitled.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Her Majesty's Treasury's guidance regarding the type of air ticket was set in the "Civil Service Pay and Conditions of Service Code", recently superseded by the "Civil Service Management Code". It applies to all civil servants, including diplomatic service officers and their families. The last major revision of entitlements was in 1982 when new fare structures were introduced by the airlines.

  In summary, all civil servants including diplomatic service officers, normally travel in economy class on journeys of up to two and a half hours. On official duty, and on transfer and mid-tour leave, they travel in business class on journeys over two and a half hours. On other leave journeys provided at the more difficult posts, they travel economy class. The same rules apply to the families of officers. Children who fly to post from school in the United Kingdom for the three main school holidays fly by the cheapest possible means. Very senior officers—those of the rank of deputy under-secretary or above—may sometimes travel in a higher class than those indicated above, by virtue of their grade or for operational reasons.

  Training Courses
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff have attended courses at Hanslope Park in the last year; on which system Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff are trained at Hanslope Park; how many missions abroad use such systems; when such systems are being withdrawn worldwide; and when training courses for the new system will begin.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A total of 2,285 FCO staff have attended courses at Hanslope Park over the last 12 months. They are trained on many different systems in use at home and in 143 missions abroad. The main system being withdrawn is Piccolo HF radio. The last one is expected to go by the end of June 1993. Training on its replacement began in early 1992.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff have attended courses in Brackley, Northamptonshire, in the last year; and at what cost.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No FCO staff have attended courses at Brackley, but they have been accommodated there while attending communications courses in Buckinghamshire. The average cost is £64 per capita per night.

  Mr. Abdul Qayum
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when an appeal application was received at the post in Islamabad from Mr. Abdul Qayum—Ref: IMM/B2588—who was refused entry clearance to join his wife in the United Kingdom; when the explanatory statement was dispatched; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This information is not available in London. I have asked the British high commission at Islamabad to provide the answer and I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office when it is received.

  East Timor
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will propose to the United Nations that its special rapporteurs on torture pay an early visit to Indonesia to inquire into alleged violations of human rights in East Timor.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A special rapporteur on torture visited East Timor in 1991. A further visit is for discussion between the rapporteur and the Indonesians.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will propose to the United Nations Human Rights Commission that it appoints a special rapporteur on East Timor.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are currently discussing with our EC partners how to handle the East Timor issue at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. We do not believe that the situation in East Timor requires the appointment of a special rapporteur.

  Ministers (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent on facilities in United Kingdom embassies and high commissions in each of the last two financial years in connection with visits to these countries by the Prime Minister or other Ministers.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  To provide a full answer would involve disproportionate cost. Generally, overseas posts cope with such visits from within their own existing resources.

  Mrs. Jahan Ara
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken on the application made to the United Kingdom post in Islamabad by Mrs. Jahan Ara (Ref: B5808; DOB 4:11:71) to join her husband in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This information is not available in London. I have asked the British high commission at Islamabad to provide the answer and I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office when it is received.

  Mr. Ghulam Murtaza
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken on the application by Mr. Ghulam Murtaza—Ref: Gu100/7157/TAH—to join his wife in the United Kingdom following the submission of further evidence requested by the United Kingdom post in Islamabad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This information is not available in London. I have asked the British high commission at Islamabad to provide the answer and I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office when it is received.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Child Maintenance Orders
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average weekly amount per child awarded to heads of lone parent families from maintenance orders in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not kept centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Roche (Abandoned Litigation)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much public expenditure was incurred in the abandoned litigation against the pharmaceutical company Roche; and if he will conduct an inquiry into the reason for this nugatory expenditure.
  66
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No part of the litigation which is being funded by the Legal Aid Board against the pharmaceutical company, Roche, has yet been abandoned. In the light of the statutory criteria under the Legal Aid Act 1988, some of the legally aided claimants have been sent letters informing them that their legal aid certificates may be discharged and inviting them to show cause why they should not be. There is a right of appeal against discharge. The generic expenditure on all the benzodiazepine drugs in the litigation amounts to approximatley £3 million, though further, as yet unquantified, costs have also been incurred. In view of the numbers of individual cases involved, these costs may be considerable.

TRANSPORT

  Donaldson Inquiry
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will extend the closing date for submissions to the Donaldson inquiry to enable considered responses from the people of Shetland and local coastal authorities to be submitted following the Shetland standard conference of 31 March to 1 April.

  Mr. Norris
  The conduct of the inquiry is entirely a matter for Lord Donaldson but I will draw the hon. Member's question to Lord Donaldson's attention.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will grant a sheriff's inquiry in to the sinking of the MV Braer so as to provide information to be considered by the Donaldson inquiry.

  Mr. Norris
  Under the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations 1989, provision is made for investigations into serious marine accidents to take the form of an inspector's inquiry with a report to the Secretary of State by the chief inspector of marine accidents and subsequent publication. This is considered to be the appropriate form of investigation for this accident. However should the evidence being gathered by the inspectors suggest that a formal investigation before a sheriff is warranted then my right hon. Friend will consider ordering one.

  Lord Donaldson has made it clear that his inquiry is not directed particularly at the Braer accident; however, such information as he needs on that accident will be provided by the chief inspector.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the capital investment required(a) to resignal the west coast main line and (b) to replace the power supply to the west coast main line; and how much money British Rail is allocating to these purposes.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for British Rail to assess what capital investment is required to resignal the west coast main line and to replace the power supply. Exactly how much money British Rail will be allocating to these purposes, and over what period, will be decided in the spring, when British Rail has completed its next corporate plan.
  67
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how long the power supply and the signalling for the west coast main line were designed to last; and when they were installed south of Warrington.

  Mr. Freeman
  The west coast main line was electrified in the 1960s. Signalling south of Crewe was also replaced in the 1960s. North of Crewe, the signalling was modernised in the 1970s.

  The details of the design lives of the various components are matters for BR: it is for it to judge what needs to be replaced when.

  Ships' Sewerage Systems
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he will take to press for international regulations governing the installation and operation of ships' sewerage systems.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport has given full support to proposals submitted by the Department of Marine of the Republic of Ireland to the International Maritime Organisation to regulate the installation and operation of ships' sewage systems. I am advised that this item has been placed on the IMO work programme for completion in 1995.

  Bilge Alarms
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those passenger ferries operating without bilge alarms.

  Mr. Norris
  There are no international requirements for passenger ferries to have bilge alarms. However, I am advised that those United Kingdom-registered passenger ferries that operate with certain machinery-space, watertight doors closed do have such alarms.

  Shipping
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the desirability of oil tankers and other large ships sending out tracking signals while they are in British waters with the aim of ensuring that their routes minimise the potential environmental damage of an accident and consequent spillage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The International Maritime Organisation is addressing the provision of equipment to transmit tracking signals for all ships. The Department fully supports this work and is developing a research programme to assess various types of equipment and their potential benefits.

  Bathing Beaches
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken in pursuance of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch recommendation of 1992 concerning provision of notices on all bathing beaches likely to be affected by the wash of shipping passing close to shore.

  Mr. Norris
  As it was not formal or addressed to a specific body or authority, the recommendation and a brief account of the incident from which it stemmed has been included in the MAIB publication "Summary of Investigations".
  68
  The MAIB will ensure that the local authorities concerned are informed well ahead of this year's bathing season.

  Bus Services
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total route mileage of scheduled bus services in each local authority area in Cambridgeshire which were supported by a county council subsidy in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not held centrally by the Department. This is the responsibility of the county council.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total route mileage of scheduled bus services in each local authority area in Cambridgeshire in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not held centrally by the Department.

  British Waterways Board
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that arrangements are made enabling British Rail privileged travel facilities, currently enjoyed by British Waterways Board employees and pensioners, to continue; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 1 March 1993]Powers are being taken in the Railways Bill to ensure that future passenger service operators may be compelled to provide such facilities on their services. This will ensure that the benefits for all those currently entitled can be protected.

WALES

  Student Grants
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of vocational first degree subjects receive(a) mandatory grants and (b) discretionary grants.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Students on first degree courses, irrespective of subject, are entitled to a mandatory award provided they satisfy the personal eligibility criteria.

  Students on first degree courses who do not satisfy the criteria for mandatory awards can apply to their local authority for a discretionary award. Local authorities are free to determine their own policies on discretionary awards.

  Protection of Children
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what response he has made to the Police Federation's submission to the inquiry on domestic violence in relation to giving courts powers to make short-term ouster orders for the protection of children.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. This submission from the Police Federation was made to the Home Affairs Committee, which has not yet published its report.

  Trawsfynydd Power Station
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales under what criteria the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station has been entered for the Wales tourist board's annual competition; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Nuclear Electric submitted an entry on behalf of its visitor centres and station tours at Wylfa and Trawsfynydd in the "Best Newcomer" category. Under this category any tourism development, large or small, which has been completed in the last three years by either the public or private sector is eligible to be considered.

  Renovation Grants
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received requesting minor works assistance under the renovation grant system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Requests for minor works assistance are made direct to the local housing authorities not to the Welsh Office.

  Disabled Facilities Grant
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the subject of the resources test for disabled facilities grant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Since I announced changes to the test of resources for all grants, including disabled facilities grants last July, I have received a small number of representations.

  Pollution
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has of the number of people in Wales currently living in areas where air pollution levels exceed European standards.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are European Community air quality limit values for lead, sulphur dioxide and particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and ozone. Monitoring of these pollutants indicates that these standards are not being exceeded in Wales.

  Care and Repair Cymru
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the Welsh Office circular detailing proposed changes in the renovation grant system as operated by Care and Repair Cymru; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No such circular has been issued by the Welsh Office. However, the Welsh Office has consulted interested bodies on draft regulations setting out new arrangements for the housing renovation grant scheme. A small number of comments were received in response.

  Radon
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide figures for the levels of radon in dwelling houses in Clwyd and Wales.
  70
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is not possible to provide the figures requested until the full results of the National Radiological Protection Board survey in Wales are known.

  South Wales Valleys (Report)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the report by Ecotec Research on the socio-economic conditions in the south Wales valleys, commissioned by the standing conference on regional policy in south Wales, the South Wales training and enterprise councils and the Welsh Development Agency.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As the hon. Gentleman rightly indicates, this report has been commissioned by the standing conference on regional policy in south Wales, together with a number of other organisations, and in the circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Rural Problems
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to visit the Meirionnydd Nant Conwy constituency to review rural problems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no present plans to do so.

  Tourism
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received regarding funding arrangements by the Wales tourist board under section 4 of the Tourism Development Act 1969; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts: None. An independent report recently published found the section 4 scheme operated by the Wales tourist board to be effective and worthy of continuation.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioner fundholders there are in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are 26 general practitioner fundholders in Wales. A further 45 applicants, including three groups of two practices, are preparing to become fundholders from 1 April next.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he is taking on the training and employment of disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are many initiatives taken locally by training and enterprise councils and by the Employment Service placing, assessment and counselling teams to improve access to training and employment opportunities for disabled people. I fully support all of these and am committed to the widest possible access for all to full participation in the labour market.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of schools which have held ballots on grant-maintained status; and how many of them are(a) Anglican and (b) Roman Catholic, listing in each category how many are (i) now operating as grant-maintained schools, (ii) have received approval for grant-maintained status, (iii) have published proposals and are awaiting a decision, (iv) have voted for grant-maintained status but not yet published proposals, (v) have had their proposals rejected and (vi) have voted against grant-maintained status.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Sixteen schools in Wales have balloted the parents of their pupils on the acquisition of grant maintained status. Of these one is an Anglican school and one a Roman Catholic. An application from the former is currently before me; the Roman Catholic school was incorporated as a grant maintained school on 1 January 1992.

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives are currently being pursued to enhance employment opportunities in the Meirionnydd Nant Conwy constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department, along with the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Welsh Development Agency, Targed and others, have in place very successful initiatives designed to create new jobs and safeguard existing ones. For instance, DBRW schemes alone have helped to create or safeguard over 800 jobs in the Meirionnydd area since 1979. The board is also developing a business park at Penrhyndeudraeth, which is expected to provide up to 750 jobs in premises totalling 250,000 square feet.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what efforts and initiatives have been pursued in the last 12 months to procure inward investment to Meirionnydd Nant Conwy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Welsh Office, Welsh Development Agency, Development Board for Rural Wales, Targed and local authorities continue to work strenuously to promote inward investment to Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. The Gwynedd marketing initiative has been formed to direct targeted marketing campaigns in the United Kingdom and overseas. Good results are being achieved and three inward investment projects have been recorded for the constituency over the past 12 months.

  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to bring forward proposals to widen the remit of the Development Board for Rural Wales, by statute if necessary, to enable the board to assist existing businesses which are enduring difficult financial circumstances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no such plans. The Development Board for Rural Wales already has wide-ranging powers to assist businesses in Wales.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to bring forward proposals to widen the remit of the Welsh Development Agency, by statute if necessary, to enable the agency to assist existing businesses which are enduring difficult financial circumstances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no such plans. The Welsh Development Agency already has wide-ranging powers to assist businesses in Wales.

  Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with Welsh local authorities and other infrastructure-providing bodies in relation to the levels of(a) base and (b) supplementary credit approvals and the effect of his 1993–94 settlements on applications for European regional development fund assistance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  These issues have been raised at meetings of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance and its capital working group, which are the forums for discussions with local authorities on local government finance issues including capital provision. I chaired meetings of WCCLGF on 26 November and 12 January. The CWG, involving my officials and officers from local authorities, met on 11 January.

  I have not had consultations on these issues with other infrastructure-providing bodies in Wales.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what response he has received from the European Commission to the proposal to include rural Wales in the list of areas with objective status for European regional development fund assistance.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The European Commission announced on 24 February their proposals for future objective 1 status which did not include rural Wales (Clwyd, Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys). I was extremely disappointed by its omission and will be raising this matter with Commissioner Millan when I meet him shortly.

  Welsh Office Expenditure
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what effect functional changes have had for Welsh Office expenditure for 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 1.13 of the 1993 departmental report for the Welsh Office (Cm 2215).

  HIV
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of HIV sufferers there were in Wales in 1990–91, 1991–92 and at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The cumulative totals of HIV positive cases reported in Wales as at 31 March 1991, 31 March 1992 and 31 December 1992 were 234, 279 and 302 respectively.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total payment to chairpersons and members of NHS trusts estimated for 1992–93.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Full details of payments to chairmen and members of national health service trusts are not held centrally.

  Trust chairmen receive remuneration between £15,125 and £19,285 dependent on the level of income of the trust. Each non-executive director receives remuneration of £5,000 per annum. In addition, travel and other expenses may be payable.

  Costs associated with executive directors will be included in the accounts and annual report which each trust is required to make publicly available under the statutory obligation to hold an annual meeting.

  Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of maintained(a) primary and (b) secondary schools; in each case how many are (i) voluntary aided, (ii) voluntary controlled and (iii) grant-maintained; and how many in each category are Anglican, Roman Catholic, other denominational and non-denominational.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the number, type and denomination of schools in Wales as at January 1992 is available from the publication "Statistics of Training and Education in Wales: Schools 1993", tables 3.06 and 4.05 for primary and secondary respectively. There were two grant-maintained secondary schools in January 1992, one was classified as voluntary Roman Catholic and the other was classified as county secondary. A further two schools have since become grant maintained, both of which were previously county secondary schools.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Litter
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for depositing litter were brought in England and Wales during 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  In England and Wales in 1991, there were 1,450 prosecutions under the Litter Act 1983, section 1(3), and 223 prosecutions for depositing litter under section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Information for 1992 will not be available until autumn 1993.

  Yugoslavia (Refugees)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) male and (b) female refugees, from former Yugoslavia have been refused access into the United Kingdom over the past six months;

  (2) how many (a) male and (b) remale refugees from former Yugoslavia, have been received into each of the countries of the European Community over the past six months.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In the six months July to December 1992 inclusive, around 4,600 nationals of the 74
  former Yugoslavia (excluding dependants) applied for asylum in the United Kingdom. Except for certain cases refused on safe third country grounds and under paragraph 101 of the immigration rules—detailed in the table—all these applicants are being allowed to stay while their application is under consideration. Comprehensive information on the gender of these principal applicants is not yet available but provisional data suggest that about 60 per cent. were male and 40 per cent. female.

  In addition, as I announced to the House on 30 November 1992, we are willing to accept 1,000 ex-detainees from Bosnia and other parts of the former Yugoslavia, together with their dependants, totalling perhaps 4,000 in all. These ex-detainees are being identified for us by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; those identified so far are all male but are being accompanied, or will be joined, by their wives and children.

  For information on total applications to other EC members states, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 18 February (column 297). The information is not available by gender.

  Refusals of applications for asylum in the United Kingdom by nationals of the former Yugoslavia, excluding dependants, by gender, July to December 1992

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave after determination of the asylum claim

  —

  —

  —

  Refused on safe third country grounds1 2

  13

  11

  2

  Refused under paragraph 101 of immigration rules3

  40

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Refused on grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.

  2 Breakdown by gender is of those removed on safe third country grounds, which corresponds in total, in this period, to those refused. A breakdown of those refused is not directly available.

  3 For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to two invitations to interview to establish identity.

  n/a not available.

  Refugees
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female refugees, have been received into the United Kingdom over the last six months.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In the period July to December 1992 inclusive, a total of around 15,000 persons (excluding dependants) applied for asylum in the United Kingdom. Comprehensive information on the gender of these principal applicants is not yet available but provisional data suggests that of the order of 70 per cent. were male and 30 per cent. female.

  Offenders (Staffordshire)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of offenders appearing before the courts in Staffordshire were unemployed in each year since 1987.
  75
  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on 15 January 1993, column 826.

  Juvenile Crime
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has commissioned into the levels of juvenile crime and the extent of offending on bail by juveniles.

  Mr. Jack
  Information about the number of juvenile offenders is collected routinely by the Home Office and published annually in "Criminal Statistics". This information is supplemented by a number of research projects including a national self-report study of delinquency, initial results from which will be available this year.

  No figures are held centrally on the extent of offending on bail by juveniles, but research is being undertaken into the bail process in five areas as part of the Home Office's work to reduce the level of offending on bail. This is expected to produce, inter alia, information about the level of offending by juveniles on bail.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had about measures that might be introduced to reduce juvenile crime.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on 21 January, at column 332.

  Prostitution
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consideration he is giving to the proposals by the chief constable of South Yorkshire on prostitution; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what new initiatives he is currently considering to tackle the problems of prostitution in residential districts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government are aware of the difficulties which prostitution generally, and in residential areas in particular, can cause. I am also aware of the personal view of the chief constable of South Yorkshire on this subject.

  The aim of the law in this area is to prevent the nuisance caused when prostitutes ply their trade in the streets; to discourage women from becoming prostitutes; and to penalise those who seek to encourage, control or exploit the prostitution of others for financial gain.

  When a suitable legislation opportunity occurs we will amend the law on kerb crawling in section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1985 to remove the need to prove persistence, annoyance or nuisance before a man can be convicted of the offence.

  Refugees (Yugoslavia)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refugees have been accepted into the United Kingdom from each of the states of the former Yugoslavia since the commencement of the recent conflicts.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In the period January 1992 to January 1993 inclusive, around 5,900 nationals of the former Yugoslavia (excluding dependants) have applied 76
  for asylum in the United Kingdom. The large majority of these applications are still under consideration and the applicants are being allowed to stay in the meantime. More detailed data on the origin of the applicants is not available.

  In addition, as I announced to the House on 30 November 1992, we are willing to accept 1,000 ex-detainees from Bosnia and other parts of the former Yugoslavia, together with their dependants, totalling perhaps 4,000 in all.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement indicating the administrative procedures used by his Department to satisfy that the provisions of(a) section 5(4) and (b) section 5(5) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 are being properly directed by those seeking permission to undertake experiments on animals; and how many experiments have been refused permission since the Act came into force.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 1 March 1993]: I will write to the hon. Member.

  Police Batons
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what trials he has authorised of new batons for use by the police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 1 March 1993]: My right hon. and learned Friend has agreed to the Metropolitan police's conducting trials of an expandable baton, subject to the outcome of a full scientific evaluation of its wounding potential. He has also agreed to their conducting trials of variants of the straight baton which can be carried covertly.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Racial Hatred
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the number of prosecutions for inciting racial hatred in(a) the Greater London area, (b) England and Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland during the year 1992.

  The Attorney-General
  In 1992 there was one prosecution in England and Wales for inciting racial hatred. There were none in the Greater London area and none in Northern Ireland. I have no responsibilities relating to criminal prosecutions in Scotland.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Attorney-General what guidelines the Crown prosecution service has on prosecutions in cases of domestic violence.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service reviews all cases referred to it from the police in accordance with the principles set out in the code for Crown prosecutors issued in pursuance of section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The evidential and
  77
  public interest criteria set out in the code apply to offences committed in "domestic" circumstances just as they do to any other prosecution.

  The Crown prosecution service recognises that there are complex issues involved in prosecuting domestic violence cases and, in addition to the code, has issued internal guidance to its staff. This guidance, which is being updated, sets out in greater detail the factors which will be relevant to the review and prosecution of these cases. The relevant document will shortly be supplied to the Home Affairs Committee inquiry on domestic violence, and will thereafter be available in the Library of the House of Commons. It will also be made available to relevant interest groups.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Poisoned Carcases
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many incidents of poisoned carcases being left in the open have been reported to his officials since 1 January 1990; in how many cases prosecutions resulted; and whether he will in due course, inform the hon. Member for Taunton of the outcome of his inquiries into the death through poison of a pet dog at Stoke St. Gregory, near Taunton.

  Mr. Soames
  Since January 1990 in England and Wales, 63 incidents involving poisoned carcases have been reported to the department. During the same period, five such cases have resulted in successful prosecution of the offenders. I will write to the hon. Member about the case to which he refers when investigations have been completed.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people have been employed in the dairy industry in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Curry
  My Department collects figures only For the farming part of the dairy industry. These are as follows:

  Employment in dairy farming1 England and Wales

  Thousands

  1983

  116.6

  1984

  113.8

  1985

  107.9

  1986

  105.6

  1987

  99.4

  1988

  93.8

  1989

  90.5

  1990

  88.7

  1991

  86.7

  1992

  82.6

  1 Specialist dairy and mainly dairy farms: excluding minor holdings, which accounted for less than 5 per cent. of total agricultural employment (mainly from part-time working) when last surveyed in 1989.

  Note: Part-tiome numbers have not been reduced to full-time equivalents.

  Source: June Agricultural and Horticultural censuses 1983 to 1992.

  Flooding
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the evaluation being made by his Department on the effectiveness of sea and river flood defences in the eastern counties after the floods of 20 February; and what changes he proposes to make to his policy, investment programme and evacuation procedures.

  Mr. Curry
  Our initial assessment is that both the flood warning arrangements and the coastal defences themselves performed well in the face of the events of 20/21 February, reflecting the substantial investment in coastal defences made by successive Governments and local agencies, as well as the professionalism of the emergency services and other organisations involved. Damage to coastal defences is estimated at a little under £2 million and this will be made good as a matter of urgency. A detailed appraisal is under way to ensure that any necessary improvements are made to procedures and that resources continue to be concentrated on areas of greatest need.

  Group Marketing Grant
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review the group marketing grant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  In the light of experience with the group marketing grant since its introduction last April, I have decided that we should carry out a limited review to simplify the rules of the scheme in order to make its operation more flexible. Industry organisations are being consulted on a series of proposals. It is intended that the changes should come into effect from 1 April. I have placed copies of the consultation document in the Libraries of the House.

  Clenbuterol
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for the surveillance for residues of clenbuterol; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Surveillance for residues of clenbuterol in meat is carried out under two complementary programmes. The first is the national surveillance scheme for residues in meat under which randomly selected samples are collected from slaughterhouses and from farms. The second, co-ordinated by the working party on veterinary residues in animal products, is directed at retail and wholesale premises. It covers both imported and domestic supplies of meat.

  In 1992, 1,074 samples were taken in Great Britain and analysed for clenbuterol under both programmes. Two samples taken were found to contain clenbuterol, at concentrations of 0.4 µg/kg and 3.3 µg/kg respectively. Neither of these residues would have been likely to have posed any threat to human health, but one of them was above the United Kingdom's statutory maximum residue limit of 0.5µg/kg. It has not been possible to establish whether the samples found to contain clenbuterol originated in Great Britain or elsewhere, but under the NSS, which is confined to domestically produced animals and meat, no positives have been identified from samples taken in Great Britain since testing for clenbuterol began in August 1989.
  79
  Nevertheless, because of the evidence of abuse of clenbuterol outside Great Britain, we have concluded it would be prudent to step up our surveillance programme in 1993. Under the NSS some 1,335 samples will therefore be collected from randomly selected farms and slaughterhouses in Great Britain and tested for the presence of clenbuterol. This is 635 more than in 1992. Surveillance at retail outlets under the WPVR programme is similarly being extended in 1993. A total of 384 samples of ox and calf livers will be collected and tested for the presence of clenbuterol. This is 181 more than in 1992, but includes for the first time a check on calf liver.

  A new sampling programme for imported meat will also commence in 1993. A total of 550 samples of imported bovine tissues are planned to be collected under this programme in the first year, compared with 175 in 1992, and these will also be analysed for residues of clenbuterol.

  Comfrey
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the safety assessment of comfrey has been completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Following the report of the working group on dietary supplements and health foods, Ministers asked the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment to review the safety of certain herbal substances, including comfrey, which had their medicinal licences withdrawn but which were still freely available as foods.

  Comfrey contains toxic substances known as pyrrolizidine alkaloids. PAs belong to a large family of alkaloids, some of which are known to cause liver damage and induce tumors in laboratory animals. The COT considered that, although the toxicity data available on the particular PAs found in comfrey were limited, there was evidence that they could cause liver damage in animals and man. The committee therefore recommended that action should be taken to reduce the intake of comfrey and its potentially toxic constituents.

  Comfrey and its products are on sale in four main forms. Tablets and capsules (made from roots or leaves) are the most concentrated form, and the Food Advisory Committee, to which the COT's findings were submitted for advice, recommended that the Government should seek the health food trade's agreement to early voluntary withdrawal of these products, backing it up with legislation. Roots are sold for use in poultices but may be used in making infusions; the FAC recommended labelling to warn against ingestion. Leaves are mainly intended for use in infusions, but many also be consumed directly, leading the FAC to recommend labelling to warn against the latter use. Finally, comfrey is also available in the form of herbal teas. Like the infusions of comfrey leaf, teas when brewed contain relatively low levels of PAs and the FAC did not consider any warning labelling to be necessary.

  Comfrey preparations used externally are not a cause of concern, and were not considered by the Committees.

  In considering these recommendations, the Government have taken account of the many representations that they have received in recent months from the general public, doctors and practitioners of alternative medicine urging that nothing should be done to restrict the availability of dietary supplements and health foods. We recognise the strong public support expressed for herbal
  80
  products and supplements generally and acknowledge the force of the view that consumers should be allowed to choose these products if they so wish.

  The Government have therefore considered very carefully whether the action recommended is proportionate to the potential problem. Nevertheless, the recommendations of the independent expert committees are clear and unambiguous, and we have concluded that they should in general be accepted.

  Accordingly I have today met the health food trade and requested the immediate withdrawal from sale of comfrey tablets and capsules. The trade has confirmed that most firms have already decided not to maintain sales of these products, and endorsed the action proposed. Given voluntary agreement on withdrawal, we do not consider that regulations will be necessary. My officials are, however, informing the European Commission of the findings and the action taken, so that the Scientific Committee for Food can examine the matter from an EC standpoint.

  In addition, I have asked the trade to consider effective labelling of comfrey root and leaves on the lines recommended, where these products are sold.

  The FAC also recommended that an information note should be distributed via health food shops and consumer organisations to give wide publicity to its advice. I am asking for their co-operation in distributing a note which we have prepared. It will also be made available to other organisations, for example those that may include growers of comfrey.

  I am grateful for the responsible, positive and practical reaction of the industry on this issue. I am writing simultaneously to the principal consumer organisations to notify them of the findings of the expert committees and the action being taken.

  I am putting in the Library of the House copies of the Department's analysis of comfrey products, the advice of the COT and the FAC and the draft information note.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes his Department intends to make in the testing of cattle for bovine tuberculosis in Great Britain.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have decided to extend the interval between tuberculosis tests for cattle herds. The majority of herds in Great Britain are tested once every three years. Most will now be tested once every four years.

  The move follows outstandingly successful efforts by Agriculture Departments over many years to reduce confirmed cases of bovin tuberculosis in Great Britain to the present levels of below 0.1 per cent. of herds. In no way does it mean a lowering of our guard against the disease.

  Cattle herds in the counties of the south-west of England where bovine tuberculosis is present at slightly higher levels will continue to be tested more frequently. This means that all herds in Cornwall, Gloucestershire and Avon will be tested at least once every two years, and some once a year. Most herds in Devon will be tested—as now —every three years. The situation in the south-west of England will be kept under close review.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost of the tuberculosis eradication scheme: what estimates he has made of savings
  81
  that can be achieved by the selective testing of cattle instead of the culling of badgers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Some £8 million per year is spent on testing and compensation for bovine tuberculosis. A comprehensive national testing programme for cattle already exists, including more frequent testing in high risk areas.

  Poultry Flocks (Salmonella)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on developments in relation to compensation for poultry flocks slaughtered on account of salmonella.

  Mr. Gummer
  The PCA has today reported to the House on a complaint referred to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir. R. Body) about the scheme of compensation payments introduced in 1989 for poultry flocks slaughtered on account of salmonella. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Commissioner for this report, which I have studied carefully.

  The PCA criticises the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for failing in 1989 to discharge the obligation to devise and implement a compensation scheme which complied with the requirements of the legislation. The Government accept that the original decision to discount the estimated value of the flock by 40 per cent. to reflect the taint of salmonella infection was shown, following an arbitration case the following year, to be incorrect, but I should emphasise, as the permanent secretary has done in his comments quoted in the report, that the legal advice available to Ministers was taken fully into account at every stage, and that the Government considered that they were acting properly at the time.

  In late 1988 and 1989, the Government were faced with a sudden drop of 60 to 80 per cent. of the market for fresh eggs, leaving individual producers facing a very serious commercial crisis. The Government would have been open to severe criticism had they not moved quickly to restore the position. In fact, a whole series of measures were taken to combat salmonella in a very short time on the basis of the medical, veterinary and scientific advice to protect public health and restore consumer confidence. I must stress that these measures were welcomed by the Select Committee for Agriculture in its report of February 1989, and were again welcomed in a debate in the House on 21 February.

  The Government are always under a duty to be careful with the use of taxpayers' money. There were those in the House and outside who argued that no compensation was appropriate in the case of egg producers. While this view was rejected by the Government, it was thought justifiable for compensation to be discounted to reflect the fact that the flocks concerned were tainted with salmonella and therefore had a reduced market value.

  This principle, which was of course designed to protect public funds, was never rejected, although it was found that the Ministry should not have applied a standard reduction to take it into account, but rather should have calculated a specific figure for each case on the basis of the facts. When, following the arbitrator's finding in September 1990 and the further legal advice obtained, it became clear that the basis of compensation applied hitherto needed to be changed, this was promptly done.
  82
  The PCA criticises the Ministry's unwillingness to reveal the basis on which compensation was proposed. This exacerbated the pressure under which flock owners were put. The Government accepts this finding.

  The PCA also questions the decision in November 1990 to regard as closed the cases of those flock owners who had accepted compensation on the basis of the 40 per cent. abatement without exercising their right to arbitration. In deciding not to adjust retrospectively the compensation payments settled before the change of policy took effect, the Government were acting on a clear legal principle. We were not unmindful of the interest of individual producers or the merits of particular cases, but we had to balance these against the need to be careful with the use of public funds.

  While the position remains that the Government are under no legal liability, we have reflected on the PCA's findings and now accept his view that it would be all right in the circumstances to adjust the compensation paid to all the producers affected to reflect the arrangements subsequently put in place. We shall accordingly be making ex gratia payments on a basis which has been agreed with the PCA to all those owners who were compensated on the basis of the 40 per cent. discount between March 1989 and September 1990. The total cost will be some £600,000.

  Horses (Protection)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance his Department gives on the welfare and protection of horses on farms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The state veterinary service monitors standards of welfare for all farm animals and is available to provide free advice to farmers on any aspect of farm animal welfare.

  Milk Producers
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what steps he is taking to improve the position of milk producers.

  Mr. Curry
  Dairy farming is one of the most profitable sectors of British agriculture and the Government will continue to encourage its efficiency and profitability.

  Animals (Transport)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures are in place to ensure that the EC directive on the transport of live animals is complied with.

  Mr. Soames
  Directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals during transport is implemented in Great Britain by the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992 which came into force on 1 January 1993. The order is enforced by local authority inspectors with support and advice as necessary from the state veterinary service—SVS—which also arranges for the inspection of all consignments of livestock transported to other member states. Local authority and SVS inspectors have wide powers to stop and detain consignments of animals and to make spot checks.
  83
  Enforcement in other member states is a matter for the authorities concerned. The directive provides for the European Commission to carry out inspections to ensure uniform application of the rules.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what supervisory powers over the Bank of England will be exercised by the European central bank under stage 3 of EMU if the British Government have announced their intention not to participate; and to what extent the provisions of the treaty requiring the Bank of England to be independent of government apply in these circumstances.

  Mr. Nelson
  According to the protocol to the Maastricht treaty on certain provisions relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the independence provisions of article 107 of the treaty would not apply if the United Kingdom had notified the Council that it did not intend to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union. Accordingly, there would be no obligation to make the Bank of England independent.

  The bank would, however, be subject to limited obligations under the European systems of central banks protocol, notably as regards the collection of statistical information (article 5), the obligation not to provide debt finance to public entities (article 21), any outstanding obligations arising from the bank's participation in the operating procedures for the EMS (article 44 together with article 6.1 of the European Monetary Institute protocol) and its obligation to provide a minimal percentage, if required to do so by the general council of the European central bank, towards the operating costs of the ECB (article 48).

  Retail Sales
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage effect on the January retail sales figures of the number of Saturdays in January 1992 compared with January 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The retail sales index is an indicator of the average sales per week within standard four or five-week trading periods as opposed to calendar months. The trading periods for January 1992 and January 1993 both contained four Saturdays. The level of sales in January 1993 was not influenced by an increased number of Saturdays.

  External Financing Limits
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which commercial organisations in which Government have a controlling or total ownership, do not have external financing limits.

  Mr. Portillo
  A list of the organisations subject to formal external finance limits appears in table 6 of the "Cash Limits 1991–92 Provisional Outturn" White Paper (Cm 2010). A number of others do not have formal external finance limits, but their external finance is 84
  controlled within the framework of the new public expenditure control total. These organisations are included in table 4.16 of the statistical supplement to the autumn statement (Cm 2219).

  The following commercial bodies, in which Government have a controlling or total ownership, are not treated in either of the ways described above:

  Central government trading bodies:

  Driving Standards Agency

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  Forestry Enterprise

  Horserace Totalisator Board

  Housing Corporation

  Housing for Wales

  Industrial Training Boards

  Remploy Ltd

  Other

  Bank of England

  British Broadcasting Corporation

  British Nuclear Fuels PLC

  Channel Four Television Corporation

  International Military Services

  Commission for New Towns and

  New Town Development Corporations in Scotland

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made on the effect on the expenditure of people on low incomes of extending VAT to cover all foods.

  Sir John Cope
  My right hon. Friend is aware of the effect that the extension of VAT to food would have on the expenditure of people on low incomes. However, the hon. Member will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further in the period leading up the Budget.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect value added tax harmonisation will have on public transport fares; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Under the VAT rates agreement reached by EC Finance Ministers, to which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary referred in his reply to the hon. Member on 15 December 1992 at column 138, the United Kingdom retains the right to apply a zero rate to passenger transport. Any proposed change to that right would require the unanimous agreement of all member states.

  Interest Rate Cuts
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of the four main clearing banks to discuss the question of interest rates cuts being passed onto their customers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor last met representatives of the four main clearing banks from 15 to 17 December and discussed with them the question of passing on cuts in the base rate to their business customers. He announced the outcome of those discussions and the results of a related study by the Bank of England in a reply to a question from the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 26 January 1993 at columns 623–25.

  Bank Charges
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the percentage bank charges have risen by since April 1992.

  Mr. Nelson
  The levels of bank charges are not collected centrally and are a matter for the commercial judgment of the banks. The January 1993 Bank of England report on bank lending to smaller businesses found that between June 1991 and December 1992 the average increase in income from fees and charges was just over 5 per cent. A copy of the report can be found in the Library.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage change in manufacturing output for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Nelson
  Indices of manufacturing output may be found on the CSO Databank which can be accessed by the House of Commons Library. Information is currently available for periods up to December 1992.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to arrange the sales of British Coal, Caledonian MacBrayne, Channel Four Television Company, Commonwealth Development Corporation, Covent Garden Market Authority, English Industrial Estates Corporation and Welsh Fourth Channel Authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 February 1993, c.558]: There are no plans to sell Channel Four Television Corporation or the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority, which remain public corporations.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, for each country receiving debt relief on current Trinidad terms, their projected debt service payments for each of the next three years.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 24 February 1993]: The information requested is not available. The latest generally accepted source of published information on developing country debt (World bank debt tables 1992–93) is based on data collected up to the end of 1991. Since all but two of the 14 Trinidad terms restructurings so far agreed were concluded after the end of 1991, the projected repayments figures do not reflect the reduction in debt service provided by these agreements.

  Trinidad terms allow for the equivalent of the cancellation of up to half the eligible debts consolidated under the agreements, and a commitment by creditors to consider the case for a reduction in the whole stock of eligible debt after a period of two to three years' proven financial and economic responsibility, under arrangements monitored by the IMF. In total, about US$ 1.5 billion will be forgiven under the terms of the existing agreements, and more will follow.

  Tax Statistics
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average and marginal tax rate including income tax and statutory social insurance payments of a single 86
  person, a married couple and a family consisting of a married couple plus two children earning in total (a) half, (b) three-quarters, (c) average earnings, (d) 1.5 times, (e) twice, (f) three times, (g) five times and (h) 10 times average earnings, in each EC member state.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 25 February 1993]: Information for 1992–93 relating to the United Kingdom is given in the table:

  Income tax and national insurance contributions at multiples of average earnings Single person

  Multiple of average earnings1

  Amount of tax and NIC2£ per week

  Tax and NIC as percentage of gross earnings

  Marginal tax and NIC rate per cent.

  1/2

  36.55

  21.1

  34

  3/4

  65.96

  25.4

  34

  1

  95.37

  27.6

  34

  11/2

  143.93

  27.7

  25

  2

  212.68

  30.7

  40

  3

  351.08

  33.8

  40

  5

  627.88

  36.3

  40

  10

  1,319.88

  38.1

  40

  Married man (wife not earning)

  Multiple of average earnings1

  Amount of tax and NIC2£ per week

  Tax and NIC as percentage of gross earnings

  Marginal tax and NIC rate per cent.

  1/2

  28.29

  16.4

  34

  3/4

  57.70

  22.2

  34

  1

  87.11

  25.2

  34

  11/2

  135.67

  26.1

  25

  2

  199.45

  28.8

  40

  3

  337.85

  32.5

  40

  5

  614.65

  35.5

  40

  10

  1,306.65

  37.8

  40

  1 Average earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. These are estimated to be £34600 per week in 1992–93 using the Government Actuary's Department assumption of 5¼ per cent. growth in whole economy underlying earnings over 1991–92 as published in the 1992 Autumn Statement.

  2 National Insurance Contributions are at the standard Class 1 rate for employees not contracted-out of the state additional (eanings related) pension scheme. The tax figures assume that no allowances or reliefs are available other than the standard allowances.

  Similar information on the other EC member states is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Some of the information requested is, however, obtainable from "The Tax/Benefit Position of Production Workers 1988–1991" published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. A copy is available in the Library.

  National Insurance
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated revenue yield in 1993–94, and what would be the full year effect, of abolishing the employee's national insurance upper earnings limit from October 1993.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  If the upper earnings limit for employees' contributions were abolished from October 1993, we estimate that the additional revenue yield for the six months indicated in

  87
  1993–94 would be £1.2 billion and the full year effect would be 1.5 billion. About three million employees would have to pay extra national insurance contributions as a result.

HEALTH

  Health Care
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the amount of funding per capita for health care in the last 10 years in Northumberland and Newcastle health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  The allocation of funds to the district health authorities—DHAs—is a matter for the Northern regional health authority and detailed information is not collected centrally.

  However, information which relates the expenditure of the DHAs to their resident populations is shown in the table.

  The figures, which pre-date the national health service reforms, show the DHAs as providers of health care, and reflect patterns of local service provision and the effects of patient flows across health authority boundaries.

  Revenue expenditure per head of population

  Northumberland district health authority pounds (cash)

  Newcastle district health authority pounds (cash)

  1982–83

  162

  361

  1983–84

  172

  385

  1984–85

  183

  406

  1985–86

  193

  431

  1986–87

  204

  461

  1987–88

  220

  514

  1988–89

  243

  575

  1989–90

  257

  626

  1990–91

  271

  687

  Sources:

  (a) Annual accounts of the Northumberland and the Newcastle district health authorities.

  (b) Mid-year estimates of resident population—1987–90 (Office of Population. Censuses and Surveys).

  Notes:

  1. The figures for the DHAs are based upon their total revenue expenditure on the services which they managed or accounted for in the relevant financial years.

  2. Capital expenditure incurred by the DHAs and all expenditure incurred by the Northern RHA on behalf of the Northern region as a whole is excluded.

  3. The population figures used make no allowance for people resident in particular districts who receive treatment in others. For consistency the population estimates employed are those based on the 1981 census.

  Activity Rates
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the increase in activity rates, overall and by specialty, in each region in 1990–91 and 1991–92; and what is the Department of Health estimate for the increase in activity by specialty in each region in 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information about activity rates for the major specialties in each regional health authority is given in the table. Activity forecasts by district and specialty are not collected centrally.
  88

  Total finished consultant episodes (ordinary plus day case admissions), total all specialties and selected specialties

  Specialty

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Percentage change

  England

  All specialties

  8,785,252

  9,306,707

  6

  General surgery

  1,252,832

  1,300,343

  4

  Urology

  291,582

  333,963

  15

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  652,157

  688,099

  6

  ENT

  340,271

  366,123

  8

  Ophthalmology

  219,897

  247,987

  13

  General medicine

  1,200,726

  1,251,775

  4

  Paediatrics

  1,051,000

  1,061,201

  1

  Geriatric medicine

  471,130

  513,433

  9

  Obstetrics

  927,845

  949,502

  2

  Gynaecology

  762,332

  786,797

  3

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  All specialties

  628,583

  655,287

  4

  General surgery

  98,285

  99,348

  1

  Urology

  24,837

  24,648

  -1

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  43,785

  48,195

  10

  ENT

  24,918

  25,883

  4

  Ophthalmology

  15,610

  16,278

  4

  General medicine

  101,230

  104,346

  3

  Paediatrics

  76,653

  80,937

  6

  Geriatric medicine

  28,160

  30,859

  10

  Obstetrics

  61,953

  61,449

  -1

  Gynaecology

  54,688

  55,836

  2

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  All specialties

  722,130

  751,428

  4

  General surgery

  100,833

  108,683

  8

  Urology

  29,196

  29,847

  2

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  54,898

  54,389

  -1

  ENT

  27,958

  29,248

  5

  Ophthalmology

  14,875

  16,575

  11

  General medicine

  94,580

  85,410

  -10

  Paediatrics

  63,674

  66,853

  5

  Geriatric medicine

  51,712

  53,250

  3

  Obstetrics

  83,632

  82,461

  -1

  Gynaecology

  65,258

  69,874

  7

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  All specialties

  809,186

  858,823

  6

  General surgery

  113,208

  118,643

  5

  Urology

  24,076

  28,581

  19

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  61,223

  64,647

  6

  ENT

  30,950

  32,768

  6

  Ophthalmology

  18,890

  19,767

  5

  General medicine

  114,822

  126,800

  10

  Paediatrics

  95,323

  99,420

  4

  Geriatric medicine

  47,547

  53,965

  13

  Obstetrics

  84,733

  85,742

  1

  Gynaecology

  76,470

  76,020

  -1

  East Anglian Regional Health Authority

  All specialties

  360,934

  379,294

  5

  General surgery

  50,822

  51,661

  2

  Urology

  12,274

  16,864

  37

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  27,329

  29,203

  7

  ENT

  15,703

  16,334

  4

  Ophthalmology

  9,604

  10,231

  7

  General medicine

  45,912

  49,638

  8

  Paediatrics

  43,533

  41,569

  -5

  Geriatric medicine

  23,803

  26,006

  9

  Obstetrics

  36,456

  38,387

  5

  Gynaecology

  31,403

  33,073

  5

  North West Thames Regional Health Authority

  All specialties

  536,203

  576,714

  8

  General surgery

  75,230

  76,830

  2

  Urology

  18,508

  18,131

  -2

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  37,312

  40,984

  10

  ENT

  17,636

  19,998

  13

  Ophthalmology

  11,869

  14,484

  22

  General medicine

  63,279

  70,175

  11

  Paediatrics

  67,271

  64,990

  -3

  Geriatric medicine

  28,626

  33,287

  16

  89

  Specialty

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Percentage change

  Obstetrics

  61,716

  62,876

  2

  Gynaecology

  44,972

  48,594

  8

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority

  All specialties

  695,279

  746,633

  7

  General surgery

  98,229

  101,162

  3

  Urology

  28,755

  32,318

  12

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  48,897

  51,550

  5

  ENT

  30,385

  31,202

  3

  Ophthalmology

  11,463

  13,644

  19

  General medicine

  95,804

  92,551

  -3

  Paediatrics

  88,401

  77,902

  -12

  Geriatric medicine

  35,407

  37,865

  7

  Obstetrics

  74,790

  93,489

  25

  Gynaecology

  71,251

  72,818

  2

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  All specialties

  629,250

  673,068

  7

  General surgery

  90,816

  91,713

  1

  Urology

  25,336

  28,680

  13

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  44,156

  44,520

  1

  ENT

  24,684

  26,726

  8

  Ophthalmology

  15,416

  16,602

  8

  General medicine

  88,339

  87,362

  -1

  Paediatrics

  81,882

  88,772

  8

  Geriatric medicine

  36,455

  37,805

  4

  Obstetrics

  71,785

  72,304

  1

  Gynaecology

  53,424

  56,249

  5

  South West Thames Regional Health Authority

  All specialties

  457,600

  500,588

  9

  General surgery

  67,027

  71,983

  7

  Urology

  16,103

  19,760

  23

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  33,786

  37,227

  10

  ENT

  17,233

  19,911

  16

  Ophthalmology

  11,347

  13,539

  19

  General medicine

  59,767

  68,993

  15

  Paediatrics

  56,924

  58,494

  3

  Geriatric medicine

  25,179

  30,049

  19

  Obstetrics

  50,430

  52,148

  3

  Gynaecology

  42,702

  44,992

  5

  Wessex Regional Health Authority

  All specialties

  526,284

  562,571

  7

  General surgery

  71,257

  74,761

  5

  Urology

  16,189

  18,655

  15

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  42,894

  43,920

  2

  ENT

  20,574

  22,847

  11

  Ophthalmology

  14,086

  16,675

  18

  General medicine

  73,067

  78,026

  7

  Paediatrics

  60,412

  67,814

  12

  Geriatric medicine

  29,914

  34,257

  15

  Obstetrics

  46,824

  45,493

  -3

  Gynaecology

  40,615

  43,644

  7

  Oxford Regional Health Authority

  All specialties

  383,333

  404,923

  6

  General surgery

  54,577

  59,220

  9

  Urology

  4,586

  6,230

  36

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  33,117

  34,659

  5

  ENT

  17,405

  17,804

  2

  Ophthalmology

  8,756

  10,061

  15

  General medicine

  50,701

  52,630

  4

  Paediatrics

  53,883

  55,953

  4

  Geriatric medicine

  13,870

  14,975

  8

  Obstetrics

  45,041

  40,132

  -11

  Gynaecology

  33,800

  34,997

  4

  South Western Regional Health Authority

  All specialties

  588,049

  617,689

  5

  General surgery

  86,917

  92,618

  7

  Urology

  15,063

  21,804

  45

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  46,039

  49,764

  8

  ENT

  19,490

  22,013

  13

  Ophthalmology

  16,272

  18,863

  16

  General medicine

  73,466

  80,616

  10

  Paediatrics

  65,525

  62,008

  -5

  90

  Specialty

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Percentage change

  Geriatric medicine

  33,171

  33,883

  2

  Obstetrics

  59,281

  51,590

  -13

  Gynaecology

  46,534

  48,464

  4

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority

  All specialities

  959,648

  1,006,699

  5

  General surgery

  135,227

  141,046

  4

  Urology

  26,288

  32,256

  23

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  78,064

  81,399

  4

  ENT

  37,182

  40,647

  9

  Ophthalmology

  22,165

  23,045

  4

  General medicine

  155,987

  159,636

  2

  Paediatrics

  128,908

  124,426

  -3

  Geriatric medicine

  36,860

  40,283

  9

  Obstetrics

  104,825

  111,785

  7

  Gynaecology

  75,900

  77,898

  3

  Mersey Regional Health Authority

  All specialties

  487,107

  523,515

  7

  General surgery

  82,084

  81,108

  -1

  Urology

  13,194

  15,788

  20

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  35,710

  37,834

  6

  ENT

  16,009

  19,572

  22

  Ophthalmology

  12,144

  14,763

  22

  General medicine

  63,781

  66,258

  4

  Paediatrics

  55,146

  56,291

  2

  Geriatric medicine

  27,019

  30,727

  14

  Obstetrics

  45,915

  51,189

  11

  Gynaecology

  41,799

  39.048

  -7

  North Western Regional Health Authority

  All specialties

  887,029

  927,034

  5

  General surgery

  125,263

  128,609

  3

  Urology

  34,638

  37,682

  9

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  62,744

  67,282

  7

  ENT

  38,437

  39,282

  2

  Ophthalmology

  25,618

  30,060

  17

  General medicine

  119,981

  129,010

  8

  Paediatrics

  103,530

  105,819

  2

  Geriatric medicine

  52,760

  55,448

  5

  Obstetrics

  92,006

  92,534

  1

  Gynaecology

  77,299

  78,896

  2

  Special Health Authority

  All specialties

  114,637

  122,441

  7

  General surgery

  3,057

  2,958

  -3

  Urology

  2,539

  2,719

  7

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  2,203

  2,526

  15

  ENT

  1,707

  1,888

  11

  Ophthalmology

  11,782

  13,400

  14

  General medicine

  10

  324

  3140

  Paediatrics

  9,935

  9,953

  0

  Geriatric medicine

  647

  774

  20

  Obstetrics

  8,458

  7,923

  -6

  Gynaecology

  6,217

  6,394

  3

  Source: DH form KP70

  British Mercenaries
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what treatment within the NHS is available to mercenary soldiers returning to the United Kingdom injured in service abroad; and what charges can be made in treatment by a health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  Eligibility to free national health service treatment is based on United Kingdom residence rather than nationality. If the individual is no longer a United Kingdom resident, he will be liable to pay for NHS hospital treatment unless covered by one of a number of exceptions. These are listed in the "Patient's Guide", which will be placed in the Library.

  Management Consultancy
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent by the NHS management executive on management consultancy costs in relation to patient-focused hospital projects; and for what purpose.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service management executive has not directly commissioned management consultants for patient-focused projects. It has, however, supported a number of health care organisations which, individually, have hired their own consultants.

  Exercise Therapy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will consider giving funding to local authorities who run exercise therapy sessions so that general practitioners can prescribe this treatment to their national health service patients suffering from diabetes, overweight, high-blood pressure and depression; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will give funding to Wealden district council to enable it to expand its exercise therapy prescribed by Dr. David Hanraty for patients; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Oasis project in Hailsham received funding of £3,400 in 1982 as a pilot project from the joint Department of Health/Health Education Authority "Look After Your Heart" programme. The project was included as an example of a healthy alliance in the "Health of the Nation Coronary Heart Disease Key Area Handbook". The project should become self-financing over time. Similar projects have been or are being set up in other parts of the country, funded locally. There is no intention to fund local authorities generally for this kind of project—as with all healthy alliances all participants should benefit, including local authorities, who should themselves benefit from use of local leisure facilities by more members of the community which they serve.

  Pulmonary Embolism
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has undertaken into the use of heparin and low molecular weight heparin to reduce the number of deaths from pulmonary embolism following surgical operations; and if she will conduct a comparative study into its amount of use in England and Wales and that of other countries.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At present, neither the Department of Health nor the Medical Research Council is conducting any such research. The need for initiating studies in this area, including those that make international comparisons, is considered alongside other priorities for research funding.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what legislation local authorities are empowered to pay supplementary grants for people with learning disabilities living in unregistered homes.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities can use the provisions of paragraph 2(1)(a) of schedule 8 to the National Health 92
  Service Act 1977 to provide financial support for people in unregistered residential accommodation who are in receipt of social security benefits. This power will be subsumed into section 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948 from 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to introduce legislation requiring all group homes for people with learning disabilities to be registered with the local authority;

  (2) what research the Government are funding or considering funding into the future status of unregistered homes for people with learning disabilities.

  Mr. Yeo
  None. The Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991 comes into force on 1 April. It extends the requirement for registration of independent residential care homes to homes for fewer than four residents. Like the Registered Homes Act 1984, the amendment Act applies only where personal care as well as accommodation and board are provided.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the implications of the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991 for homes which are currently unregistered which have four or more residents.

  Mr. Yeo
  Independent homes which provide personal care as well as board and accommodation for four or more people are required to register under the Registered Homes Act 1984. If some, but fewer than four, residents receive such services, registration as a small home will be required when the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act comes into force in April.

  Homeless Mentally Ill
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress has been made tackling the lack of permanent move-on accommodation under the homeless mentally ill initiative;

  (2) if she will fund the revenue care costs for the move-on housing supplied to the homeless mentally ill initiative by the Housing Corporation;

  (3) who is to fund the revenue care costs for the move-on housing supplied to the homeless mentally ill initiative by the Housing Corporation.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Housing Corporation has agreed to secure 750 move-on places for people resettled by the homeless mentally ill initiative, a £20 million scheme to offer accommodation and psychiatric support to homeless mentally ill people. In general, it is for local social services departments to meet the costs of providing social care for people once they are resettled into the community. However, the Department is prepared to consider meeting some costs on an interim basis if longer-term guarantees of funding can be secured. Officials are having constructive discussions with the relevant local authorities about this.

  Benzodiazepine
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps she is taking to ensure that benzodiazepine prescribing does not increase following the ending of the Roche case;

  (2) what assessment she has made of the effect of measures to reduce benzodiazepine addiction since 1988; and what further measures she proposes;
  93
  (3) how many prescriptions were issued for benzodiazepines in each year since 1989.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Guidance on the prescribing of benzodiazepines was given to doctors by the Committee on the Safety of Medicines in "Current Problems number 21", in January 1988. This advice is still appropriate and doctors also have access to detailed guidance in the "British National Formulary".

  No assessment has been made of the effect of these measures, but there has been a steady reduction in the number of benzodiazepine prescriptions since 1989. The information requested is shown in the table.

  Thousands

  Year

  Number of prescriptions

  1989

  17,274

  1990

  16,507

  1991

  15,662

  Notes:

  1. From January 1991, the data are based on items. Previously they were based on prescription fees and some items may attract more than one fee.

  2. Figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the total sum allocated for addiction problems and (b) the proportion of this allocated specifically to problems of benzodiazepine addiction (i) in 1988 and (ii) in 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A total of £11.2 million was specifically allocated to health authorities in 1988–89 for the provision of services for drug misusers, including funds to help prevent the spread of HIV among drug misusers and from them to the wider population. The figure for 1992–93 is £20.8 million. In addition to these sums, health authorities can also fund drug misuse services from their general allocations. It is for health authorities to decide which services they purchase for people with drug problems, including those suffering from addiction to benzodiazepines.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has of the number of people addicted to benzodiazepines as a proportion of all addicts in(a) 1988 and (b)

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not currently available centrally.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ask the Committee on Safety of Medicines to change its advice to doctors as given in Bulletin 21 of January 1988 regarding the drugs valium, librium and mogadon, following the ending of the Roche case.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. Current advice strongly emphasises the dangers of dependence with benzodiazepines and advises doctors to limit their use to short-term relief—two to four weeks only—of anxiety and insomnia that is severe, disabling or subjecting the individual to extreme distress. This advice is still appropriate.

  London Ambulance Board
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the South West Thames regional health authority appointed Mr. James Harris as the chairman of the 94
  London ambulance board; what are the names of the other members and their dates of appointment; what are the working hours expected from the chiarman and board members respectively; and what is the amount and basis of their respective remunerations.

  Mr. Sackville
  Mr. James Harris was appointed chairman of the London ambulance service board by South West Thames regional health authority on 1 March 1990. Current non-executive members of the London ambulance service board appointed on 8 June 1992 are:

  Mrs. Mary Spinks

  Mrs. Janet Preston

  Mr. Victor Paige

  Mr. Roderick Braithwaite

  The chairman is paid £5,000 per annum as a non-executive member of South West Thames regional health authority. In the previous 12-month period, he spent 88 full days undertaking duties on behalf of the regional health authority and the London ambulance service. Non-executive members of the London ambulance board are unpaid but are asked to spend an average of two to three days per month on London ambulance service business.

  Head Injuries
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many rehabilitation centres for patients with head injuries there are in England; which regions they are in; how many patients they treat a year; what is the cost per patient; and how many beds there are in each centre;

  (2) if she will list the private rehabilitation centres for patients with head injuries in England.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information required is not held centrally. The Department of Health is providing central funding of £1 million per year to 12 model brain injury rehabilitation services in the national health service in England and I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 16 January 1992 at columns 625–26.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on official entertainment in her Department during 1991–92 and 1992–93 to date.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1991–92, £168,151 was spent on hospitality. In 1992–93, hospitality expenditure up to the end of January was £197,529.

  Spinal Injuries Units
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals in England have spinal injuries units; which regions they are in; how many patients they treat a year; what the cost was per patient; and how many beds there are in each unit.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are eight spinal units located in the following regions: Northern; Yorkshire; Trent; North East Thames; Oxford; Wessex; West Midlands; and Mersey. The remaining information is not held centrally in the form requested. Reported activity levels are available for 1991–92 as shown in the table. The total cost of the service in that year was £22.3 million.
  95

  Unit

  Finished consultant episodes

  Total bed days

  Hexham general hospital

  227

  10,239

  Pinderfields hospital, Wakefield

  383

  11,580

  Lodge Moor, Sheffield

  1,373

  18,617

  Royal national orthopaedic hospital, Stanmore

  125

  6,432

  Stoke Mandeville hospital, Aylesbury

  683

  32,213

  Odstock hospital, Salisbury

  268

  13,351

  R. James and A. Hunt hospital, Oswestry

  317

  14,128

  Southport hospital

  N/a

  N/a

  TOTAL

  3,376

  106,560

  Repeat Prescriptions
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has as to progress made by family practitioner committees in encouraging the development of repeat prescription control systems, as outlined in "Promoting Better Health: April 1990".

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General practitioners are required by schedule 13 to the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations, 1992, to include in their annual reports information on their arrangements for the issue of repeat prescriptions to patients. Guidance to regional health authorities on their corporate contracts with family health service authorities for 1993–94 emphasised that repeat prescribing is a high priority area and encouraged them to set targets for achievement by March 1994. A copy of this guidance has been placed in the Library.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many cases in each year since 1989 the London ambulance service was asked to give evidence at coroners' courts.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Martin Gorham, chief executive of the London ambulance service, for details.

  Free Prescriptions
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many free prescriptions were dispensed in the year 1991–92; what was the figure in 1978–79; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 February 1993, c. 162]: I have today laid before the House regulations providing for increases in charges in the national health service in England and Wales, which will take effect on 1 April 1993. The prescription charge will increase by £0.50p, from £3.75 to £4.25 for each quantity of a drug or appliance dispensed.

  The new prescription charge, which is still significantly less than the average total cost of a single prescription item to the NHS, will only cost the average charge payer an extra £3 a year. A charge of £4.25 per item will raise about £278 million a year for the NHS. In 1991–92 the cost of drugs for family health services was over £2.3 billion.
  96
  The existing wide-ranging exemption and remission provisions for people who cannot afford prescription charges are unchanged. The rates of prescription pre-payment certificates will rise in line with the increase in prescription charges. These certificates provide extremely good value for money for people who need frequent or extensive medication but are not entitled to free prescriptions. They offer real savings to anyone who requires 15 or more items a year on prescription, or more than five in a four-month period.

  Some 5 per cent. of all items dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors now go to people with prepayment certificates. Prescription charges are paid on a further 15 per cent. When the Government took office in 1979, this figure was 36 per cent. Indeed, 80 per cent. of prescribed items are now dispensed free—more than at any time since prescription charges were re-introduced in 1968.

  Charges for elastic stockings and tights, fabric supports and wigs supplied through the hospital service will also be increased from 1 April 1993 by a similar percentage to the rise in the prescription charge.

  The patient contribution to the cost of a course of dental treatment begun on or after 1 April 1993 will be increased from 75 to 80 per cent. The maximum charge for a single course of treatment begun on or after 1 April 1993 will also increase from £225 to £250.

  I am pleased to announce a 2.75 per cent. average increase in the overall value of optical vouchers from 1 April 1993. The majority of voucher holders will find themselves better off as a result.

  Concurrently with the regulations for England and Wales, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will lay regulations to increase charges and spectacle voucher values in Scotland by the same amounts. Similar arrangements will apply in Northern Ireland.

  Details of all the revised charges and increased optical voucher values have been placed in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  ERDF Assistance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he has had with Northern Ireland local authorities and other eligible infrastructure-providing bodies concerning the levels of(a) base and (b) supplementary credit approvals with a view to the provision of matching Government funding to maximise successful applications for European regional development fund assistance.

  Mr. Atkins
  In Northern Ireland the financing of infrastructure-providing bodies, including local authorities, is not dependent upon the issue of credit approvals and consequently there have been no consultations about the level of such approvals.

  Police Interview Notes
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what procedures are involved in the recording, safe-keeping, storage and retrieval of original police interview notes where criminal charges have been brought.

  Mr. Mates
  [holding answer 25 February 1993]This is a matter for the Chief Constable of the RUC. However, I understand that new procedures have recently been
  97
  introduced relating to the recording of notes of interviews with persons detained under legislation dealing with terrorism. Loose leaf interview sheets have been replaced with booklets which are electronically dated and time stamped upon issue and upon completion of each interview. Additional measures have been introduced to safeguard the long-term storage and security of these interview notes.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken by the Royal Ulster Constabulary to identify the whereabouts of the original police interview notes in the case of prisoner No. 708, H Block 5, A wing, HMP Maze, Belfast.

  Mr. Mates
  [holding answer 25 February 1993]: This is a matter for the Chief Constable of the RUC. However, I understand that he has already written to the hon. Gentleman about this.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to(a) Coopers and Lybrand management consultants, (b) Touche Ross management consultants, (c) Price Waterhouse management consultants, (d) Ernst and Young management consultants, (e) Chrichton Roberts Ltd., (f) KPMG management consultants and (g) Leopold Joseph management consultants, with the total cost of the contracts for each contractor, for (i) the past 12 months and (ii) 1991–92.

  Mr. Eggar
  The contracts awarded by the DTI to Coopers and Lybrand management consultants, Touche Ross management consultants, Price Waterhouse management consultants, Ernst and Young management consultants and KPMG management consultants in the periods 1 March 1992 to 17 February 1993 and 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992, with total cost of the contracts for each contractor are listed. No contracts have been awarded to Leopold Joseph management consultants or Chrichton Roberts Ltd.

  ERNST AND YOUNG

  Contracts issued between 1 March 1992 and 28 February 1993

  Devon and Cornwall Development Board Review

  Service Sector Opportunities for Inward Investment

  Analysis of Structure and Activities of European Competitor-Inward Investment Agencies

  Statistical Analysis of Foreign Investment in the United Kingdom from 1986–1991

  England—The Investment Opportunity: Revised Brochure Coal Review 1992: an Independent Report on the Efficiency of British Coal as an Organisation

  Insolvency Service Market Testing

  Nuclear Electrics Operations

  Separate Studies of INWARD and Yorkshire and Humberside Development Agency

  North West Venture Club

  Key Location Factors Study

  TOTAL COST OF CONTRACTS—£690,275

  Contracts issued between 1 April 1991 and 31 March 1992

  Comparative Advantage Location Study

  Study of European Legislation Affecting Businesses

  Promotional Material: Electronics

  Promotional Material: Automotive Components

  Promotional Material: Information Technology

  Advanced Robotics Programme Review

  98

  English Unit Strategy: 1992–93

  England: Fact File

  TOTAL COST OF CONTRACTS—£384,002

  KPMG MANAGEMENT CONSULTING

  Contracts issued between 1 March 1992 and 28 February 1993

  Evaluation Review—British Screen Finance Limited

  Open Systems Technology Transfer Programme 2

  Disc Management Efficiency Study

  Identification of Current and Long Term Issues in the Security Market and Policy Implications

  Assistance to the London East Training and Enterprise Council in the Development of a Common Standards Programme

  Validation of Seven Information Technology Futures Sector Scenario Reports

  Teaching Company Scheme (Sere and Cit)

  Post Office: Economic/Regulatory Advisers

  Production of a Guide to British Companies in the Environmental Field

  Literature Searches for Posts and Telecommunications Division

  Seven Sector Reports on Key Applications for Information Technology

  Customer Care Training

  TOTAL COST OF CONTRACTS—£887,785

  Contracts issued between 1 April 1991 and 31 March 1992

  New Product Introduction Activities

  Wirral Task Office: Enterprise Study

  Export Intelligence Review

  Open Systems Technology Transfer Programme

  Technical Support to the Open Systems Technology Transfer Programme

  Education Training Committee Strategy

  European Futurewatch

  Survey of Electronic Sources of Information on EC Legislation

  Teaching Company Senior Academics Scheme

  Evaluation Review of British Screen Finance Limited

  TOTAL COST OF CONTRACTS—£381,644

  PRICE WATERHOUSE

  Contracts issued between 1 March 1992 and 28 February 1993

  Privatisation of BTG

  Privatisation of BTG: Portfolio of Technologies

  Study of the Possible Privatisation of Parcelforce

  ILS: Information Systems Strategy Study

  TOTAL COST OF CONTRACTS—£418,850

  Contracts issued between 1 April 1991 and 31 March 1992

  Financial Advisers for BTG Privatisation, Phase II

  Market Study: Market Opportunities for Producers of Carpets

  Inward Investment—Tax Study

  Implementation of Fairs and Promotions Branch (FFB) Efficiency

  Scrutiny Project

  TQM Programme for DTI NE

  Privatisation of BTG

  Privatisation of BTG: Portfolio of Technologies

  TOTAL COST OF CONTRACTS—£1,223,430

  TOUCHE Ross & Co

  Contracts issued between 1 March 1992 and 28 February 1993

  Study of Chloro Fluoro Carbons Usage in Solvents

  BNSC Space Telecommunications Strategy

  Registry of Information Sources

  Neural Computing Awareness Programme

  Technology Partnership Initiative

  Comparative Study of Freight/Shipping Costs and Services

  TOTAL COST OF CONTRACTS—£2,803,480

  Contracts issued between 1 April 1991 and 31 March 1992

  Market Opportunities Task Force Policy Study

  Speech and Natural Language Programme: Rational Objectives Assessment Monitoring and Evaluation (ROAME)

  Knowledge Based Systems Technology Transfer Programme

  Technology Transfer in Conservation of Biological Diversity Study

  99

  Information Systems Strategy Study

  Data Review Study

  Market Opportunity Task Force Policy Study/Market

  Change Analysis Activity

  TOTAL COST OF CONTRACTS—£871,735

  COOPERS AND LYBRAND

  Contracts issued between 1 March 1992 and 28 February 1993

  Review of Cash Position of British Technology Group plc

  Further Analysis of Assessment of Computer Misuse Act 1990

  IS Strategy for Facilities Management Group

  BTG Privatisation: Financial Advice for Post-Privatisation Monitoring

  Study to Explore and Enhance Business Awareness: Computer Misuse

  Market Testing of IT Services Branch

  Research Study on Supplier Relationships

  Coal Review: Support

  TOTAL COST OF CONTRACTS—£192,840

  Contracts issued between 1 April 1991 and 31 March 1992

  Market Assessment Study of Computer Misuse

  BTG: Reporting Accountants

  Conference: Selling to Firms and Industries once in Public Sector

  Review of Radiocommunications Agency's Licensing Procedures

  Work Programme Following Local Authority Regulation of Business Seminar

  Study into Radiocommunications Agency's Networking Requirements

  Citizen's Charter and Local Authority Regulation

  Local Authority Regulation of Business

  Ozone Depleting Substances

  BTG: Reporting Accountants

  TOTAL COST OF CONTRACTS—£608,540

  These figures do not include contracts issued by those Executive Agencies which have delegated authority to engage consultants.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was(a) the total expenditure of and (b) the number of successful bids for funding to the intervention fund for shipbuilding in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The number of merchant vessels of 100 gross tonnes and over on which funding from the shipbuilding intervention fund was offered and the amount of assistance paid in financial years from 1979–80 to 1992–93 are set out in the table.

  Number of merchant vessels on which SIF was offered and the amount paid

  Financial Year

  Number of vessels on which SIF offered

  Amount of SIF assistance paid £ million

  1979–80

  20

  31.9

  1980–81

  27

  41.9

  1981–82

  62

  49.1

  1982–83

  19

  47.9

  1983–84

  14

  36.2

  1984–85

  9

  20.1

  1985–86

  29

  25.9

  1986–87

  18

  17.4

  1987–88

  13

  13.6

  1988–89

  31

  38.7

  1989–90

  28

  37.5

  1990–91

  15

  28.7

  1991–92

  10

  31.1

  Note: Because of the timing of the SIF grant payments, there is no direct link between the number of vessels ordered and the total grant in any one year.

  European Community Funding
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what projects in Britain are or will be assisted by the extra money allocated to the European investment bank at the Edinburgh summit.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The European investment bank has so far approved loans under the new, temporary facility agreed at Edinburgh to Lothian regional council for water supply, sewerage and road infrastructure schemes and to North West Water Services Ltd. for improvement of waste water infrastructure.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 17 February to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe),Official Report, column 269, what response he has had to his application for objective 1 status for Northern Ireland, Merseyside, the Highlands and Islands, rural Wales, Devon and Cornwall and South Yorkshire; what counter-proposals he has; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Northern Ireland's objective 1 status was confirmed at the European Council at Edinburgh.

  I am pleased to report that the Commission announced on 24 February that it had decided to propose the highlands and islands and Merseyside for objective 1.

  The Government will continue to press the case for the other areas they believe should become objective 1: Devon and Cornwall, rural Wales and South Yorkshire.

  The final decision on which regions are eligible For objective 1 rests with the Council of Ministers in the context of the review of the structural funds regulations. I do not expect that decision to come for several months.

  Insurance Cover
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the extent of the practice of denying insurance cover to owners of property because they wish to rent to people in receipt of DSS benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have received a number of letters about the difficulty of obtaining insurance cover for properties where tenants are in receipt of social security benefits. Insurance cover for many properties in multi-occupation has become more difficult to obtain following reviews by insurance companies of types of business that had generated substantial losses. I am assured that companies are not assessing the risks they are prepared to underwrite solely on the status of the tenants. Following discussions with my officials and the Department of the Environment, the Association of British Insurers has now produced some guidance for owners of tenanted property on how to minimise the risks they present to insurers.

  Trade Barriers
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all EC or United Kingdom trade barriers, including industry to industry quotas and anti-dumping duties, which affect exports from the Czech Republic or Slovakia to the United Kingdom and EC.

  Mr. Needham
  The United Kingdom does not maintain any national quantitative restrictions against the Czech
  101
  and Slovak Republics. The Government are not aware of any inter-industry agreements which restrict trade with the United Kingdom or the EC.

  In December 1991 the EC and Czechoslovakia signed an association agreement which establishes co-operation in a range of fields and, in particular, provides for the creation of a GATT-compatible free trade area within a maximum of 10 years—based on the principle of asymmetry in the dismantlement of trade barriers with the EC taking the lead. The trade provisions entered into force on 1 March 1992 under an interim agreement which abolished tariffs and quantitative restrictions on 50 per cent. of Czechoslovakian industrial exports to the EC and provided for the liberalisation of almost all tariffs and quantitative restrictions within the next four years. The interim agreement has since been extended until separate, new association agreements can be negotiated with the Czech Republic and Slovakia following the division of the federal republic.

  The European Community maintains Community-wide restrictions on a number of textile and agricultural products from the Czech and Slovak republics and I will write to my hon. Friend with details of these.

  The following anti-dumping measures are currently in place:

  1. Artificial Corundum Price Undertaking

  2. Flexamine Price Undertaking

  3. Urea Volume Undertaking

  4. Potassium Permanganate Variable duty linked to a mimium price of 2.20 ECU/kg

  5. Seamless Steel Tubes 30.4 per cent. provisional anti-dumping duty

  On 25 February the EC Industry Council agreed in principle that tariff quotas should be negotiated with east European countries on their exports up until 1995 of sensitive steel products to the Community. It is now for the Commission to make suitable proposals to member states; the Government are concerned that these should be as liberal and as short-term as posssible.

  Rural Mail Deliveries
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the maintenance of second deliveries of mail in rural areas as part of his review of the Post Office.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Government remain fully committed to a nationwide letter service with delivery to every address in the United Kingdom, within a uniform structure of prices, but the detailed organisation of deliveries is an operational matter for the Post Office.

  Girobank
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what account he is taking of the criticisms made by the National Audit Office over the sale of Girobank in his consideration of the future of Parcelforce and the Post Office.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have noted the comments made by the National Audit Office, and in particular its conclusion that a successful sale of Girobank was eventually achieved. I look forward to reading the report from the Public Accounts Committee in due course.

  Waste
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 9 November 1992,Official Report, column 587, if he will list the specific types of waste to which his figures refer, including the commodity codes given to those substances.

  Mr. Eggar
  The figures which I gave previously refer to wastes on the EC red and amber lists, which contain elements that may be hazardous. Red and amber list wastes are identified in EEC council regulation No. 259/93 of 1 February, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 6 February. Statistics on the exports of these wastes are publically available. They can be obtained from the appointed marketing agents for HM Customs and Excise, by reference to the commodity codes listed in Business Monitor MA2I "Guide to the Classification of Overseas Trade Statistics", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Owners Abroad
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what pre-bid guidance was given by the Director General of Fair Trading to Airtours plc before its bid for Owners Abroad plc was launched; what importance he attaches to such guidance in his decision on referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Any pre-bid guidance is given on a confidential basis. We do not therefore comment on whether guidance is given in a particular case. Such guidance is based on the information available at the time, which does not normally include comments by third parties. Where guidance is given, it is the Secretary of State who decides what it should be following advice from the Director General of Fair Trading. Such guidance is not binding on the Secretary of State in his merger reference decision.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date the Minister for Corporate Affairs withdrew from considering the Airtours bid for Owners Abroad; what reasons were given for this withdrawal; and what part the Minister has played in his Department's handling of the bid since December.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 1 March 1993]: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State decided on 15 February to stand aside from consideration of whether the Airtours bid for Owners Abroad should be referred to the MMC. It had come to his attention from correspondence that the chairman of Airtours lived in his constituency. Although he was advised that it would have been legitimate for him to continue to take part in the competition decision, he decided not to do so to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding. Prior to receipt of this correspondence he was responsible, with me, for the Department's interest in this as in other merger cases.

  Export Licences
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy towards export licences for South Africa and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Export licence applications for South Africa, as for any other destination, are examined on their
  103
  merits on a case-by-case basis. Licensable goods are listed in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1992, as amended. This takes account of the United Kingdom's commitments under the United Nations (Sanctions) Order SCR 392 1976, which covers the arms embargo.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the maximum and minimum times taken to grant export licences for(a) South Africa, (b) Poland and (c) Israel.

  Mr. Needham
  There are no minimum or maximum timescales.

  Applications for South Africa and Israel which do not require advice from other Government Departments, and provided that the exporter has provided complete documentation, are normally issued within four to five working days from receipt. Applications which need further information from the exporter or are referred to other Government Departments for advice normally take four to six weeks to process.

  Similarly, applications for Poland which do not need to be referred to our partners in COCOM are normally issued within five working days once the documentation is complete. Applications which are referred to COCOM take at least 75 working days.

  Gas and Oil Investment
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the total financial investment to date in offshore exploration and extraction and the piping of supplies to the mainland for(a) gas and (b) oil.

  Mr. Eggar
  Total investment in the United Kingdom continental shelf up to the end of 1992 on exploration and appraisal, field developments, pipelines, and shore terminals for oil and gas amounted to some 122 billion in 1992 prices. It is not possible to allocate this expenditure between offshore and onshore activity, or between oil and gas.

  Gas Consumption
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the maximum consumption of gas, as an increase in percentage terms over present consumption, that existing supply connections could sustain.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Gas plc.

  Aviation Equipment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing imports and exports of aircraft, aerospace and aviation-related equipment each year since 1987 in cash terms, distinguishing between the EC, the USA, Japan and other countries.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer I March 1993]: The information is not available in the form requested. Total imports and exports for the aerospace industry since 1987 to the latest available full year are as follows:

  Military and Civil Aerospace Trade

  £billion

  Year

  Exports

  Imports

  Trade balance

  1987

  5.0

  2.7

  2.3

  1988

  5.4

  3.7

  1.6

  1989

  8.0

  5.5

  2.4

  104

  Year

  Exports

  Imports

  Trade balance

  1990

  8.0

  5.9

  2.0

  1991

  7.9

  5.4

  2.5

  1992

  7.7

  5.2

  2.5

  Source: Overseas trade statistics for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the value added per head, and contribution to gross domestic product of the aircraft, aerospace and aviation equipment industries in each of the years since 1987.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer March 1993]: Figures since 1987 to the latest available year for standard industrial classification 364—aerospace equipment manufacturing and repairing—are as follows:

  Gross value added at factor cost

  Contribution to manufacturing GDP

  £million

  Total per head£

  Per cent.

  1987

  3,472.4

  19,486

  3.87

  1988

  3,866.8

  22,666

  3.87

  1989

  4,895.8

  29,015

  4.52

  1990

  5,648.0

  32,459

  5.09

  Source: Annual Census of Production

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further consideration he has given, following the debate on 21 January, to granting assisted area status for the Dunstable area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer I March 1993]: We are continuing our consideration of the many bids which have been made for assisted area status.

  Competition
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidance is given to Ministers in his Department about possible conflicts of interest when they are dealing with competition matters.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 1 March 1993]: Ministers with competition responsibilities receive general procedural guidance as a matter of course on handling competition decisions. This includes guidance on possible conflicts of interest. Such guidance is supplemented as necessary.

  Renewable Energy Advisory Group
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the membership of his Department's renewable energy advisory group; what was the attendance of each REAG member; what is the present place of employment of each REAG member; and what are the criteria used in appointing experts to serve on the REAG.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 1 March 1993]: The membership of the renewable energy advisory group is listed in the table:

  105

  Member

  Place of employment

  Dr. Mary Archer

  National Energy

  Attended 6 meetings

  Foundation

  Mr. John Bellak

  Severn Trent plc

  Attended 8 meetings

  Professor Sir Hermann Bondi

  Churchill College,

  Attended 7 meetings

  Cambridge

  Mr. Peter Goldsworthy

  NORWEB plc

  Attended 7 meetings

  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory Attended 5 meetings (member until April 1992)

  Member of Parliament

  Dr. Martin Holdgate

  International Union for the

  Attended 4 meetings (chairman from June 1992)

  Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

  Mr. Gerald Leach

  Stockholm Environment

  Attended 5 meetings

  Institute

  Dr. David Lindley

  National Wind Power Ltd.

  Attended 8 meetings

  Mr. Colin Moynihan

  Consultant

  Chaired 5 meetings (chairman and member until April 1992)

  Mr. Peter Oppenheimer

  Christ Church College,

  Attended 6 meetings

  Oxford

  Mr. Jeremy Sainsbury

  Fred Olsen Ltd.

  Attended 9 meetings

  Professor Arnold Wolfendale

  Durham University

  Attended 5 meetings

  Defence Diversification
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what action applicable to Hampshire the Government are taking to attract European Community funds for the purpose of defence diversification;

  (2) what discussions the Government have held with the European Commission about the diversification of defence industries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 1 March 1993]: At the initiative of the European Parliament 130 million ecu, or about £106 million, comprising 85 million ecu, or £69.3 million, from the European regional development fund and 45 million ecu, or £36.7 million, from the European social fund was entered into the European Community budget for 1993 for a programme to be called CONVER to assist regions affected by the decline in the armaments industry and the closure of military bases. The Government will give careful consideration to the Commission's proposals for implementing this programme, which are expected to be issued shortly. The structural funds regulations require assistance from the ERDF to be concentrated in regions already designated for objectives 1, 2 and 5(b). Since many areas in the United Kingdom which have a high concentration of defence-related firms and military bases, including Hampshire, are not located within such regions, their prospects of benefiting from CONVER seem likely to be limited to assistance from the European social fund, which can be spent anywhere in the Community.

  Imports and Exports
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of imports and exports for each member country of the OECD during 1992.
  106
  Mr. Needham
  Data are not available in the form requested. Figures relating to 1991 are published in "Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade, Series A, February 1993, OECD", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library, Information on United Kingdom trade for 1992 is published in "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, Business Monitor M M:20, December 1992", which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Japan
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of imports and what was the value of exports in Britain's trade with Japan in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on the topic is regularly published in "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Visible Exports
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the percentage change in the level of United Kingdom visible exports in value terms to EC and Eastern European countries since 1989.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is given in the table.

  Value of United Kingdom visible exports (change on previous year) (per cent.)

  EC

  Eastern Europe and former USSR

  1989

  15.8

  14.6

  1990

  15.8

  0.5

  1991

  7.9

  -15.3

  1992

  1.9

  35.8

  Source: Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the amount of aid given to the printing industry from central funds by Governments of EC countries which apply a positive rate of VAT to printed materials.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have made no such assessment.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much was spent on official entertainment in his Department during 1991–92 and 1992–93 to date.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department spent £537,336 on entertainment in the 1991–92 financial year and has spent £427,935 to date in the 1992–93 financial year. The figure for 1991–92 includes expenditure by the former Department of Energy.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will make a statement on the present state of discussions with the European Commission on support for renewable energy beyond 1998;
  107
  (2) what plans he has to announce a third non-fossil fuel obligation renewables order; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Discussions with the European Commission are continuing. Decisions on any further renewables orders will be taken in the light of the coal review and the REAG report.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek an urgent meeting with the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels plc to discuss recent radioactive leaks following operational accidents at Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  I meet the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels plc from time to time to discuss a range of issues involving the company. Occurrences involving releases of radioactivity into the environment are primarily matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Ministry of Agriculture, together with the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate, are carrying out investigations into the causes of the recent releases.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will reply to the two letters from Mr. T. E. Blyth, managing director of John Herth and Co. Ltd., sent to him on 13 November 1992 and 6 January 1993, and to the two letters from the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West on the same matter dated 20 November 1992 and 13 January 1993.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 26 February 1993] : I regret that it has taken so long to reply to these letters. I have now done so.

  Furniture Safety
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received(a) on behalf of retailers and (b) on behalf of waste disposal operators about the effect of the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) (Amendments) Regulations 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 23 February 1993]: My Department has received 39 letters on behalf of retailers of upholstered furniture about the fire resistance requirements of the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations, as amended, applicable to second-hand furniture from 1 March this year. No representations on behalf of waste disposal operators have been received.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.
  108
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning 1 had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Catering
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent on catering at 10 Downing street and Chequers in 1991–92 and 1992–93 to date.

  The Prime Minister
  The information is not available in the form requested. The cost of official hospitality met by my office was £40,976 in 1991–92 and is £25,835 in 1992–93 to date.

  Higher and Further Education
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the effect on the estimates for(a) the Department for Education and (b) the Welsh Office as a result of functional changes in higher and further education.

  The Prime Minister
  The supply estimates for 1993–94, due to be published on 9 March, for the Department for Education's higher and further education vote, class X, vote 2, will show provision totalling £2,806,458,000 for grant-in-aid to the Higher Education Funding Council (England) which, from 1 April 1993, will be responsible for the distribution of grants to all publicly funded higher education institutions in England. This will replace provision formerly shown separately in the estimates for expenditure on universities in Great Britain distributed by the Universities Funding Council; for the former polytechnics and colleges of higher education in England distributed by Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council; for the Open university; for the Royal College of Art; and for Cranfield institute of technology. The 1993–94 estimates, class X, votes 2 and 3, will show provision totalling £2,705,411,000 for grant-in-aid to the Further Education Funding Council in England which from 1 April will be responsible for distributing grant to further education establishments and sixth form colleges in England currently under local authority control. Similarly, the relevant supply estimate for the Welsh Office, class XV, vote 5, will show grant-in-aid provision for further and higher education institutions in Wales to be distributed by the Further Education Council in Wales—£143,846,000— and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales—£178,975,000—including in the latter case provision for universities in Wales which in 1992–93 are supported by the Universities Funding Council. The supply estimates for 1993–94 are subject to parliamentary approval in due course.

DEFENCE

  Bands
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 February.Official Report, column 777, what is the current establishment and annual running costs of (a) the Household Division piping school, (b) the Guards Depot piping school, (c) the piping and drumming wing of the Scottish Division

  109
  and (d) the Army school of piping; what are the particular tasks of each unit; whb is responsible for training Gurkha pipers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The current establishment of the schools is as follows:

  Staff

  Household Division Piping School (also known as the Guards Depot Piping School):

  1 Pipe Major

  3 Pipe Instructors

  The Piping and Drumming Wing of the Scottish Division:

  1 Pipe Major

  1 Drum Major

  5 Pipe Instructors

  3 Drum Instructors

  The Army School of Bagpipe Music:

  1 Director of Bagpipe Music

  1 Pipe Major Instructor

  The annual running costs of these schools are not identified separately from their parent establishments.

  The task of the Household Division piping school is piper training for the Household Division. From 1 April 1993 this school will close and training will be carried out at the piping and drumming wing of the Scottish Division.

  The task of the piping and drumming wing of the Scottish Division is the piper and drummer training from elementary to advanced levels of the Scottish Regiments, the Royal Irish Regiment, the Scots and Irish Guards, and Gurkha and Royal Armoured Corps Regiments established for pipes and drums.

  The task of the Army school of bagpipe music is to improve the standard of piping, drumming and bugling in the Army.

  Class 3 (elementary) Gurkha Pipers and Drummers are trained at the piping and drumming wing of the Scottish Division. Other pipers are trained at the Army school of bagpipe music.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 February,Official Report, column 777, how pipe bands are found from within the peacetime establishment of (a) Scottish infantry regiments and (b) the Royal Irish Regiment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The pipe and drums in Scottish infantry regiments and the Royal Irish Regiment are primarily infantry trained soldiers. When not training or on operational duties they are made available on order of the commanding officer to pipe and drum.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the non-medical support roles fulfilled by Royal Marine musicians and buglers; and what are the non-musical peacetime tasks of the personnel of each of the six RM bands.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Apart from the medical orderly role, the purpose of the personnel of the Royal Marines band service in the event of war or other emergency is to provide disciplined bodies of men capable of assuming responsibility for the physical security of military establishments.

  When not undertaking their musical duties the most important peacetime role of RM bands personnel is to train for their wartime medical orderly role. In addition, they have miscellaneous messing responsibilities.

  RAF Dambusters
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what aircraft will participate in the 50th anniversary flight of the RAF dambusters 617 squadron when they fly over the Derwent Dams, Derbyshire ort 19 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This year's programme of displays and flypasts by RAF aircraft has not yet been finally agreed. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will inform the hon. Member once a decision has been taken.

  RAF Aston Down
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current establishment for Royal Air Force Aston Down, near Stroud; what is the current work and purpose of the station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Aston Down ceased to be a Royal Air Force station in 1961 and is now a stores depot for the Ministry of Defence procurement executive. It has three roles—the storage of aircraft jigs and tools, the processing of used ammunition containers and, finally, the disposal, by auction, of vehicles and other equipment.

  In addition, both the Civil Aviation Authority and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have a small presence at the depot as lodger units. The depot has a strength of six Ministry of Defence civil servants, but the main part of the operation on the site is carried out under contract.

  Merchant Shipping
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), 22 February Official Report, columns 477–78, if he will list the occasions and cost of conversion of merchant shipping for specialist naval use; and what was the nationality of ownership and registration, if not British, in each case.

  Mr. Aitken
  Conversions of merchant ships for naval use during the last 10 years were:HMS ENDURANCE formerly M V Polar Circle, a Norwegian ship, conversion completed 1992.
  RFA ARGUS formerly MV Contender Bezant, an Italian ship, conversion completed 1988.
  Costs are commercially confidential.
  Details of conversions of merchant ships carried out more than 10 years ago would be available only at disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the tonnage of merchant shipping hired during the Gulf war, the number of ships involved, the cost to the Exchequer, and the nationality of ownership and registration.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A total of 162 dry cargo ships, with a total dead-weight of 1.8 million tonnes, were chartered for the movement of men and equipment to and from the Gulf at a total cost of £138 million. A number of ships undertook more than one voyage. In addition, 10 tankers, with a total dead-weight of 209,000 tonnes, were chartered at a total cost of £4.76 million. The numbers of vessels chartered by flag, is as follows: Antigua and
  111
  Barbuda (16), Bahamas (9), Belgium (1), Cyprus (16), Denmark (27), Egypt (1), Finland (2), France (2), Germany (10), Greece (1), Honduras (1), Hong Kong (1), Iceland (1), India (1), Italy (4), Malta (2), Netherlands (2), Netherlands, Antilles and Aruba (2), Norway (15), Panama (7), Qatar (1), Spain (1), St. Vincent and Grenadines (2), Sweden (7), United Kingdom (11), Union of Myanmar (1) and Vanuatu (1). The ultimate ownership of these vessels is not generally known to my Department as the charter is with the operator, who is not necessarily the owner.

  Aldermaston
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make public the results of the inquiry into the incident at AWE Aldermaston on 8 December 1992.

  Mr. Aitken
  We are considering in the light of national security interests whether a useful unclassified version of the report can be made available.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress in commissioning the A91 building at AWE Aldermaston.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 6 November 1992,Official Report, column 530. Commissioning work associated with building A91 at AWE Aldermaston is in abeyance and will not resume until the necessary remedial work has been completed satisfactorily.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all work that is at present being carried out by specialist radiological protection staff at AWE Aldermaston.

  Mr. Aitken
  The radiological protection specialist staff at AWE Aldermaston are responsible for advising on all radiological safety aspects of the work carried out there. They also give advice on radiological safety in other areas of the nuclear weapons programme and provide a comprehensive radiological monitoring service for Aldermaston personnel, for the Aldermaston site and for the local environment.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the recommendations of the Pochin inquiry into AWE Aldermaston; and how AWE Aldermaston has implemented each of them.

  Mr. Aitken
  A total of some 73 detailed actions were identified following the review by Sir Edward Pochin of radiological health and safety at Aldermaston, which did not make formal recommendations. Many of these actions were minor and were completed immediately. The short and medium-term measures involved changes to working practices, increases in health physics staff numbers, provision of improved monitoring and other equipment and safety management restructuring, all of which were put in place some years ago. Longer-term measures, involving procurement of completely new facilities for plutonium work and for processing of radioactive wastes have also been implemented in that new facilities have been constructed and are now being commissioned. These actions were taken in full consultation with the relevant trade unions.
  112
  The hon. Gentleman may wish to note that the Pochin report commented that the industrial accident history and incident record at Aldermaston bore comparison with the best industrial concerns and that recent figures confirm that this record has been maintained.

  Trident
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now set out the criteria against which the bids for Trident refitting from Rosyth and Devonport will be judged.

  Mr. Aitken
  In considering future arrangements for warship refitting, all relevant factors will be taken into account, including operational, strategic, technical, safety, commercial, programme and financial issues.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what proportion of housing benefit claims claimants receive a determination within(a) two weeks, (b) two to three weeks, (c) three to four weeks and (d) more than four weeks.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 19 January 1993, at column 211, which gives the latest available information on the proportion of claims determined within 14 days. Data on the proportion of claims which are determined after two weeks is not collected.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's target for the number of days taken to provide payment for housing benefit claims; and what proportion of payments are made, from the date when the claim is received, within(a) two weeks, (b) two to three weeks, (c) three to four weeks, (d) four to six weeks and (e) more than six weeks.

  Mr. Burt
  Local authorities are statutorily required to make the first payment of any housing benefit—rent allowance—within 14 days of the receipt of a claim or as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter. Where authorities are unable to do this, interim payments should be awarded.

  Data on the proportion of claims where the target is met and on the proportion where it is exceeded are not collected. However, monitoring is to commence in 1993–94 with the introduction of the Audit Commission's citizens charter indicators in local authorities.

  Income Support
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a table showing(a) the number of income support claimants and (b) the value of total payments made to them for residential and nursing home costs by region for each year from 1982–83 at (i) cash prices and (ii) 1982–83 prices.

  Mr. Burt
  Such information as is available is in the table.
  113

  Income support expenditure-Residential care and nursing homes

  Year

  Total numbers (thousands)

  Annual equivalent expenditure (£million)1

  Annual equivalent expenditure (£million)

  December 1982

  16

  39

  39

  December 1983

  26

  104

  99

  December 1984

  42

  200

  182

  December 1985

  70

  348

  300

  February 1986

  90

  459

  396

  May 1987

  117

  671

  531

  May 1988

  147

  878

  649

  May 1989

  176

  1,105

  766

  May 1990

  189

  1,270

  814

  May 1991

  231

  1,872

  1,121

  May 1982

  270

  2,460

  1,409

  1 Current prices.

  2 1982–83 prices.

  Notes:

  1. The date in the year column is the enquiry point on which the actual figures are based.

  2. The 1982–83 prices figures have been calculated by adjusting the actual figure by the average GDP deflator index for the year in which the enquiry fell.

  3. The figures have been rounded to the nearest million.

  Reliable data on a regional basis are not available.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many redundant workers have been refused income support within the past year under the deprivation of capital regulations after paying off part or all of their mortgage.

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

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to reduce the amount of income support or unemployment benefit received by a young person or adult if they begin full time education;

  (2) what plans he has to allow unemployed young people and adults to attend full-time education in the course of their choice and still receive income support or unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  We continue to be receptive to proposals to enable unemployed young persons and adults to receive education or training to enable them to take up employment. However, the social security system is not intended as a means of funding full-time education. Most full-time students are ineligible for income support, unemployment benefit and housing benefit. Students should look to the educational maintenance system of grants, top-up loans and access fund payments for their financial support.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the maximum weekly deductions from income support for water, overpayment, fines, poll tax arrears and fuel debt, expressed as deductions from income support rates for a single person aged over 25 years and a married couple, both over 25 years.

  Mr. Burt
  Regulations provide for a standard amount to be deducted from income support to repay arrears of housing costs, fuel, water, or fines. This is set at 5 per cent. of the personal allowance for a person aged 25 or over, currently £2.15 a week.
  114
  The standard deduction for recovery of an overpayment of benefit is set at three times 5 per cent. of the personal allowance for a person aged 25 or over—currently £6–45 a week—or, where fraud has been established, four times 5 per cent.—currently £8–60 a week.

  The total amount which may be deducted to recover debt, including overpayments, may not exceed three times 5 per cent.—four times 5 per cent. where fraud has been established—of the income support personal allowance for a person aged 25 or over.

  An additional £215 may be deducted for community charge debt or, where the court order is against a couple, 5 per cent. of the income support allowance for a married couple aged 18 or over—currently £3.35.

  In addition, deductions may be made to cover current charges for fuel and water where, of course, the amount may vary from case to case.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional costs would he incurred in allowing young people and adults to continue to receive income support or unemployment benefit whilst they are attending full-time education.

  Mr. Burt
  This information is not available. Changes in the benefit arrangements for full-time students made in 1990 were accompanied by enhanced support for students made available through the educational maintenance system. It is not, therefore, possible to provide reliable estimates of the cost of reintroducing income support or unemployment benefit.

  Benefit Entitlement
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what entitlements to benefits persons aged 16 and 17 years have during the period between a training place being offered and the start of the training period.

  Mr. Burt
  Subject to meeting the qualifying conditions, the benefits listed in my reply to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North, (Mr. Evans) on 9 June 1992 at column 386 may be payable to or in respect of young people waiting to commence a youth training placement.

  Water Charges
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what elements of water charges were included in the Rossi index during the period April 1988 to April 1992; and what account these amounts took of variations in the cost of water, sewerage and environmental charges.

  Mr. Burt
  Water charges were not included in the Rossi index used to uprate income-related benefits between April 1988 and April 1992. During this period the index was based on the RPI excluding all housing costs.

  Retirement Pensions (Emigration)
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice is issued to British citizens considering emigrating on the potential effects of such a step on their future state retirement pensions, in particular where emigration is contemplated to a country with which there is no reciprocal social security agreement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will reply to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.
  115
  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Andrew Bowden, dated I March 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what advice is issued to British citizens considering emigrating on the potential effects on their future state retirement pensions, in particular where emigration is contemplated to a country with which there is no reciprocal social security agreement.
  A person considering emigrating should seek advice from their local Benefits Office. They will be issued with leaflet NI38 "Social Security Abroad", a guide to National Insurance contributions and Social Security benefits outside the European Community and reciprocal agreement countries. The leaflet gives general guidance on the social security arrangement in both countries with, and without, reciprocal arrangements. However, because of the complex nature of contributions and benefits for those going abroad the leaflet also explains that the customer can get further help and specific advice on individual circumstances, or problems, from the Department's Overseas Branch at Newcastle upon Tyne. This branch specialises in contributions and benefits involving periods abroad.
  A copy of the leaflet is enclosed for information.
  There is also a series of 22 leaflets containing information about the reciprocal social security arrangements with individual countries and the European Community which are available on request.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

EDUCATION

  Student Incomes
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if the forthcoming survey of student incomes will include part-time students.

  Mr. Boswell
  No. The survey is one of a series targeted at students already within the scope of support fixed by central Government, which comprises awards, loans and access funds. Other forms of support are available for part-time students.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received regarding grant-maintained school budgets for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  We have received a number of representations from a range of bodies including LEAs, schools and local authority associations. On 9 February we announced our final decisions, which were taken in the light of the representations received.

  English Testing
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a further statement with regard to the proposal to test English in secondary schools.

  Mr. Forth
  We need tests to measure pupils' performance in this key subject. My right hon. Friend announced on 19 February that the English tests for 14-year-olds will be going ahead in June this year. The 116
  results will be reported to parents and national totals will be published. Results will be reported in school performance tables for the first time in 1994.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the Government's plans for teacher training.

  Mr. Forth
  Last summer, my right hon. Friend introduced a reform of initial teacher training for secondary teachers which required a decisive shift to more school-based training. We have said that we shall be announcing proposals for reform of training for primary teachers around Easter. Our object is to make training more relevant to the needs of schools and the national curriculum. We shall keep the question of further reform under review to that end.

  Parental Choice
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures he proposes to promote parental choice in education in rural areas.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government's reforms since 1980 have ensured that parents in all areas now have the widest possible choice among available schools, and the information on which to base that choice.

  English (Key Stage 3)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a further statement on the trials conducted prior to the implementation of key stage 3 SATS in English.

  Mr. Forth
  Trials of tests for 14-year-olds in English started in 1990. Since then the trials have involved some 45,000 pupils and 500 schools. Further trials of the papers for this summer's tests will take place over the coming weeks.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many representations he has received from school governing bodies in respect of the key stage 3 English tests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave earlier to the hon. Members for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson).

  Middleton Park High School
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he has plans to visit Middleton Park high school to discuss those factors which influenced its standing in his league table.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Middleton Park high school at present. The public examination results published by the Department last November for each local education authority area were produced alphabetically as indicators of the performance of schools and pupils and not as league tables.

  Personal Responsibility
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to foster a sense of personal responsibility and responsibility towards the wider community amongst children at school.

  Mr. Forth
  Section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988 requires the curriculum of every maintained school to promote pupils'"spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development",
  and to prepare them for the
  "opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".
  My right hon. Friend has made clear his expectation that all school activities should be underpinned by a clear ethos which governs behaviour and practice in the school.

  Part-time Students
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to assist with funding for training and postgraduate education of part-time students.

  Mr. Boswell
  Part-time students following designated courses of initial teacher training may qualify for mandatory awards in respect of their maintenance and tuition fees. They may also apply for student loans. Students on other part-time courses may apply for discretionary awards from the appropriate grant-making body. There are no present plans to change these arrangements.

  English Teaching
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement concerning the teaching of English in secondary schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The introduction of the national curriculum has already led to improvements in the teaching of English. But experience has shown that there is still room for improvement, and that is why my right hon. Friend commissioned a review of the English curriculum by the National Curriculum Council with the Curriculum Council for Wales. The report of that review is expected shortly.

  Repairs (Cornwall)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the capital spending limits on Cornwall county council for investment in repairing school buildings in the county.

  Mr. Forth
  No limit has been put on the level of Cornwall's capital spending on school repairs. We do limit the extent to which all local authorities can borrow to fund their capital programmes. But decisions on priorities between services and projects are for Cornwall.

  Education Budget
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the comparative weighting of the education budget between higher and further education and the primary and secondary education sectors.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government's expenditure plans for education reflect the Government's judgment of the 118
  relative needs and pressures on the respective sectors, particularly bearing in mind the projected growth from 1992–93 to 1993–94 of 1.7 per cent. in the number of schoolchildren, 7.9 per cent. in the number of further education students, and 8.5 per cent. in the number of higher education students.

  European Community (Education Systems)
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what studies he has made of other educational systems in use in the EC.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend gathers a range of information through the regular contacts of Ministers and officials with their counterparts in other EC countries, through detailed studies by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools, and through the EC EURYDICE network for the exchange of information between policy makers about he educational systems of member states.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what further representations he has received following the announcement of new measures to strengthen support for pupils with special educational needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Ministers and officials have continued to meet numerous organisations concerned with special educational needs to discuss issues arising from the Education Bill. On 11 November 1992 and 7 January 1993 I met the Special Education Consortium, and am meeting it again on 4 March, with my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State. We have welcomed the constructive contribution which the consortium has made to this important debate.

  Student Fees
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to permit universities and other higher and further education institutions to charge full or part fees to students direct other than through local education authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  It is for universities and colleges of higher education to set their own fee rates. The Government have no power to set the fees charged by institutions. We have no plans to change the current arrangements whereby standard tuition fees are reimbursed from public funds for students holding mandatory awards.

  Schools Councils
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many square feet of(a) offices, (b) meeting rooms and (c) storage are used currently by (i) the National Curriculum Council and (ii) the School Examinations arid Assessment Council.

  Mr. Forth
  The National Curriculum Council has almost 21,000 sq ft of office space, including common areas, 4,500 sq ft of meeting rooms and 8,500 sq ft of storage space, divided between two sites in the centre of York and one on the outskirts of the city.

  The School Examinations and Assessment Council has almost 29,000 sq ft of office space, including common areas, 4,000 sq ft of meeting rooms and 1,700 sq ft of storage area, at one site in Notting Hill Gate.
  119
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the cost per square foot of the offices rented by the National Curriculum Council in York.

  Mr. Forth
  The National Curriculum Council currently leases three properties in York. The cost of Albion Wharf is £15–00 per square foot; the cost of offices at 5A Museum street is £9.90 per square foot; and the cost of the Warehouse is £4.00 per square foot.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he intends to announce where the headquarters of the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority will be based.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has this morning announced that the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority will be based in London. He has also announced that the Funding Agency for Schools will be based in York.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many staff will be employed by the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority when it is set up.

  Mr. Forth
  The detailed staffing structure will be a matter for the chairman designate to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is expected that the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority will employ fewer staff than the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council combined.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many square feet of(a) offices, (b) meeting rooms and (c) storage he expects to be required by the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority when it is set up.

  Grade

  National Curriculum Council

  School Examinations and Assessment Council

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  G2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  G3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  G4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  G5

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  G6

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  G7

  3

  3

  2

  1

  1

  2

  SEO

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  HEO

  4

  4

  1

  1

  2

  —

  EO

  2

  5

  2

  2

  7

  11

  AO

  3

  1

  2

  1

  2

  1

  AA

  1

  2

  1

  4

  1

  1

  WPO/SPS

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  SEB/SGB

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  19

  24

  10

  11

  17

  17

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many finance staff are employed by(a) the National Curriculum Council and (b) the School Examinations and Assessment Council; and how many staff at each grade in each body are qualified accountants.

  Mr. Forth
  The finance section of the National Curriculum Council comprises eight full-time and two part-time staff. Of these, three of the full-time staff are qualified accountants, one at grade 5, one at SEO, and one at HEO.

  The finance section of the School Examinations and Assessment Council comprises seven staff. Of these one, at grade 6, is a qualified accountant.
  120
  Mr. Forth
  It will be for the chairman and chief officer of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority finally to identify the amount of space required and the uses to which that space is put. My right hon. Friend's decision on the location of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority was, however, informed by an estimate of the amount of space likely to be required by the new body.

  The estimate is that 14,000 to 17,000 sq ft will be needed for offices, and something over 3,000 sq ft will be needed for facilities including meeting rooms, storage areas and administration facilities. On top of this, space will be required for circulation.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the cost per square foot of the offices rented by the School Examinations and Assessment Council in London.

  Mr. Forth
  The cost per square foot of the offices rented by the School Examinations and Assessment Council is £25.00.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish a table showing the staff turnover by grade at(a) the National Curriculum Council and (b) the School Examinations and Assessment Council in 1990–91 and 1991–92 and so far in 1992–93.

  Mr. Forth
  The table shows, by grade, the numbers of staff who have left employment in the NCC and the SEAC in the years indicated.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many staff are employed currently by(a) the National Curriculum Council and (b) the School Examinations and Assessment Council.

  Mr. Forth
  The National Curriculum Council currently employs 104 staff. The School Examinations and Assessment Council currently employs 147.4 staff.

  Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total number of maintained(a) primary and (b) secondary schools; how many of each are (i) voluntary aided, (ii) voluntary controlled and (iii) grant maintained; and how many in each category are Anglican, Roman Catholic, other denominational and non-denominational.
  121
  Mr. Forth
  In England in January 1992, the latest date for which full information is available, there were 18,926 and 3,847 maintained primary and secondary schools respectively, including 143 self-governing state- grant-maintained-schools. The following table gives a breakdown of those schools by status and denomination.

  Maintained primary and secondary schools by status and denomination—England January 1992

  Primary

  Secondary

  Voluntary Aided Church of England

  1,905

  109

  Roman Catholic

  1,809

  330

  Other denominational

  21

  4

  Non-denominational

  21

  43

  Total

  3,756

  486

  Voluntary Controlled church of England

  2,759

  86

  Roman Catholic

  1

  —

  Other denominational

  27

  —

  Non-denominational

  44

  91

  Total

  2,831

  177

  Self-Governing State (GM) Church of England

  2

  9

  Roman Catholic

  1

  7

  Other denominational

  —

  —

  Non-denominational

  10

  114

  Total

  13

  130

  Special Agreement Church of England

  1

  15

  Roman Catholic

  1

  49

  Other denominational

  —

  1

  Non-denominational

  —

  —

  Total

  2

  55

  County Non-denominational

  12,324

  2,939

  Total

  18,926

  3,847

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total number of schools which have held ballots on grant-maintained status; and how many of them are(a) Anglican and (b) Roman Catholic, listing in each category how many are (i) now operating as grant-maintained schools, (ii) have received approval for grant-maintained status, (iii) have published proposals and are awaiting a decision, (iv) have voted for grant-maintained status but not yet published proposals, (v) have had their proposals rejected and (vi) have voted against grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  A total of 928 schools have held ballots on grant-maintained status, of which 87 are Anglican and 91 are Roman Catholic. Detailed information is given in the table.

  Anglican

  Roman Catholic

  Operating

  30

  18

  Approved and minded to approve

  2

  12

  Proposals published

  19

  26

  Proposals awaited

  13

  19

  122

  Anglican

  Roman Catholic

  Proposals rejected

  7

  2

  No votes

  16

  14

  Pre-School Education
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of children in the London borough of Redbridge are in pre-school education; what is the national average; what is the comparable figure for each EC country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  In 1992 the age participation rate for maintained schools was 34 per cent. for Redbridge and 49 per cent. for England. The participation rate for England for all forms of education and group day care for the under-fives was over 90 per cent. Comparable figures for all EC countries are not available: where participation rates for education are known, the range in 1989 was from 27 per cent. to 99 per cent.

  Palmerstone Special School
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education why Thomas Kelleher has been excluded from Palmerstone special school, Liverpool; what provision is being made for his education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  This is a matter for Liverpool local education authority. However, it has told the Department that Thomas Kelleher was withdrawn from the school by his parents on 22 February and that an alternative placement is being negotiated. I hope that the matter can be resolved quickly and satisfactorily.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to include in the parents charter an entitlement to nursery education for three and four-year-olds.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what research his Department has carried out into the benefits of nursery education; and if he will commission new research.

  Mr. Forth
  Within the last 10 years the Department has supported the child health and education study cohort project which included work on shorter and longer-term effects of pre-school provision. It also supported a review of this and other research projects in 1985–87 by Professor Margaret Clark, whose report "Children under five: Educational Research and Evidence" is available in the Library. The Department keeps under review the need for research on these as on other issues.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to provide finance to allow grant-maintained primary schools to provide nursery places.

  Mr. Forth
  Self-governing schools providing nursery education receive in annual maintenance grant an
  123
  amount based on the level of funding they could have expected to receive for that provision from the former maintaining local education authority. The Department recoups the full cost of annual maintenance grant from the relevant LEA.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if a proposal to no longer maintain nursery provision in a primary school would be regarded as a significant change of character.

  Mr. Forth
  Yes.

  Class Sizes
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what has been the average size of class taught by one teacher in primary schools in Staffordshire in each year since 1983;

  (2) what percentage of single-teacher classes in Staffordshire comprised more than 30 children in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Forth
  Information about classes being taught by one teacher in maintained primary and secondary schools in Staffordshire local education authority for the years 1983 to 1992 is given in the table.

  Classes being taught by one teacher in maintained primary and secondary schools in Staffordshire local education authority

  Position as at January each year

  Percentage of classes with over 30 pupils

  Year

  Average size of classes in primary schools

  Primary

  Secondary

  1992

  26.6

  20.4

  6.9

  1991

  26.3

  18.4

  6.2

  1990

  26.0

  19.8

  5.9

  1989

  25.5

  16.8

  6.0

  1988

  25.4

  17.8

  6.7

  1987

  25.4

  18.0

  8.0

  1986

  25 3

  17.7

  7.8

  1985

  24.5

  13.4

  8.6

  1984

  24.1

  12.9

  8.7

  1983

  23.9

  13.2

  9.2

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to commission research on any relationship between class size and school effectiveness.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to commission such research.

  Examination Results
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he will take to include a measurement of added value in the publication of examination and test results for schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The consultation documents published by the Department on 19 February make it clear that we intend to keep under review the question of measuring added value, as national curriculum assessment and the performance tables of test and examination results are developed year on year. Progress in this complex area will depend in large part on the degree of consensus which can be secured.

EMPLOYMENT

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action she is undertaking to increase reporting of industrial injuries following the publication of the Health and Safety Executive supplementary report to the 1990 labour force survey.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Since publication of the initial results of the Health and Safety Executive supplement to the 1990 labour force survey in the Health and Safety Commission annual report 1990–91, the HSE's operational divisions have emphasised the reporting requirements at visits and have continued to inquire into accident reporting practices and closely examine records as a routine part of inspection. Where appropriate prosecution for failure to report an injury is instituted. Detailed information on the reporting requirements is provided to every new employer that comes to the HSE's attention. Local authorities have taken similar action in premises for which they are the enforcing authority.

  The HSE has also commissioned research into employer's awareness and understanding of the requirements. The results are likely to influence legislative proposals, to simplify both the reporting requirements and the reporting arrangements, to be brought forward later this year by the HSC.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of estimated working days lost through industrial injury under the labour force survey and Health and Safety Executive supplementary report; what action she proposes to reduce this figure; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A supplement to the 1990 labour force survey, sponsored by the Health and Safety Executive, showed that employed people in Great Britain took around 23 million days off work as a result of workplace injury in the year to spring 1990.

  Responsibility for maintaining and improving health and safety standards rests with employers and others concerned at the workplace.

  The Health and Safety Commission's priorities for promoting improvements in health and safety at work are set out in its plan of work for 1993–94 and beyond, which will shortly be submitted to my right hon. Friend for approval and is expected to be published in the spring.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements exist in Bradford for those undertaking employment training to be supplied with tools necessary for their training and with necessary equipment for undertaking courses of study as part of their ET; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The contract with Bradford and District training and enterprise council, which is responsible for delivering adult training in Bradford, requires that the TEC sets out in any contract with a training supplier the arrangements to be made for the provision of any necessary protective clothing and/or equipment for participants on adult training. If to follow the training programme a participant requires protective clothing and/or equipment it will be provided.
  125
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people who got jobs after doing employment training still had that job six months later, in this year and each preceding year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 1 March 1993]: Although there is information on jobs immediately after leaving an ET scheme and on jobs six months after leaving a scheme, there is no information on whether it is the same job. Therefore, the information requested is not available.

  Employment training: planned entrants, entrants, job outcomes for Great Britain

  (numbers and pecentage)

  Year proportion of all leavers

  Planned entrants

  Actual entrants

  Proportion completing training

  Into a job1immediately after their training

  September 1988 to March 19892

  300,000

  238,600

  n/a

  n/a

  April 1989 to March 1990

  560,000

  430,600

  344

  337

  April 1990 to March 1991

  430,000

  394,100

  438

  433

  April 1991 to March 1992

  260,000

  7291,600

  555

  531

  April 1992 to March 1993

  248,000

  6 7210,700

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Jobs includes full-time, part-time and self-employment

  2 ET started in September 1988

  3 Surveying of leavers did not start until July 1989 and this was done three months after they left their programme

  4 Results from leavers three months after leaving training

  5 From January 1991 leavers were surveyed six months after leaving their training

  6 January 1993 is the latest period for which starts information is available. Survey data is not available for 1992–93 leavers

  7 Provisional estimates

  Source: Training Statistics 1990; OSMOSIS, Scottish and Welsh MIS; National Follow-up Survey; PES.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list in order the top 100 travel-to-work areas in England in terms of highest male, female and total unemployment figures for the latest month available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Claimant unemployment rates for the areas requested can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 23 February,Official Report, column 570, if she will break down the overall figures on non-manual worker unemployment, by region.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 1 March 1993]: The regional breakdown of non-manual workers who are unemployed on the internationally standard ILO definition is given in the following table.

  thousands

  Region

  Number

  Great Britain

  822,000

  Northern

  40,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  52,000

  East Midlands

  54,000

  East Anglia

  26,000

  South East

  332,000

  —Greater London

  163,000

  —Rest of South East

  169,000

  South West

  70,000

  West Midlands

  72,000

  North West

  75,000

  Wales

  27,000

  Scotland

  74,000

  Source: Summer (June-August) 1992 Labour Force Survey (not seasonally adjusted).
  126
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many places were available on the employment training scheme in the current year and in each preceding year; in each year, how many trainees started the course; how many completed it; and how many got jobs at the end of it in each year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 1 March 1993]: The information requested is given in the following table.

  Aircraft Industries
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in the aircraft, aerospace and aviation equipment industries in each of the years since 1987; and if she will give an estimate of the distribution of this employment by occupation, socio-economic group and income band relative to manufacturing industry as a whole.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 1 March 1993]: The latest employment figures are from the biennial census of employment for the aerospace equipment manufacturing and repairing industry. The available information is as follows:

  Employees in employment in Great Britain

  Number

  September 1987

  158,000

  September 1989

  163,000

  These figures represent 3.1 per cent. and 3.2 per cent. respectively of all employees in manufacturing industries. Estimates for later dates are aggregated with other transport industries and cannot be identified separately. Figures for 1991 will be available after the publication of the September 1991 census of employment in April.

  Information on the distribution of earnings can be found in tables 66 to 73 of part C of the new earnings survey for each of the years requested. A copy of the survey is available in the Library.

  Figures on the distribution of employment by occupation within socio-economic group is being extracted, but the work will take some time to complete. I will write separately with the information and place a copy in the Library.

  Defence Industries (Alternative Employment)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assistance her Department is providing to former employees of defence-related industries in Hampshire in finding alternative employment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 1 March 1993]: In Hampshire, as elsewhere, the employment service and training and enterprise councils deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes, which are designed to take account of special local circumstances to help former employees of any industry find the best and quickest route back to employment.

  Unemployment, Southampton
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment where the Southampton, Itchen and Southampton, Test, constituencies come in the order of English constituencies ranked by unemployment on the latest available figures.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 1 March 1993]: For areas with different-sized work forces, such as parliamentary constituencies, the only meaningful comparisons are based on unemployment rates. Official estimates are not available at the level of parliamentary constituencies.

  Table 2

  (per cent.)

  Leavers who completed agreed training

  Leavers in work immediately on leaving YT

  Leavers in work three/six months after leaving YT

  April 1986 to March 1987

  n/a

  n/a

  149

  April 1987 to March 1988

  19

  n/a

  260

  April 1988 to March 1989

  33

  n/a

  367

  April 1989 to March 1990

  35

  n/a

  466

  April 1990 to March 1991

  38

  35

  557

  April 1991 to March 1992

  34

  35

  650

  1to 4 Followed-up 3 months after leaving.

  5and 6 Followed-up 6 months after leaving.

  Source: YT Leavers and Follow-up Survey.

ENVIRONMENT

  Energy Efficiency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money was invested in energy efficiency in the United Kingdom in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  A large part of the investment in the United Kingdom economy will have some effect on improving energy efficiency, although it is not possible to separate out an aggregate total of investment specifically directed at this purpose. However, in 1991 the amount of energy required per unit of GDP was some 18 per cent. lower than in 1979.

  Air Quality, Victoria
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the latest information available to him on the monitoring of air quality at Bridge place, Victoria, in London.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people went on the youth training scheme in the current year and each preceding year; in each year, how many completed the course; how many went on to get a job at the end of the course; and how many were still in employment at the end of six months.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 1 March 1993]: The information requested is given in the following tables.

  Youth Training April 1986 to March 1992: Great Britain Starts and Outcomes (All leavers)

  Table 1

  (numbers)

  Youth Training starts

  April 1986 to March 1987

  419,600

  April 1987 to March 1988

  398,100

  April 1988 to March 1989

  407,200

  April 1989 to March 1990

  384,000

  April 1990 to March 1991

  347,800

  April 1991 to March 1992

  1293,000

  April 1992 to January 1993

  12233,000

  1 Provisional estimates.

  2 Latest figures available.

  Source: Training Statistics 1990 and Osmosis, Scotland and Wales Management Information.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on air quality at Bridge place, Victoria, in London is issued every day by the Department of the Environment on the free air quality telephone service—0800 556677—and on Ceefax page 404. This information is provisional; ratified summary statistics are published in annual reports by my Department and Warren Spring Laboratory.

  Packaging
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue guidelines to the United Kingdom packaging industry to encourage the phasing out of the use of inks and pigments containing toxic heavy metals, paints using solvents and lead bottle tops within packaging.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no plans to do so at present.

  Local Government Ministers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the current and previous Ministers whose responsibilities cover or covered local government or inner cities since the election of 1979.
  129
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The current and previous Ministers whose responsibilities cover or covered local government or inner cities since the election of 1979 are:

  Secretary of State

  Mr. Michael Heseltine

  Mr. Tom King

  Mr. Patrick Jenkin

  Mr. Kenneth Baker

  Mr. Nicholas Ridley

  Mr. Chris Patten

  Mr. Michael Howard

  Minister of State

  Mr. Tom King

  Lord Bellwin

  Mr. Kenneth Baker

  Mr. John Patten

  Dr. Rhodes Boyson

  Mr. Michael Howard

  Mr. John Gummer

  Mr. David Hunt

  Mr. Michael Portillo

  Mr. John Redwood

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Lord Bellwin

  Mrs. Angela Rumbold

  Mr. Christopher Chope

  The Hon. Colin Moynihan

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley

  Lord Hesketh

  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory

  Mr. Robert Atkins

  Mr. Patrick Nicholls

  Lady Blatch

  Mr. Robert Key

  Mr. Robin Squire

  River Wear (Pollution)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how often the River Wear is tested for pollution; when it was last tested; what were the results; and what precautions are being taken against pollution in the event of mine closures in County Durham.

  Mr. Maclean
  The National Rivers Authority carries out regular monitoring of river quality; details of sampling points, dates of sampling and results obtained are held on public registers in the NRA's regional offices. It is for British Coal and the NRA, in the first place, to assess the environmental effects of pit closures and to consider what action may need to be taken to avoid pollution.

  Teacher Councillors
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment under what circumstances a school teacher would be disqualified from being elected as a member of a local authority under section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972; and what proposals there are to allow school teachers at grant-maintained schools or schools subject to local management to stand for membership of a local authority.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Teachers are currently barred only from standing for election to the local education authorities of which they are employees. There are no plans to amend this provision, which does not apply to teachers in schools which have opted out of local education authority control.

  Highways Authorities
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proportion of development undertaken by local highways authorities is permitted by part 13 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988;

  (2) if he will seek to amend part 13 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 to reduce the scope of permitted development rights for development by local highway authorities;

  (3) what examination he has made of whether any development permitted by part 13 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 is likely to give rise to significant environmental effects.

  Mr. Baldry
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced on 7 July 1992 a review of all permitted development rights which could have significant environmental effects. That review is near completion, and a consultation paper will be issued shortly.

  As permitted development rights do not require a planning application, information on the proportion of development that is undertaken by local highway authorities without express consent is not available.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many units were provided by housing associations in rural areas during 1991–92; and what proportion this represented of the total provision for housing associations for that year.

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1991–92, the Housing Corporation approved funding for 2,355 homes in settlements with populations of 3,000 or fewer. This represented 5.5 per cent. of the total programme for that year.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what expectations he has of the ability of housing associations to raise private finance during the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Housing associations are expected to raise some £850 million of private finance in the current financial year in support of projects funded by the Housing Corporation, including schemes undertaken as part of the package to help regenerate the housing market, announced in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement. This is a welcome addition to the £2.3 billion of Government money being given to housing associations this year and means that a greater number of new social homes will be provided than would otherwise be possible.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much, as an annual percentage, of rents paid by housing association tenants is met wholly or partly from benefits.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested on the amount of housing benefit paid to housing association tenants is not available. The Department of Social Security has, however, started to collect information on housing association tenants who receive housing benefit and it is likely to be available later this year.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the effect of the poverty trap on the ability of housing associations to house people in low-paid employment.
  131
  Mr. Baldry
  In discussions and correspondence with housing associations some express concern that, as rents increase, it may become more difficult for associations to house those in low-paid employment.

  It is, of course, the case that the housing benefit system is designed to target resources effectively on those in greatest need and the fact that substantial numbers of new association tenants are in receipt of benefit demonstrates that new association homes are going to those in greatest need.

  Nevertheless, the latest data shows that up to one third of new lettings are made to tenants who do not receive housing benefit.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the items of regulation which are due to be examined by his departmental deregulation unit.

  Mr. Redwood
  All my Department's regulations that have an impact on business are being reviewed to ensure that, where they are necessary, they impose the minimum burden. A provisional list of these regulations has recently been prepared. Once it has been fully checked for accuracy and consistency of definition, it will be placed in the Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the standard spending assessments for(a) Humberside, (b) Berkshire, (c) Hampshire, (d) Kent and (e) Essex for (i) 1991–92, (ii) 1992–93 and (iii) 1993–94;

  (2) if he will list the standard spending assessment for (a) Humberside, (b) Berkshire, (c) Hampshire, (d) Kent and (e) Essex for (i) 1992–93, and (ii) 1993–94 as a percentage of that for 1991–92, giving the reasons for any changes.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The standard spending assessments for the authorities requested for the years 1991–92, 1992–93, 1992–93 adjusted for changes in function and 1993–94 are given in pounds million and in pounds per head of resident population.

  Authority

  1991–92 £ million

  1992–93 £ million

  11992–93 £ million

  1993–94 £ million

  Humberside

  545.382

  581.634

  538.727

  552.910

  Berkshire

  444.689

  483.347

  447.544

  458.996

  Hampshire

  889.365

  954.259

  852.240

  895.266

  Kent

  919.852

  978.358

  919.079

  962.128

  Essex

  902.978

  976.009

  902.179

  936.163

  1 Adjusted.

  Pounds per head of resident population

  Authority

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  11992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Humberside

  636.94

  676.99

  627.05

  632.32

  Berkshire

  594.14

  639.78

  592.39

  609.98

  Hampshire

  575.28

  616.82

  550.88

  567.96

  Kent

  603.71

  641.34

  602.48

  625.19

  Essex

  589.39

  636.44

  588.30

  604.63

  1 Adjusted.

  132
  The 1992–93 and 1993–94 standard spending assessments as a percentage of the 1991–92 standard spending assessments for the authorities requested are as follows:

  £s million

  £s per head

  Authority

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Humberside

  106.6

  101.4

  106.3

  99.3

  Berkshire

  108.7

  103.2

  107.7

  102.7

  Hampshire

  107.3

  100.7

  107.2

  98.7

  Kent

  106.4

  104.6

  106.2

  103.6

  Essex

  108.1

  103.7

  108.0

  102.6

  An authority's standard spending assessment is determined by various social, demographic and physical characteristics. Much of the variation in the ratios between these authorities for both 1992–93 and 1993–94 is due to indicator data changes, especially to the effect of incorporating data from the 1991 census. But the main influence for 1993–94 is the removal from local education authorities of responsibility for most aspects of further education.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the average and median percentage increases in standard spending assessments for all local authorities in(a) Yorkshire and Humberside, (b) the south-east and (c) the northern region for 1993–94 over those for 1992–93.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The mean and median percentage increases in standard spending assessments from 1992–93, adjusted for changes in function, to 1993–94 for all local authorities, including metropolitan fire and police authorities, the receiver for the Metropolitan Police and the London fire and civil defence authority, for the regions requested are as follows:

  Standard statistical region

  Mean per cent.

  Median per cent.

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2.0

  2.7

  South East (including Greater London)

  3.1

  3.3

  Northern

  1.7

  1.4

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment from what date, for the purposes of calculating receipts taken into account, local authorities are assumed to have had the use of 100 per cent. of capital receipts; when they actually had the use of 100 per cent. of capital receipts; what steps he will take to ensure that local authorities realising large capital receipts between those dates are not penalised by these rules; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In issuing basic credit approvals-BCAs-to local authorities to support their capital expenditure in 1993–94, account was taken of a proportion of the usable capital receipts estimated to be available to them during that year. In this way, more of the available support could be directed to authorities with few receipts.

  The BCAs for 1993–94 were issued on 22 December 1992, at which time neither we nor authorities knew how much each authority would have available in 1993–94 as usable receipts. Thus we could only make estimates.

  For 1992–93, we based such estimates for each authority on the usable receipts brought forward from the

  133
  previous year, and those which the authority forecast it would obtain during the year. But we felt that it would not be fair to estimate usable receipts for 1993–94 on a similar basis, unless we made some additional allowance for the changes in the usable proportions of receipts which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn statement and which apply during the period from 13 November 1992 to 31 December 1993. With a few exceptions, the effect of these changes was to increase the usable proportion of capital receipts from council house sales from 25 to 100 per cent., and to increase the usable proportion of such receipts from other kinds of disposals from 50 to 100 per cent. Thus authorities' usable capital receipts in 1992–93 and 1993–94 will be increased as a result of the change hut, for any given level of disposals, the increase will he greater for housing receipts.

  We therefore asked authorities to estimate how much their usable receipts would have been in 1992–93 if the changes made in the autumn statement had applied throughout that year. These figures enabled us to make some allowance for the temporary change in the rules in our estimates of usable receipts in 1993–94 which we took into account in determining basic credit approvals.

  We recognise that differences are bound to arise between the usable receipts actually available to authorities and those used in the calculation of the basic credit approvals. It would be possible to make an adjustment for such differences when calculating the receipts taken into account in future years. The local authority associations will be consulted on the alternatives which might be considered.

  Heathrow Airport (Fifth Terminal)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will be holding a public inquiry into the planning application for a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport.

  Mr. Baldry
  Yes.

  Business Rate Appeals
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a regional breakdown of the outstanding business rate appeals.

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

  Outstanding non-domestic rating appeals (end December 1992)

  Region

  Appeals

  Northern

  40,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  49,000

  North West

  50,000

  East Midlands

  23,000

  West Midlands

  36,000

  East Anglia

  16,000

  London

  130,000

  South East (excluding London)

  86,000

  South West

  30,000

  Total

  460,000

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with English local authorities and other eligible infrastructure-providing bodies concerning the levels of(a) base and (b) supplementary credit approvals with a view to the provision of matching Government funding to maximise successful applications for European regional development fund assistance.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Consultations have been held with the local authority associations concerning methods of distributing supplementary credit approvals in 1993–94 and subsequent financial years to cover grants from the European regional development fund. As already announced, credit approvals will be available at a level of 100 per cent. to cover forecast ERDF receipts.

  Noise
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure compliance with the targets for night time noise exposure contained in the EC fifth action programme; if he will compile a national inventory of noise exposure levels; if he will set up a national noise abatement programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The draft planning policy guidance note on "Planning and Noise" recommends a range of noise levels for each of four noise exposure categories. These include proposed levels for noise between the hours of 23.00 and 07.00 which are in line with the targets for night time noise contained in the EC fifth environment action programme. My Department has recently completed the national noise incidence study which involved noise measurements being made outside 1,000 homes in England and Wales during 1990 and has provided information on noise exposure levels. The results of the study will be published later this year. My Department's noise research programme also includes several projects which involve the measuring and monitoring of noise from various sources and developing ways in which exposure to noise can be reduced.

  Defective Housing
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the payment of loan charge contributions to local authorities in England and Wales in respect of defective housing expenditure.

  Mr. Baldry
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary amending legislation, my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales propose to contribute to the loan charges payable in 1991–92 by local authorities in England and Wales as a result of the expenditure they incurred before 1 April 1989 in assisting owners of defective housing. The original power in section 569 of the Housing Act 1985 to make contributions in respect of such loan charges was inadvertently repealed in section 157 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Clauses 124 and 125 of the Housing and Urban Development Bill restore it. The purpose is to enable claims from local authorities for sums expected to total £16,777,221 in England and
  135
  £1,009,731 in Wales to be settled without delay. Parliamentary approval of this new expenditure will be sought in the 1993–94 main estimates for the housing, England vote-class VII, vote 1-and the main estimates for the housing, other environmental services and welfare food, Wales vote-class XV, vote 6. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £17,786,952 will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Contrary to Government accounting conventions, parliamentary approval was sought and given for this expenditure in the 1992–93 housing, England vote-class VIII, vote 1-and the 1992–93 housing, other environmental services and welfare food, Wales vote-class XVI, vote 6-in advance of the necessary amending legislation being put before the House. The provision in England of £18,101,000 for defective housing loan charges subhead L4-and in Wales of £990,000-subhead F4-will not be used for any purpose, apart from settling late claims in respect of loan charges arising before 1 April 1991. Any such claims will continue to be settled through ex gratia payments under the arrangements announced in the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on 15 January 1992 Official Report, column 576.

  Severn Estuary
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what requests he has received from the Environment Commissioner of the European Communities for a reasoned opinion on the Severn estuary designation as a special protection area under the 1979 wild birds directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 19 February 1993]: None. The former Nature Conservancy Council's case for designation of the Severn estuary as a special protection
  136
  area is under consideration within Government and the European Commission will be notified of the decision in due course.

  PSA Building Management
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many writs were issued against PSA Building Management in 1991 and how many in 1992; how many of these were to secure payment of bills; and how these writs were spread between different regions.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 26 February 1993]: The Government have asked PSA to improve its performance in paying bills on time. No information is held centrally about the number of writs and I do not know the answer. The businesses now monitor prompt payment by payment cycles and I have asked for a monthly report on progress.

  "Helping the Earth Begins at Home"
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many complaints he has received about the "Helping the Earth" television and newspaper advertisements.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 February 1993]: Since the "Helping the Earth Begins at Home" campaign began in November 1991, two complaints have been put to my Department through the Advertising Standards Authority about press advertisements. The first of these complaints was upheld by the authority, the second was dropped.

  One letter complaining about the campaign's television advertisement was recently forwarded to the Department by the Independent Television Commission and has now been answered. Four other written complaints have been received by my Department from members of the public regarding the campaign's press and other television advertisement.

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

Racehorse Owners: VAT Registration
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the outcome of recent discussions between the Commissioners of Customs and Excise and the racing authorities concerning the registration of racehorse owners for VAT purposes.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the negotiations between representatives of the racing authorities and Customs and Excise are progressing very well and both sides are now optimistic that agreement can be reached.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I had hoped to be able to thank my noble friend today. As it is, I am bound to ask him whether a decision has been made but the announcement is to be left to the Budget, in which case it would seem to be an act of homage and a piece of rather tawdry ceremonial. Alternatively, perhaps a decision has not yet been reached even after many months of discussions and questions, in which case it would seem that our decision processes are in urgent need of a radical overhaul.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not sure whether to accept my noble friend's thanks in advance, or to wait for another Question to be put down to give him the opportunity to thank me. I know that in his position as a Minister my noble friend would have wished to make certain that any agreement fulfilled all the requirements of both sides. That is what we are doing at the moment. It would be wrong for me to comment further.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is not a party matter? I must say that his reply was optimistic. It was to the effect that the talks have gone very well. What we want to see is good results. Perhaps I may point out to the Minister—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Chancellor and the Treasury did the noble thing by making special concessions to the bookmaking industry, but that they do not seem to be running about doing it for the people who run racehorses?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done many noble things. I hope that we shall be able to make a further announcement soon.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that thousands of people employed in racing support the
528
goal of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil? Does the Minister recall that in December the Select Committee of another place when talking about VAT and horse-racing said that many thousands of jobs in the UK depended upon urgent action being taken? Will the Government now take that action?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the House will understand that I cannot go further than I did in my initial Answer. The noble Lord will know full well that there have been negotiations, and that they are close to some sort of agreement.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in no fewer than eight other countries in the European Community the bloodstock industry has been registered for VAT for a long time? Is it not strange that this country, which founded the bloodstock industry 300 years ago, has still not had that, despite pressure from both Houses of Parliament for more than 300 days?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that my noble friend would be the first to agree that we should abide by the rules of the Community. Racing also needs to change. That will permit Customs and Excise to interpret the law differently.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, following what the noble Lord, Lord Acton, said, is the Minister aware that, if the decision is favourable, the impact on employment will be considerable? Racehorse owners, apart from keeping horses in training, invariably have mares and foals, leading to a need for fencing, loose boxes and that kind of thing. Any rebates will be used in the improvement of those facilities, all of which provide employment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, a number of implications arise from the discussions that have taken place between the racing authorities and Customs and Excise. The noble Viscount alludes to some, but there are many others.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, my noble friend says that we are committed to European Community regulations. Why is VAT in the Irish Republic much lower than ours?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is within the fiscal sovereignty of every country to set VAT according to its requirements. In some respects our VAT is considerably lower. We have zero rates where others charge.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I agree with every word expressed with such characteristically 18th century elegance by his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil; that I agree with every word so pungently stated by the noble Lord, Lord Acton, from the Cross Benches, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, from the Liberal Democrat Benches? Would not the most prudent and honourable thing now be to capitulate with grace on this matter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that the affair between the noble Lord and my noble friend

529
Lord Peyton in respect of this issue has gone on for some months. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will realise that I have said as much as I can but I hope that I shall be able to say more in the near future.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, and will he take comfort from the fact, that he is putting up a magnificent performance on a very sticky wicket?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that we are successfully navigating all the hurdles and obstacles in our way.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, without too much effort, I have moved forward into the 20th century in order to express my surprise at the conceit which exists in this country that somehow we run our affairs better than other people? This issue appears to me to prove the contrary.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, certainly it is our ambition to run our affairs better than other people. We also want to run our affairs well, and that is why it is important to reach the correct agreement.

Value of Sterling: Economic Effects
2.44 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider the devaluation of sterling to be helpful to the management of the economy.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the depreciation of sterling has provided opportunities for UK businesses. However, the key to their success remains their ability to control costs, to improve the quality of their products and to increase their non-price competitiveness. The Government's anti-inflation policies will assist them in that. In assessing monetary conditions we are taking full account of the impact of the fall in the exchange rate.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am not clear whether the Answer to my Question was yes, no or maybe. Is the Minister aware that many noble Lords would like to help the Government in respect of the pound but it would be helpful if we knew the Government's policy? The Minister's Answer did not help us. He will be aware that recently the Government spent billions of pounds trying to defend the central parity of the pound in the exchange rate mechanism at 2.95 deutschmarks and that the pound is now very low. Indeed, it is below the purchasing power parity. In those circumstances, does the Minister agree with the Governor of the Bank of England that it would be better if the pound were stronger? Is that the Government's policy?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in setting the monetary conditions for the country we pay attention to the exchange rate. The noble Lord will be aware that we also pay attention to MO, M4 and asset prices.
Lord Richard: My Lords, how much did the country lose on Black Wednesday?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not have an answer to that question.
Lord Richard: My Lords, when answering the first supplementary question the Minister clearly read from a brief on what had happened on Black Wednesday and the result thereof. Is he really telling the House that he does not have that information before him today? If he does have it, why cannot he give it to the House?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not have that information because the Question asks the Government whether they consider the devaluation of sterling to be helpful to the management of the economy. I have answered that Question.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, while the reduced value of the currency should provide substantial benefits for exports, does the Minister consider that we could also make inroads with import substitution? Is there sufficient capability in British industry to respond to imports as well as to the opportunities of export?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we believe that there are increasing opportunities for British business both to meet domestic demand and to take advantage of the potential that devaluation of the pound gives them in exports.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that whether the pound goes up or down it is good sense in any business to make a virtue of necessity?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I listened with care to what my noble friend said.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the two years which we spent in the ERM caused great hardship in this country and increased the number of unemployed? Will the Government learn a lesson and take the opportunity which has been presented by the devaluation of the pound? Will they ensure that manufacturing industry is built up quickly and effectively so that there can be import substitution and an improvement in our export performance?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are seeking to encourage British manufacturing and British companies. The noble Lord will know that our exports are at record levels. We wish to see them grow further in the future and to see British companies take advantage of the present position.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, would it not help to underline the admirable consistency of the Government's anti-inflationary policy, which has already proved most successful, if the Government were to delegate to the Bank of England the operational decisions on the level of interest rates within the context of the publicly-stated economic strategy so that they could turn their attention to the fiscal policy?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that question is slightly different from that on the Order Paper. However, low inflation is important to sustainable growth.
Lord Jay: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the medium-term financial strategy and/or the Enterprise Initiative are still in force?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, there will be a further Statement on government policy in the near future.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was Chief Secretary between 1974 and 1979 when each year the deutschmark was valued at 9.3 per cent. compared with the tiny figure of 2.3 per cent. under this Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord was Chief Secretary during that time when the pound against the dollar depreciated by 13.3 per cent. and against the deutschmark by about 37 per cent.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, am I right in assuming that the Minister does not have the information about Black Wednesday merely because of the wording of the Question? Am I also right in assuming that if a Question were tabled asking how much was lost on that day the information would be given by the Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to table a Question, I am sure that the Government will respond to it.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, as helpful as he has tried to be, I am sure that the noble Earl will realise that the answers which he has given have not been particularly helpful to those engaged in foreign trade. Will he tell us what is the Government's exchange rate policy?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we seek to monitor the exchange rate policy. There is no doubt that business would prefer a stable exchange rate whenever possible, but in the independent financial world in which we live that is not always possible.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Barnett, the noble Earl suggested that the devaluation in September had been beneficial to British industry. Therefore, does he believe that a further devaluation would also be beneficial?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, opportunities have been created for British business but, as I have said on this and numerous occasions, the value of the pound is an important aspect which we take into account in setting monetary policy.

Alberta: Closure of Consulate
2.51 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have now reconsidered their decision to withdraw consular representation from Alberta; and whether they have considered arranging for a suitable person to be appointed as honorary consular representative.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have no plans to reverse the decision to close our consulate-general in Edmonton; nor do we propose to appoint an honorary consul.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the offence which that decision gives to people in Alberta who, on the whole, are extremely warmly disposed towards this country? Is she aware also of the importance of Alberta, the most powerful economic province in Canada? Is it not singularly unhelpful to refuse even to consider appointing an honorary consular representative? What is the reason for that?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we cherish our excellent relations with Alberta. There was disappointment at the time we closed our consulate but there has been a welcome degree of understanding of the resource problems which we faced in reorganising our consular coverage. The federal authorities, which closed all offices in the United Kingdom save the High Commission in London, also understood our resource problems.
We are not appointing an honorary consul because, although we keep the situation under review, we are satisfied that our interests in Alberta, including consular assistance to British citizens transiting Alberta, are adequately covered from Vancouver. Under a Commonwealth convention, British residents in Canada are the responsibility of the Canadian authorities. Therefore we are not contemplating appointing an honorary consul.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that there is strong support on all sides of the House for the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on this issue? Will she accept that it is rather a long way from Vancouver to the point of influence? Are we not in danger of insulting our friends and loyal supporters by withdrawing diplomatic representation while maintaining it in areas where we are obviously not welcome or supported?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I understand the depth of feeling in the House. I should point out that there are flights at least every two hours between Vancouver and Edmonton and the flight time is about two hours. There are telephone links—the telephone was invented by a Canadian—and fax facilities are excellent. The matter was not raised by the then deputy Premier of Alberta when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr. Lennox-Boyd, paid an

533
official visit to Alberta last September. Moreover, the deputy Premier did not mention the closure when he visited the UK in November.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, when the Government made the decision about Alberta, did they take into account the substantial energy resources of that province and the fact that over the years British firms have contributed to the exploitation of those resources with a great deal of expertise? British engineers have gone to Alberta to assist. Will not that development, so highly desirable in our present situation, be prejudiced by the Government's decision?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, two Questions were raised on this matter in 1991 which covered it fully. I am merely giving a re-run of those two Questions. We visit our oil and gas industry interests in Calgary as regularly as we did before the closure of the consulate in Edmonton.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, has the Minister said that an honorary consul will be appointed or will it in no way be considered?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have answered that question.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I am a member of the Anglo-Canadian parliamentary group. I believe, as do many others, that the potential for trade with Canada is considerable. Is my noble friend aware that there are honorary consuls in a number of other Commonwealth countries and in Scandinavia? Why should there not be an honorary consul in Alberta?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am aware of the level of trade. The most recent Canadian figures indicate that our exports to Alberta were worth about £46.2 million in 1991 and imports were worth about £5.45 million. That represents about 2.5 per cent. of our overall trade with Canada. Our own statistics deal only with countries, not with regions. The Albertans have an office in London but the Government have closed all the other offices. They feel the need to do so. We do not in this case.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell us how much it would cost per annum to maintain a consul in Alberta?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no overall figures are maintained for the running costs of honorary consuls in Canada. I have the running costs and staffing levels of British posts in Canada for the financial year 1991–92. The total amounts to £6,610,629. I cannot split that down into honorary consuls.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Baroness tells the House that the reason for abandoning the consulate in Edmonton was the necessity for economies. At the same time, she tells us that she does not know what economies have been effected. Is she aware that as regards economies, many of us can name posts nearer to home and nearer to the Foreign Office where economies could be exercised?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that is another matter. Financial pressures forced the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to cut a number of its operations. Reluctantly, it took the decision to close the Edmonton consulate and other posts. At the time that the Edmonton consulate closed, an annual saving of £231,000 was generated but that was partly offset by additional costs of £50,000 incurred in Vancouver where three additional local staff were recruited to cope with the larger consular district.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it takes rather a lot to make the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, indignant about this Government? I sense that he is extremely indignant, and rightly so, on this occasion. Is the Minister aware that the French, the Germans and the Americans all maintain consular services in Alberta? Does it not seem to be rather derisory for the Government to have behaved as they have in this matter?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord eventually reached his question. Other countries continually review their overseas representation, as we do. They currently perceive sufficient demand for their services to justify the present offices.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, is not the normal cost of an honorary consul an honorary MBE?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there are certain expenses involved.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm, as we were told at the time, that the consul-general was withdrawn from Alberta in order to find someone to be appointed consul-general in Kiev? Is it really thought that representation in Kiev is of greater importance to this country than in the great province of Alberta?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, our consul-general in Vancouver assumed the responsibility for covering Alberta when Edmonton closed. The specific task of the consul-general in Vancouver is to give high priority to our interests in Alberta. He and his staff paid frequent visits to Alberta in 1992. Those visits totalled 29. We keep the matter under constant review.

Fonofos: Effect on Wildlife
3 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa Lord Buxton of Alsa asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will withdraw the licence for the use of the agrochemical Fonofos, in view of its lethal effect on wild birds and the growing number of reported incidents.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, at the time of its approval, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides considered all aspects of the use of Fonofos and was satisfied that it was acceptable provided it was used as directed. All reported incidents of suspected wildlife poisoning by pesticides are

535
investigated under the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme. In the past two years only three incidents have been reported which have been positively linked to Fonofos. The future status of the product will be reconsidered when it is reviewed as part of the routine review programme of older pesticides.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. As I understand it, Fonofos and other agrochemicals are given provisional approval then let into the wild, so to speak, to see what damage is done, and then they are subsequently reviewed. Does my noble friend feel that the system is adequate in this particular case, taking into account the fact that the World Health Organisation has described Fonofos as extremely hazardous? In the United States Fonofos is on the extremely hazardous substances list. In the former Soviet Union and Germany it is banned. It is described in the literature as relatively more potent than aldrin and dieldrin, both of which had to be banned here. Does my noble friend really feel happy about that situation?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend needs me to point out that there is no such thing as a completely safe pesticide. However, what the Government have to decide in considering the withdrawal of approval is whether there is an unacceptable degree of risk attached to a product on the basis that it is used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. It is the Government's view that there is no unacceptable risk attached to Fonofos against the background of incidents reported.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell the House whether he is aware of any accidental poisoning of endangered wild birds by Fonofos?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, in 1991 two incidents were reported where treated seed appeared to be the cause of death of a number of pigeons. In 1992, 10 feral pigeons were killed due to a combination of smoke inhalation from crop burning and ingestion of treated seed.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is the noble Earl prepared to say whether the Government could reintroduce their successful amnesty for unwanted and dangerous pesticides? Apart from the pesticide mentioned in the Question there is a pesticide called Fenthion—used mainly for the control of crows and foxes —which has recently accounted for the death of five rare red kites. The danger of that pesticide could well be reduced by the reintroduction of the amnesty.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Viscount asks an interesting question which is slightly wide of that on the Order Paper. If he cares to table a Question on that matter I shall be pleased to answer it. We should not overlook the effect on cereal crops if approval for Fonofos were to be withdrawn. I believe there would be a very much larger incidence of disease—notably wheat bulb fly—in wheat and barley, resulting in much poorer yields. This is not a step to be taken lightly.
Lord Moran: My Lords, am I right in thinking that Fonofos was introduced because, unlike dieldrin and aldrin, it degrades relatively quickly? If that is so, how quickly does it degrade and what is the interval between sowing seed dressed with Fonofos and the time when it can safely be eaten by a wild bird?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, makes an important point. Fonofos is an organophosphorus insecticide for soil and seed treatment. Aldrin and dieldrin, on the other hand, are completely different, being organochlorines. They were banned due to their persistence in the environment, as the noble Lord rightly said. Fonofos has only short-term persistence and the risks associated with it can be minimised by good farming practice. The advice from manufacturers is that livestock should not be exposed to any area where Fonofos has been used for a period of six weeks afterwards.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will register the point that taking account of casualties to birds or wildlife in the field is a flawed system because only large fat birds such as pigeons, partridges or pheasants are likely to be noticed. Probably hundreds of birds that are affected are not noticed. It is only zealots like myself who might see those birds and send them off for analysis. For every bird that is found there are hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of small seed-eating birds such as finches and songbirds that flutter away into the hedges and bushes and are never seen or heard of again.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend's concern on this matter. In many ways this is an inexact science. The Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme is operated by MAFF and it examines incidents involving vertebrate wildlife as well as companion animals and honey bees in England and Wales. Field investigations are carried out by ADAS wildlife biologists. Dead animals are then subjected to post mortem examination at veterinary investigation centres. The results are treated seriously and the general public are not slow to report incidents of this nature.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the noble Earl said that Fonofos would be due for review in the normal course of events—I do not remember his exact words—but what length of time does he envisage? How often are such substances reviewed? In this case, how long will it be before it is looked at again?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I said earlier, Fonofos will be reviewed under the rolling programme for older pesticides unless new information comes forward which requires more urgent review. Naturally, the Government would accept the advice of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides in that regard. But at present no date has yet been set.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on juvenile offending.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the London Docklands Development Corporation Bill will be taken.

Housing and Urban Development Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 8,

Schedules 1 and 2,

Clauses 9 to 11,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 12 to 22,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 23 to 28,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 29 and 30,

Schedule 6,

Clause 31,

Schedule 7,

Clause 32,

Schedule 8,

Clause 33,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 34 to 36,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 37 and 38,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 39 to 52,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 53 to 57,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 58 to 62,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 63 to 105,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 106 to 108,

Clauses 119 and 120,

Clauses 126 to 130,

Clause 109,

Clause 131,

Clause 110,

Clause 132,

Clauses 111 to 115,

Clauses 133 to 135,

Clauses 116 to 118,

Clauses 121 to 125,

538

Clauses 136 to 140,

Clauses 142 and 143,

Clause 141,

Schedules 16 and 17,

Clause 144,

Schedule 18,

Clauses 145 to 152,

Schedule 19,

Clauses 153 to 170,

Schedules 20 and 21,

Clause 171.—(Lord Strathclyde.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion "That the Report be now received" to leave out ("now") and at end insert ("when the House has had an opportunity to consider proposals from Her Majesty's Government to privatise the Immigration Service.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was moved to table this amendment by a report in the Independent yesterday which stated:
"Among the more controversial areas identified for potential privatisation over the next two years are computerised police records … But the suggestion causing most concern is that all port-of-entry control be put out to tender … Previously, Home Office ministers have rejected any market testing of immigration, believing the sensitivity of the area does not lend itself to privatisation. The £120 million programme was drawn up from a study by the chartered accountants, Coopers and Lybrand, and an in-house privatisation survey".
That report leads me to wonder whether immigration control is to be handed over to Securicor or some other value-for-money private company. I wonder what the significance is of the amendments we are tabling, of the responses of the noble Earl to our questions and of the debate which we are holding.
We plough through the immigration Bill meticulously, clause by clause and word by word trying to inject an element of civility and justice into, this unhappy measure. But what will happen if the administration of the whole business is handed over to some value-for-money private company which is in it for profit? Such an operator may be interested only in the bottom line and making what he can out of wretched refugees fleeing from persecution and possibly death.
Before we embark on further consideration of the Bill the noble Earl should tell us whether privatisation of immigration control is on the agenda. If it is we should reconsider engaging in the debate on which we are about to embark. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I speak in support of the comments which have just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I am sorry, I

539
should have said the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I live in hope that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will speak with the same sense as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
I hope that the Minister will deny the report that has appeared in the newspapers because it is an extremely offensive suggestion. I recall that when I was a Minister at the Department of Trade dealing with aviation the chief executive of the British Airports Authority, who later became its chairman, took the view—with which I concurred —that it was offensive that Securicor should be looking after searching operations at Heathrow and other BAA airports. The primary reason was that very little was done to educate Securicor employees in that task. Just imagine the educative process that would be required for such people to deal effectively, properly and humanely with asylum seekers and refugees.
It is important that a suggestion of the kind which has been made should be cast aside by the Government altogether. It is not worthy of the Government's consideration. I hope that the Minister will give the House some reassurance on that point immediately.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is fair enough that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, should wish to table what is in effect a Parliamentary Question and use this opportunity to do so. However, this asylum Bill is most urgently needed. Tens of thousands of people have been claiming to come to this country when we have 3 million unemployed. They do so under the umbrella of the asylum laws, which have been very generous in the past. It is only right that the Government should have this Bill at last in order to put the matter right.
I remind your Lordships that the Bill was introduced in the last Parliament. We have already devoted a good deal of time to it in both Houses in this Session. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will make it clear that the Bill is not to be delayed.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I should like to make two points in response to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. First, the Bill was withdrawn during the last Parliament because the Government did not consider it a priority in terms of time. Secondly, all that is required to proceed with the Bill is an assurance from the Government that they do not intend to privatise the immigration service.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, anyone who understands the first thing about parliamentary procedure recognises this as a delaying manoeuvre. There is no need for this amendment at all. The matter has been discussed at length and a decision has been arrived at. The word "now", which means that we want the Government to implement what Parliament has decided, is the right one.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, if the noble Earl tells the House that there is no truth in the report, there will be no delay at all. We shall be able to continue with the Report stage in three minutes' time, because that is all the time he needs to say that.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the Minister were to confirm that it is the intention to privatise, that could not be done by secondary legislation. That being so, would not a future occasion be the right time to consider appropriate safeguards and the form of transfer of functions rather than now? Although well intentioned, the amendment is in a sense premature.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that it would take me only three minutes to say what I have to say and to clear up all the concerns. I could not rise earlier since the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, had put down an amendment which has stimulated an irrelevant debate. The noble Lord has, not for the first time, fallen into the trap of believing all that he reads in the newspapers. In that he is now followed by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. The noble Lord has allowed his imagination to go into overdrive.
I can assure your Lordships that the report in the newspaper which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, read is wrong. My right honourable friend has no plans and has never had any plans to market test the work of immigration officers at ports of entry. My right honourable friend is undertaking a programme of market testing in areas for which he is responsible in accordance with the proposals in the White Paper Competing for Quality. Given the nature of the discretions which are exercised on his behalf under immigration law, my right honourable friend has never believed that the work is suitable for market testing.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that satisfactory reply, which is exactly the one I hoped to receive. I am most grateful to him for clearing up a matter which, even though it appeared in the newspapers, might have been believed because sometimes reports which appear in newspapers are true. Therefore, I am glad to have that assurance from the noble Earl.
If the noble Earl casts his mind back to the time when he answered a similar question from my noble friend Lord Harris about the privatisation of prisons, he will remember that he said that there was no hidden agenda but there proved to be an agenda of which he had not been informed. I hope that on this occasion there is no hidden agenda. I take it that there is not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Report received.
Clause 1 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("the United Kingdom's obligations under").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 18, 26 and 31B which are all to the same effect. The purpose of the amendments is to take out the words,

541
"the United Kingdom's obligations under",
the 1951 convention. The reason for taking out those words is that, as we understand it, the only United Kingdom obligation is not to return a person applying for asylum directly to the country of claimed persecution. In other words, the addition of the phrase,
"the United Kingdom's obligations under",
in all the places in which it occurs restricts the application of the convention where claimants for asylum and refugees come from safe third countries.
At Committee stage I was obliged to point out that few places from which people seek asylum are accessible by direct flights to this country or directly by ship. The vast majority of people coming to this country as claimants for asylum come through a safe third country. Just as all of the immigrants to Israel from the former Soviet Union travelled through Vienna or other ports of call, so anybody coming to this country from Iraq, Somalia, any of the central African countries which are at present in turmoil or any country where there is a real risk of persecution will almost certainly, because of the distances involved and the nature of the travel business, have to come through a so-called safe third country.
It is the intention of the amendments to ensure that the Government do not have the opportunity to use that fact of the travel business to slough off all responsibility for claimants for asylum. Under the Bill as drafted those people could return to a safe third country without any investigation being made let alone any agreement being secured that the safe third country would not take exactly similar action and return them to the country where they suffered persecution and from which they fled. We take the Government's protestations of adherence to the United Nations convention of 1951 seriously. With the provisos that I have made, we invite the Government to accept the amendments, to give full effect to the United Nations convention and not to have a bolt hole relating to the ability to return applicants to safe third countries. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and other noble Lords opposite on the wisdom they have shown in following government advice at Committee stage about confining the operation of the Bill to the convention of 1951 and the protocols made under it. That is indeed a step towards agreement that we should like to have in your Lordships' House on the provisions of the Bill.
I had rather hoped that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, could be reassured that the danger which he has suggested will arise is not one with which we need be concerned. We are legislating for the law of the United Kingdom; we do not make laws for other countries. It is surely right that where we have an international convention to which we are a party, we should consider those parts of it which are relevant to the United Kingdom. That is what the Bill does. If the noble Lord needs further assurance, I invite his attention to the second clause of the Bill which reads simply and is very operative. It states:
542
"Nothing in the immigration rules (within the meaning of the 1971 Act) shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention".
I should have thought that the noble Lord has nothing to fear.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the definition of a claim for asylum and the Bill offer protection to asylum seekers by relating the claim to the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention. For the purposes of an asylum claim, the essential obligation is contained in Article 33 of the convention which forbids the return of a refugee to a country in which his life or freedom would be threatened. The convention deals with other issues and rights which are of importance to a refugee once he lives in a particular country. But those have no relevance whatever to the determination of an asylum claim.
The amendment seems to envisage that a person's removal from the country can in some sense contravene the 1951 convention as distinct from the United Kingdom's obligations under that convention. That is simply not the case. The convention works by imposing obligations on contracting states. The key obligation in regard to asylum is the obligation in Article 33 not to send a refugee to a country where his life or his freedom would be threatened. The proposed amendments would not add any measure of protection whatever for refugees over and above that which is already in the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the Minister say, and I am not reassured. The noble Lord is right in saying that the Bill is concerned with United Kingdom law rather than with the obligations of others. However, having listened to the Minister's reply, I still do not detect any sign that he recognises that if someone comes from, let us say, Mogadishu, or (as I cited in Committee) from Adana in Eastern Turkey, Sulaymaniyah in Northern Iraq, or northern Sri Lanka, via Frankfurt, he comes to this country from Frankfurt. Under those circumstances, as I understand the convention, the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention relate to Frankfurt rather than to Mogadishu or to Sulaymaniyah.
If I am wrong, I shall be delighted not only to withdraw the amendment but never to speak on the subject again. From the distinction which the Minister made in Committee between the convention and our obligations under the convention it seems that there must be some difference. The Minister has been more categoric today. I believe that I should take the opportunity between now and Third Reading to compare his words at Report and Committee stages and if necessary to return to the matter. I am delighted to give way to the Minister.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the thought of the noble Lord never speaking again on the subject stimulates me to rise to my feet. To do so, I have to have the leave of your Lordships; but I make only this point. It might help to clear up the noble Lord's concern. The immigration rules on asylum will spell out that a person will not be sent to a safe third country unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that that country will
sara
543
not send him elsewhere contrary to the principles of the convention. That is an important facet of the noble Lord's anxiety. I hope that that clarification will satisfy him on the subject for ever.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should have learned earlier that "never" and "never ever" are words which one does not use in this Chamber or in politics generally. In referring to the draft rules, which I had not seen before, the noble Earl has satisfied my mind that the intentions of the Government are those that we would wish. Whether we believe that the issue should be written on to the face of the Bill at a later stage is another matter. I accept the assurances given by the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 3:
Before Clause 3, insert the following new clause:

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill

  Young unaccompanied asylum seekers
  .—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order establish an advisory panel for the purpose of making advice available to a child who has arrived in the United Kingdom unaccompanied by an adult person capable of looking after him.
  (2) The members of such advisory panel shall be appointed from time to time in accordance with the provisions of section (Appointment and functions of advisory panel) below and shall have the functions therein described.
  (3) A member of such advisory panel is referred to as an asylum-seeker's adviser.
  (4) Where a child unaccompanied by an adult person capable of looking after him arrives in the United Kingdom and is, or appears to an immigration officer to be, under the age of 18 years and such child has made, or may reasonably be considered as desiring to make, a claim for asylum, the immigration officer shall notify the advisory panel with a view to the child being forthwith referred to an appropriate asylum-seeker's adviser for the purpose of carrying out the functions described in section (Appointment and functions of advisory panel) below.").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are two new clauses which I seek to add to the Bill. They are designed to cope with the problem of children who arrive in the country unaccompanied and on their own from war-torn countries such as Eritrea, Somalia, Zaire and now Bosnia. As I said at Committee stage, those children arrive usually at Heathrow or Gatwick, fearful and friendless, exhausted by their journey, shocked at being separated from family and home and probably speaking no language known to the immigration officer. The child needs someone at the point of entry who speaks the child's language, is familiar with his culture and background and can be a friend and adviser to the child until his future is settled in accordance with the immigration laws. The numbers are not large. In 1991 128 such refugees arrived in this country unaccompanied. In 1992, the number was 185, an average of three or four a week.
  The proposed clauses do not in any way alter immigration laws or procedures or interfere with the responsibilities of local authorities. Under the first clause, the Secretary of State is to set up an advisory panel whose function it will be to make advice available to a child who has arrived in this country
  544
  unaccompanied by anyone capable of looking after it. The Secretary of State has no function to perform except to set up the panel on his own terms.
  Under the first new clause, when an unaccompanied child refugee arrives here, the immigration officer is to notify the panel. He has no other duty to perform. The panel having been alerted, the child will be referred to an appropriate member of the panel who will carry out the functions described in the second clause.
  The second new clause is crucial. It describes the qualifications which must be possessed by a member of the panel. It also describes the duties of the panel member to whom a child is referred. The qualifications which must be possessed by a member of the panel, called in the clauses an "asylum-seeker's adviser", are threefold. First, he must be able to speak or to call upon a person who can speak one or more of the languages likely to be spoken by these child refugees. Secondly, he must be familiar with the habits and customs of the place from which the refugee children are likely to come. Thirdly, he must have knowledge of child care legislation and immigration procedures.
  I turn to the functions of the asylum seeker's adviser. These are crucial to the Bill and I must ask your Lordships to allow me to read the two subsections of the second new clause in full. They are the two last subsections on page 2 of the Marshalled List:
  "(5) It shall be the function of an asylum-seeker's adviser, to whom a young asylum-seeker has been referred, to befriend and advise the asylum-seeker in all matters relating to immigration, accommodation, education, health and general welfare for so long and to such an extent as the adviser shall from time to time consider desirable; and in performing such function the adviser shall have regard to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the young asylum-seeker (considered in the light of his age and understanding)".
  The final words are taken from Section 1 of the Children Act 1989.
  "(6) Nothing in this section or [the preceding] section … affects the powers or duties of local authorities under the Children Act 1989 or otherwise."
  I emphasise the words "befriend and advise" the child. The role of the adviser is purely advisory, to advise the child, not to interfere with the immigration officer or the local authority.
  That is the scheme which I urged upon the Government at Committee stage. There were five, and only five, reasons advanced at that stage for rejecting these amendments. Reason number one is given at col. 1108 of Hansard for 16th February 1993: "There would be delay". Not so. The scheme does not impinge on, interfere with or defer in any way whatever the existing duties of the immigration officer or of the social services department of a local authority. The immigration officer merely has to telephone the office of the advisory panel to report the arrival of an unaccompanied child refugee. The local authority would be alerted by the immigration officer, just as now happens. Nothing can cause delay.
  Reason number two is given at col. 1108 of Hansard:
  "there would be brought into being a body of people unable to give the advice that is required".
  Again, not so. Under the second clause, the members of the panel must be persons who can speak the

  545
  languages, who are familiar with the cultures likely to be encountered and who have knowledge of welfare and immigration procedures. By definition, the members of the advisory panel are able to give the advice that is required. Otherwise, they would not be on the advisory panel.
  Reason number three is given at col. 1108:
  "the advisers are meant to do the work of children's officers and social services departments".
  They are not. They are exclusively to befriend and advise the child refugee, not to advise or do the work of a children's officer or the social services departments.
  Reason number four is given at col. 1110:
  "the responsibility for the welfare of the children lies quite firmly and legally with the local authorities".
  The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said again at col. 1110:
  "I wonder whether to create another body or agency which had care responsibilities toward child asylum seekers would not … muddle the local authority's role".
  That is not so. The responsibility for the welfare of the child refugee would remain firmly where it is now. The existing care responsibilities towards child refugees would be totally unchanged. The role of the asylum seeker's adviser would be to befriend and advise the child, not to take over the responsibilities of the local authority. For example, if an accommodation problem arose or if a child needed medical attention, the role of the adviser would be confined to ascertaining from the child what the problem was, speaking to the child in its own language and seeing that the child knew what it could do to overcome the problem. No doubt the adviser would communicate with the local authority or health service facility, alerting them to the problem, so that it could be resolved in the proper quarter.
  Reason number five is given at col. 1110:
  "it would be difficult, in practical terms, to create a body of professional people who are experts in child psychology, or specialists in refugee issues, familiar with a range of different languages and cultures".
  The object of the new clauses is not to set up a panel of specialists in child psychology or refugee issues. It is to have people available who can speak the language required, are acquainted with the relevant culture and have knowledge of child care legislation and immigration procedures; someone who can befriend and advise the child in its own language until the child's future is settled.
  There would be no difficulty in assembling such a panel. I specifically raised that point with the Refugee Council, with particular reference to the major troublespots: Eritrea, Somalia, Zaire and Bosnia. In a letter sent to me last week, the Refugee Council wrote:
  "I am writing to confirm that the Refugee Council would be able to appoint"—
  the writer means "suggest"—
  "panel members to provide a service to unaccompanied children from Zaire, Eritrea, Somalia and Bosnia".
  Those were the five reasons, and the only reasons, advanced at Committee stage for rejecting the amendments. If further reasons are advanced now, your Lordships may feel that they cannot be very serious reasons or surely they would have been advanced at Committee stage.
  I believe that the fourth reason for rejecting the amendments is the most important one of all. It was rightly stressed by the noble Earl at Committee stage and I should like to spend a few further moments on it; namely, whether the scheme might lead to some conflict, some muddying of the waters, between local authorities and the advisory panel. It was asked whether perhaps the advisory panel might not be altogether welcomed by local authorities. Are local authorities not able to cope already by making use of existing facilities such as the Refugee Legal Centre?
  I can tell the House with confidence that local authorities feel the need for a scheme such as I propose and that they will welcome it. I say that because I am authorised to say that the amendments are supported, first, by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, secondly, by the Association of London Authorities, thirdly, by the London Boroughs Association, and fourthly by the Association of Directors of Social Services. Fifthly, the amendments are supported by the London Borough of Hillingdon, which has been at the receiving end of this problem as much as any local authority. I quote from a letter from Hillingdon dated 22 February:
  "This local authority has provided extensive child care services far in excess of 110 such young people since January 1990. Our experience has been that our capacity to respond to our duties under the Children Act and our responsibility to ensure that the young person is properly guided through the immigration processes would be improved by such a facility being available at the point of entry. Consequently I wish to convey our support for the amendment".
  I invite your Lordships' attention to the closing words of the second new clause:
  "Nothing in this section [or the preceding section] affects the powers or duties of local authorities under the Children Act 1989 or otherwise".
  I see no room for confusion between the role of the local authority and the role of the asylum seekers' adviser. I see nothing but a warm welcome from the social services of all local authorities concerned.
  The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, did not put forward cost as an objection to the scheme; but in these days I must not overlook expense and value for money. The scheme was originally costed by the Refugee Council in collaboration with the Children's Legal Centre at £60,000 to £64,000 a year. The latest information I have reads as follows;
  "Clearly my estimate of £64,000 is too low as the administrator would probably need to be full-time, and I have not accounted for potential interpretation costs. Even so, it remains a very modest proposal, under or close to the £100,000 mark".
  The cost to a local authority of taking a child into care has been variously estimated at £25,000 to £40,000 a year for each child. Assuming the latest figure of 185 unaccompanied child refugees a year, the cost per child of this scheme would be £540 a year, which is a trivial sum to add to the £25,000 or £40,000 cost of taking a child into care.
  In conclusion, I should like to draw attention to what the Minister said at Committee stage:
  "I shall certainly be prepared to look further and see whether there are any ways in which we can meet with the general consensus expressed".—[Official Report, 16/2/93; col. 1111.]
  I know that the noble Earl has a great deal of sympathy for the plight of refugee children. He made

  547
  that abundantly clear during the debate at Committee stage. But the matter has been considered by him for a fortnight and no other way has been found to meet what he describes as the "general consensus". I therefore invite your Lordships to accept my amendments as a reasonable, simple, inexpensive and humanitarian way of coping with this distressing problem. I beg to move.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long in supporting the amendment so ably and movingly put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. I simply point out that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will be moving an amendment to Clause 3 which evokes the principle for the first time in this legislation that children are a distinct social group and that in law—this law as in so many others—they need and deserve to be treated differently from adults.
  I shall welcome the noble Earl's amendment when it is moved. The noble Earl having accepted the principle that children need to be treated differently from adults when they are first interviewed by an immigration officer—for that is the implication of his amendment—I ask him why we should stop there. Why should we not carry the matter further, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, suggests? The adviser is necessary at a child's first interview. I argue that it is equally important for him to ensure that the child's needs are subsequently considered and met by the statutory authorities and services. It is necessary that the child should be informed of its rights and obligations and be advised on how to exercise them. The child should be told that it is expected to make a full and frank disclosure on arrival. That needs special advice. The child needs to be advised also that if its application for asylum is refused it can appeal.
  As the noble and learned Lord said, there are small numbers of children who fall into the category of "unaccompanied"—only 128 last year. The local authorities admit that there is an inevitable absence of expertise to deal with the problems that arise with the children. Some of them have no contact with local authorities; some are in the hands of informal parents. It is those children who particularly need the assistance, advice and presence of an adviser who can help them in the strange, new and alarming situation in which they find themselves.
  I remind your Lordships of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which says that in all actions concerning children the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration. Article 12 of the convention provides for representation of children. Indeed, in nine out of 14 European countries some representation is provided.
  In the light of what the noble and learned said, and in the light of the transparent needs of children arriving in a strange country after what may have been a terrifying experience, I hope that they will be given the benefit of the advice for which the amendment provides and which would accord with our duty, our humanity and our obligation.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, some kind of advisory body of the kind proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, could be an advantage. But I must confess that, having looked closely at the amendment, I do not believe that the scheme he includes in the two new clauses on the Marshalled List are workable.
  As has been mentioned, we have at present fairly elaborate arrangements involving the immigration officer, the local authority welfare officer and often the children's officer. I can well understand that they would be unable to speak the languages of the children arriving unaccompanied, especially from the four countries mentioned. We must bear in mind of course that those are not the only countries from which unaccompanied children will arrive.
  The second new clause suggests that there should be people who have not only knowledge of the language and a familiarity with the customs and territories from which the children come—some of whose customs are quite strange—but also a knowledge of our child care legislation and immigration procedure. That is asking a lot. Some noble Lords will be familiar with the Children Act and the massive secondary legislation passed under it; some will be familiar with our immigration procedures, not all of which are free from controversy. That in itself is quite an achievement.
  I believe that it would be exceedingly difficult to find the kind of people the noble and learned Lord suggested should take part. If we confine the concept to finding people (it would have to be from more than those four countries alone) who could be called upon first and foremost to act as interpreters and, secondly, to explain perhaps the social background and customs of the children and to pass on that information to the officials concerned (welfare officers and children's officers), that may be a good idea. My view is that it would be difficult for my noble friend on the Front Bench to accept the two new clauses as they stand and to accept the scheme tabled by the noble and learned Lord and presented with great sincerity and persuasion. Nevertheless, it would be worth the Government's while to give thought to the possibility of searching out people who could be of help, especially to the children's officers.
  Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may say that if he looks at the second of the clauses of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, he will find that it is not necessary for one person to have all the qualifications listed in the clause. Those qualifications could be spread among one or more of the people on the advisory panel.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I am reading from subsection (3) of the second new clause which says,
  "The advisory panel shall so far as practicable include persons who",
  have those qualities. Does that mean that we will pass a subsection which is in part a dead letter? We must make up our minds. Are they to have those qualities or not? I should have thought that it was quite inhibiting to look for people who have knowledge of child care legislation and immigration procedure as

  549
  well as having been abroad or come from abroad, therefore possessing knowledge of the language and customs of the places concerned.
  Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord and, if I may, to answer my noble friend Lord Renton from my experience of dealing with these children and with these cases.
  On 2nd February this year I wrote to my noble friend the Minister asking why his civil servants opposed the setting up of a panel of advisers who would assist the social services department with children who were unaccompanied refugees. I further asked whether the civil servants had visited London Airport. On 16th February my noble friend replied:
  "I can assure you that there is very close contact between the Asylum Division, the Immigration Services Headquarters in Croydon and Immigration Headquarters at Heathrow and other ports".
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and I visited Heathrow and talked with immigration officers and members of staff to whom the immigration officers referred the unaccompanied refugees. One cannot get nearer the grass roots than that. We learnt that a panel of advisers would be of enormous value to them, to the social services and to the children. How were the civil servants, not having visited either the immigration headquarters at Croydon or Heathrow airport given an opposite point of view?
  In the same letter my noble friend said:
  "Officials are also regularly in touch with the Ministry of Health and have heard … from Directors of Social Services".
  Yet I have a letter from Miss Higgins, the Director of Education and Community Services who is responsible for administering the Children Act 1989, stating:
  "I consider that we should do everything possible to help and befriend unaccompanied refugee children. I would therefore welcome a panel of advisers, particularly with language skills, to support the child and assist the Social Services Department carrying out its duties under the Children Act 1989".
  Furthermore, the leader of Hillingdon Borough Council wrote:
  "Our experience has been that our duties under the Children Act … would be improved by such a facility being available at the port of entry. I support your amendment".
  It is therefore strange that the civil servants and those actually involved in the work at the grass roots do not seem to agree.
  In a letter to me of 16th February my noble friend the Minister said that he had been discussing with the refugee council the setting up of a new advice and information centre. I have to confess to the House that at the previous stage of the Bill I misunderstood that statement, thinking that my noble friend was referring to the panel of advisers. In fact he was referring to a research unit to be set up at the refugee council with quite different terms of reference. It was stated at that time by both the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and myself that the role of the guardian ad litem had already been established in this country for children of this country. It was to befriend and to help. Therefore, the appointment of an adviser for refugee children is nothing new. Social services departments are quite
  550
  used to having someone from outside befriending children even though they are in the care of the local authority.
  I come to the comments of my noble friend Lord Renton. I have had to accept children into care as a member of a social services department. Imagine how difficult it is to come to London Airport to find a frightened child to whom one cannot speak because one does not know the language. One does not know his background or what his worries and fears are. One only knows that he is fearful. All one can do is to place him somewhere, hoping that he can fit in. One may take him to a children's home where there is no other child from the country from which he came and there is no one—neither staff nor children—who can speak to him.
  The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has perhaps not quite understood what a panel of advisers means. A panel of advisers means that there are a number of people from different countries—one perhaps from Somalia, one from Ethiopia and so on. In this country those who have moved a great deal among the ethnic groups know that one can probably get in touch with someone from practically any part of the world if one knows who they are. The refugee council would know who they are. If a child comes from Somalia the social services would be able to get in touch with someone from Somalia. If the child comes from Ethiopia or Bosnia the social services would be able to get in touch with someone from those places.
  I used to work in Oxford which had a very mixed population. I could usually find someone from a particular ethnic group with whom I could get in touch. Such a person would befriend the child and would advise me on how I should deal with the child. He would probably be able to get in touch with relatives in the country from which the child had come. In the end one might even find a foster parent of the group from which the child had come. Therefore I think that there would be no problem and no conflict between social services departments and the social worker working with the child. There would be no conflict between the adviser and the social services department, which has statutory duties. I commend the amendment to the House.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, as she has been so kind as to refer to what I said, perhaps I may say that there is not much difference of opinion between us. Her experience is much more valuable than mine but at the same time we have to be careful not to have a procedure and a formal body of people under statute who could add confusion to the existing services. But they could quite well be a body of people available to help the existing services, as my noble friend wishes.
  Lord Beloff: My Lords, I should have thought that the objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, had been abundantly answered. Since the social services and the other departments concerned all say

  551
  that this would not be an objective, is it not slightly patronising of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to tell them that they must be wrong?
  I think, however, that in the course of his original remarks the noble Lord made one point which probably does mean a slight rephrasing of the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. It is important that a panel be not so rigidly constituted as not to allow for additional members at very short notice because of the possibility, which is all too obvious in the current situation, that there might be unaccompanied children from countries other than those for whom the expectation now exists—the countries that have been named.
  If we had been discussing this six years ago and we had said that we must provide advisers for unaccompanied child refugees, we would probably not have thought of any of the countries—certainly not of all—which we are now discussing. There was no question of refugees from Bosnia six years ago. Therefore, although I think that the basic principles of the noble and learned Lord's suggested panel are perfectly valid for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, it would be useful if there was some kind of provision that the Secretary of State or, acting for him, some other person could, if necessary, appoint an adviser if someone turned up from a country whose language was not represented on the existing panel.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment to which I have been very pleased to add my name. At Report stage we have to anticipate the Minister's reply since we do not have an opportunity to speak after him. So we take the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as not being the light but as being witness of the light. I rather think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, expressed the basic principles behind the amendment so clearly that it is difficult to imagine what effective response there could be from the Government except on the grounds raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, which seem to have been fully answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
  Perhaps I may attempt to anticipate one other possible objection there might be in view of the small numbers of unaccompanied children coming in in any one year. I shall attempt to dispose of the possible argument that the system works reasonably well at the moment and/or that the proposals of the Government would meet any difficulties. I suggest that the system does not work well at the moment. In 1990 about 350 Eritrean children came to this country fleeing from civil war in Ethiopia. No arrangements had been made by immigration officers for their reception, which meant that they were taken by adults to community centres and to individuals who received them across London. Some were separated from their brothers and sisters. Some of them were eventually referred to social services departments. But it took a number of months before they were effectively resettled on a permanent basis, although of course they had been accepted as refugees. So something was going wrong there.
  552
  More recently, in 1992, a number of unaccompanied children came from the former Yugoslavia. Here again the social services department was not involved and there was no adequate reception of them other than a rather haphazard placing in foster-parent homes. The provision of services on a consistent basis with the advice of an advisory panel as proposed in the amendments would be a clear improvement on the existing situation.
  The Government may also say that there is provision under the regulations or that Ministers have it in mind to make provision to deal with the problem. My understanding is that the refugee legal centre—the body to be made responsible, by order, for the advice and care for claimants for asylum—will be required to restrict its advice to legal matters and that its services will be available only in London. I suggest that that is not adequate to the purpose and that the case made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, is undented by any arguments made so far or which are likely to be made. I suggest that the amendments are worthy of the approval of the House.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I have one important matter to raise. It is very hard to listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and not be totally convinced by what he says. If we look after these children sympathetically, properly and carefully the moment they arrive, that will save time and trouble later and it will be much easier for everybody. That will save money, although I know it is not a question of money. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has suggested is eminently sensible.
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I would much prefer to speak after my noble friend has answered the debate, but the rules say that I cannot. Therefore, I must briefly say what I have to say now. In moving the amendment I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, did a very effective demolition job on the objections which the Government had previously made to this idea. I do not in any way doubt the eloquence of my noble friend, but I believe that he will have some difficulty in breathing new life into any of those objections which the noble and learned Lord has so effectively dealt with.
  I have one very strong prejudice to which I should like to give voice here—that is, that those who are involved are entitled to be listened to with care. My noble friend Lady Faithfull made that point with very great clarity. I shall be listening to my noble friend with some interest. Are the Government saying either that there is no real problem here, or that they have a better way of dealing with it than that proposed in the amendment? If they have, I shall be very interested to hear it. I shall need to be convinced on one or other of those points. If they have not, then I hope that the Government will be very careful before they decide to reject the amendment.
  4.15 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Onslow said that it was difficult not to be anything other than totally convinced by the argument which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, put forward. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend that that is why the noble and learned Lord rose to such dizzy heights in the legal profession, which depends so much on the powers of advocacy. The noble and learned Lord displayed much concern in speaking to the amendment this afternoon, as he did at a previous stage.
  I have given a great deal of consideration to this matter. The noble and learned Lord took all the objections which I made to the amendment in Committee and systematically knocked them on the head, one after the other. It is quite difficult to rehearse the same arguments again without appearing to just repeat what I said in Committee. Then the noble and learned Lord used the fine lawyer's argument which is that if I produce any other arguments they are bound to be poor ones because all the good bullets would have been fired at the first stage. However, I shall do the best I can.
  I said that the noble and learned Lord had knocked all the arguments on the head, but I did not say that he had knocked them all over. I am bound to repeat to your Lordships that I do not really believe that the addition of a provision such as this in the Bill is either necessary or desirable. The reason is this: the responsibility for the welfare of any child, whatever its status, who is without an adult to turn to, lies quite firmly with the local authority. The provisions of the Children Act see to that. Those provisions make no distinction as to the child's nationality or his or her immigration status. The provisions apply to a child arriving here from abroad just in the same way as they do to a child who is already in the country.
  The amendment acknowledges the role of the local authority by stating that nothing in the proposed provision should affect the authority's powers and duties. We believe that the local authorities are in the best position, in terms of personnel with experience, facilities and resources, to tend to the welfare needs of a child in the absence of a parent, relative or other guardian, wherever that child comes from, and whether that child is already in the United Kingdom or is entering it. I believe that the special and particular needs of children are best met from within our existing systems, with recourse as necessary to different areas of specialism and advice.
  Obviously—here I yield to the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton—from time to time there is a need for the specialised knowledge and experience of the asylum process. I fully appreciate that the local authority staffs may not be familiar with the procedures or with the best way in which to put in train or to pursue an asylum application or an appeal. But there are other expert sources of advice which are available. For example, the Refugee Legal Centre is specifically funded to provide an advice and representation service for any asylum seeker. The staff are specialists in the asylum procedures and in
  554
  preparing and presenting cases. They have a team of counsellors who are designated to deal with vulnerable applicants, which includes children.
  I can understand the attraction of the idea referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull, that a child asylum seeker who has arrived from another country in a terrible state needs to have a friend to whom he or she can relate. But I doubt whether the proposed amendment is a practical way of achieving that. In the same way that the local authorities might not have all the expertise required, it would be very difficult to find professional people who are experts in all aspects, such as child psychology, who are specialists in refugee issues and familiar with a range of different languages and cultures, and who are also willing to be available to the immigration service wherever and whenever an unaccompanied child might arrive. Even if we were able to create such a body, I am not sure that it would necessarily achieve some of the results which are intended.
  The fact is that the responsibilities are firmly on the local authorities. They have the resources. Where they do not have them, the extra additional expertise is available to be found.
  I believe that the fundamental question remains: Why is it necessary to create a new statutory function and a new statutory body? The noble and learned Lord has emphasised that advisers would not take over or dilute the existing responsibilities of the immigration department or local authorities. That seems to me to be agreeing with the principle that I enunciated at earlier stages and also this afternoon; namely, that we should be seeking to bolster those authorities in the exercise of their responsibilities.
  If local authorities need further advice and assistance we do not need to legislate to enable them to take it. I know that the Department of Health, for instance, is already looking at proposals from the Refugee Council for an advice and information organisation in this area. It does not need legislative provision of this sort in order to achieve it. So while I have sympathy with the arguments of the noble and learned Lord and with his amendment and understand the reason behind it, I suggest to your Lordships that the structures which we have in place at the moment are the right ones and that they should not be duplicated, or even blurred, by adding an additional body.
  Lord Brightman: My Lords, I do not want to repeat the arguments which I addressed to your Lordships earlier. I am content with such knocks on the head of the noble Earl's arguments as I have been able to achieve so far. Perhaps I may say this. The real test must be what the people on the ground say is necessary and what they say is desirable.
  All the local authority organisations are in favour of this scheme. The social workers are in favour of it. There is no question in the minds of local authorities but only in the mind, I think, of the noble Earl that there will be any overlap between the work of the advisory panel and the existing work of the local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, suggested that the scheme was too rigid because new

  555
  circumstances might arise and it might be necessary for further persons to be placed on the panel. The scheme is drawn in a way which enables that to be done, and it is not necessary to make any alteration to the amendment to allow for changed circumstances. The composition of the panel, additions to it and retirements from it, rest entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State.
  The noble Lord, Lord Renton, suggested that it would not be possible to find persons able to fulfil the various qualifications set out in the second clause. The noble Earl also made that point. However, it is not necessary to find somebody who is an expert in the Eritrean language and one who also has knowledge of immigration law and welfare procedures, because the qualifications of the panel are that a person shall have knowledge of the language required or shall be able to point to somebody who has that knowledge. It is not necessary for any single person to have knowledge of the foreign language and also of immigration procedures and welfare procedures. The panel as a whole can fulfil the advisory function which I seek to set up under these amendments.
  The noble Earl recognised where the general consensus of opinion lay at the time of the Committee stage. I am not able to judge where the consensus now rests, but I think I ought to ask for the opinion of the House.
  4.23 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
  *Their Lordships divided: Contents, 169; Not-Contents, 114.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Abercorn, D.

  Darcy (de Knayth), B.

  Ackner, L.

  David, B.

  Acton, L.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Airedale, L.

  Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

  Alport, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Annan, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Aylestone, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Banks, L.

  Eatwell, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Elibank, L.

  Beloff, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Faithfull, B.

  Birk, B.

  Falkender, B.

  Blackstone, B.

  Falkland, V.

  Blease, L.

  Fisher of Rednal, B.

  Bonham-Carter, L.

  Flather, B.

  Boston of Faversham, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Bottomley, L.

  Gallacher, L.

  Bridge of Harwich, L.

  Galpern, L.

  Bridges, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Brightman, L. [Teller.]

  Geddes, L.

  Brigstocke, B.

  Geraint, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Gibson, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

  Glenamara, L.

  Campbell of Eskan, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Carter, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Charteris of Amisfield, L.

  Grey, E.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Cobbold, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Cornwallis, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Croham, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Cudlipp, L

  Harvington, L.

  556

  Hayter, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Healey, L.

  Parry, L.

  Henderson of Brompton, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Pitt of Hampstead, L.

  Hollick, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Holme of Cheltenham, L.

  Quinton, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Hughes, L.

  Richard, L.

  Hunt, L.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Robson of Kiddington, B.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Rochester, L.

  Jay, L.

  Ross of Newport, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B.

  Russell, E.

  Jeger, B.

  Sainsbury, L.

  John-Mackie, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Judd, L.

  Seear, B.

  Kennet, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Kilbracken, L.

  Serota, B.

  Killearn, L.

  Shannon, E.

  Kilmarnock, L.

  Shaughnessy, L.

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Shepherd, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Simon of Glaisdale, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Slynn of Hadley, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Stallard, L.

  Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

  Stedman, B.

  Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Longford, E.

  Strange, B.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Lowry, L.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  McCarthy, L.

  Templeman, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Terrington, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Mayhew, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Mishcon, L.

  Underhill, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Wallace of Coslany, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Mulley, L.

  Wharton, B.

  Munster, E.

  White, B.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Mustill, L.

  Wilberforce, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham,

  Palmer, L.

  Woolf, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Coleraine, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Constantine of Stanmore, L.

  Archer of Weston-Super-Mare L.

  Cranborne, V.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Astor, V.

  Cross, V.

  Barber, L.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Blatch, B.

  Davidson, V.

  Blyth, L.

  Denham, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Denton of Wakefield, B.

  Bolton, L.

  Eccles, V.

  Borthwick, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Braine of Wheatley, L.

  Elles, B.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

  Brookes, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Finsberg, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Cadman, L.

  Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Gainford, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Goold, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Goschen, V.

  Carnock, L.

  Gridley, L.

  Chelmsford, V.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Chilver, L.

  Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Clark of Kempston, L

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Cockfield, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  557

  Henley, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

  Oxfuird, V.

  Hives, L.

  Pender, L.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Platt of Writtle, B.

  Howe, E.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Ironside, L.

  Prentice, L.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  Reay, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Renton, L.

  Kitchener, E.

  Renwick, L.

  Knollys, V.

  Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Romney, E.

  Liverpool, E.

  St. Davids, V.

  Long, V.

  Seccombe, B.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Selsdon, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Stockton, E.

  Manchester, D.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Manton, L.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

  Marlesford, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Montgomery of Alamein, V.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Mottistone, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Mountevans, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Wakeham, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Whitelaw, V.

  Nelson, E.

  Wise, L.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Young, B.

  *The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 114 names. The Clerks recorded 113 names.
  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  4.34 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
  Before Clause 3, insert the following new clause—

  Appointment and functions of advisory panel
  .—(1) The Secretary of State, after consultation, if thought fit, with the Refugee Council and any other statutory or voluntary body which he considers appropriate, shall from time to time appoint such persons as he thinks fit to be members of the advisory panel and every such appointment shall be made upon such terms and conditions in all respects as the Secretary of State shall determine.
  (2) The Secretary of State may from time to time revocably delegate to the Refugee Council or other appropriate statutory or voluntary body all or any of his duties under subsection (1) above.
  (3) The advisory panel shall so far as practicable include persons who—

  (a) are, or can call upon persons who are, able to converse in the several languages likely to be spoken by young unaccompanied asylum-seekers;

  (b) are familiar with the habits and customs of the territories from which such young asylum-seekers are likely to come; and

  (c) have knowledge of child-care legislation and immigration procedures.

  (4) An officer or employee of the immigration service shall not be eligible for appointment to the advisory panel.
  (5) It shall be the function of an asylum-seeker's adviser, to whom a young asylum-seeker has been referred, to befriend and advise the asylum-seeker in all matters relating to immigration, accommodation, education, health and general welfare for so long and to such an extent as the adviser shall from time to time consider desirable; and in performing such function the adviser shall have regard to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the young asylum-seeker (considered in the light of his age and understanding).
  (6) Nothing in this section or section (young unaccompanied asylum-seekers) above affects the powers or duties of local authorities under the Children Act 1989 or otherwise.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.

Juvenile Crime
4.35 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement about the Government's plans for strengthening our response to the problem of juvenile crime which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
The Statement is as follows:
"A comparatively small number of school-age children are responsible for a high proportion of crime, particularly burglary and car crime, in many parts of the country. I spoke last autumn of my concern about the apparent lack of powers for the courts to deal with the worst of these offenders and I have since repeatedly made it clear that I am preparing proposals to close what I perceive to be a gap in the law. I believe that it is not in the interests of school-age children that they should be left at large in the community if they are out of control, playing truant from school and repeatedly committing criminal acts against the general public.
"The Government are determined to continue to strengthen the powers of the courts to deal with persistent offenders. We must also take other measures to tackle the problem on a broader front.
"The courts already have some powers to sentence juvenile offenders to custody, subject to their age and the offence of which they have been convicted. They also have powers to order them to be supervised in the community, with a wide range of additional requirements some of which involve extensive restrictions on their liberty. Those powers are necessary and sensible for the great majority of juvenile offenders, but I have decided that they are insufficient to deal effectively with that comparatively small group of very persistent juvenile offenders whose repeated offending makes them a menace to the community.
"The courts will be provided with a new sentence which for the present I am calling a secure training order. The order would be available for 12 to 15-year olds who have been convicted of three imprisonable offences and who have proved unwilling or unable to comply with the requirements of supervision in the community while on remand or under sentence. A court would be empowered to impose such a sentence only when it was satisfied that such an order was necessary to protect the public from further offending by that juvenile and when a place in a suitable facility was available. Before making an order, the court would be required to take account of a pre-sentence report. The order might last for up to two years.
"The challenge for the new secure training centres will be to provide high standards of care and discipline and opportunities for the juveniles in their care to develop as individuals. Regimes in the new training centres will embrace education and training provided in ways that tackle the individual's offending behaviour. After release from the secure training centre, the order will

559
ensure that the juvenile will remain under close supervision unless and until his behaviour has altered and those responsible can be confident that he is no longer a threat to society.
"It is absolutely imperative that the supervision in the community is rigorous, consistent and firmly delivered. For those persistent offenders discharged from the new training centres, supervision in the community must build on the work done inside the centres themselves.
"National standards are required in this area. My department and the Department of Health, together with the Welsh Office, last year jointly issued National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community. These standards will need to be supplemented to ensure the effective post-release supervision of 12 to 15-year olds. Work on this will proceed as a matter of urgency.
"The secure training orders will be different from anything that has ever been provided before. I envisage that the centres will be provided through agreements with suitable organisations. They may come from the public, voluntary or private sectors provided that they can demonstrate the ability to meet the standards we shall be setting and to give value for money. Central government will act as the purchaser of this provision. To enable the private and voluntary sectors to provide secure accommodation, my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Wales will amend the regulations under the Children Act 1989.
"The care and social work activities of the centres will be inspected by the social services inspectorate and their educational provision by inspectors of education.
"The Government will also be considering whether the existing powers of courts in sentencing juvenile offenders should in some cases include a power to require placement in secure accommodation.
"The Government will bring forward legislative proposals to give the courts new powers at the first opportunity.
"In working up detailed plans to implement our proposals we will be having discussions with a wide range of agencies and institutions which may be capable of providing the new centres. Provision will be made for the cost of these new arrangements in the course of the public expenditure planning exercise which is now under way.
"In recent years local authority social services, the probation service and many voluntary organisations have shown that sensible and constructive schemes for supervising young offenders in the community can be successful in preventing crime and diverting young people from the penal system. It is important that this policy should continue and that parents should be involved in the responsibility for the upbringing and behaviour of their children.
560
"The policy will be strengthened by the measures which my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Health are taking in their respective fields.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health will be reminding social services that their responsibilities for young people who offend, and those on the brink of offending, should stress control as well as care; there should be no soft options.
"My right honourable friend will shortly issue guidance on the control regimes in secure and other forms of children's residential accommodation. This guidance will take account of the lessons learnt in protecting children from abuse such as in the Pindown regime. It will also address the serious concern that staff must be able to exercise proper authority over the children. They need sanctions if children misbehave. They should also have the necessary powers to prevent children who are detained by order of the courts from running away.
"My right honourable friend will also ensure that social services departments take a consistent approach towards the control of juvenile offenders. There must be a joint approach with the education authorities, the police and probation service and other agencies.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education will also be taking measures in support of our general strategy for tackling the problems of juvenile offenders.
"Schools must prove effective in instilling discipline, through adherence to civilised values and by encouraging and supporting respect for other people and their property. From the earliest possible age schools, supported by parents, must sharply discourage behaviour which may lead on to a life of crime. There is no longer any place in our schools for the discredited philosophy of allowing children to develop in their own way, regardless of right or wrong. Schools must promulgate the values we as a society want to pass on to the next generation.
"The national curriculum requires schools to prepare all pupils 'for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life'.
"The newly-independent Office for Standards in Education will be introducing a much more rigorous inspection regime, which will include explicit reporting on behaviour and discipline in schools and on how the school functions.
"Action must also be taken to ensure that pupils do attend school. My right honourable friend now requires schools to keep proper records of truancy. Parents have to be told when their children do not turn up. And from next autumn school performance tables will have to show how well they are doing in making truancy a problem of the past.
"The attack on truancy must come from the Government and from parents. The Government have established a £10 million programme to help schools in 74 authorities to get to grips with the problem. Parents must get their children to school on time and make it clear that they must stay there.

561
"Disruptive pupils must be dealt with more effectively. There are significant numbers of children who behave so disruptively that schools have had to exclude them. So often, of course, disruptive behaviour, if left unchecked, leads on to offending.
"I am able to announce today that following extensive consultation my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education proposes to bring proposals before Parliament to place local education authorities under a new statutory duty.
"They will be required to develop comprehensive plans to educate pupils who are not attending school. The aim will be to provide courses tailored to the needs of the individual to prepare excluded pupils for re-entry into school.
"Madam Speaker, I do not lightly commend to this House proposals which have the serious effect of depriving children of their liberty and removing them from their families. The Government will continue to support proven and effective ways of dealing with children of this age without resort to custody in all cases where non-custodial measures have a reasonable chance of succeeding. Many first offenders will continue to receive a formal caution from the police. But we will shortly be strengthening our guidance to the police about the criteria for cautioning, including a warning about excessive and repeated use of cautioning in cases where it is plainly going to be ineffective.
"The range of measures I have outlined today are designed to deal more effectively with juveniles on the fringes of criminality as well as the hard core who have shown that they cannot or will not respond constructively to supervision in the community. They are urgently needed to deal with this problem and I am confident that the House will support them".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.46 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the extensive Statement made in another place. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I describe the Statement as a nugget of new information in a vast amount of gift wrapping. The nugget of new information is the provision of a secure training order. Our response to the suggestion will be dependent on the detail, who is to organise it and the provision for care and discipline. The Statement indicates that there will be high standards of care and discipline. So there should be. But the balance between the two and the extent to which the proposal is different from the existing provision will be the basis on which we shall make our final judgment about whether such a new provision is to be welcomed.
We must ask the Government how far the new secure training order differs from the provision already made. All we have in the Statement is a simple assertion that the powers which exist are not applicable to a small number of persistent offenders. What is the difference between the secure training
562
order and the existing provision for supervision in the community, which can be extremely secure? What is the difference between the new provision and intensive probation such as that provided by Sherbourne House, described in detail in a recent book by Mr. Roger Graef? What is the difference between the proposal and the secure provision made by local authorities? Above all, what is the difference between the new provision and the type of provision which has been proved time after time, year after year, not to work; that is, putting young offenders together so that they learn crime rather than rehabilitation and come out with a high possibility of recidivism?
It will be obvious why, in the absence of detail, it is difficult to give the proposal an unalloyed welcome or accord it disapprobation. However, we note that legislation will be required. When is that legislation likely to be introduced? When is the new provision likely to take effect? If the legislation is to be introduced in the next Session, is it not the case that it will probably not come into effect until April 1996? Can we afford to wait until that time?
Looking at the various aspects of the gift wrapping rather than the kernel of the Statement, we see that it is proposed that education authorities shall have a new statutory duty to combat truancy. We welcome that: we are all in favour of that new statutory duty. But what about the statutory duties which have been taken away—the statutory duty to provide nursery care and, above all, the statutory duty to provide an effective youth service. Over the years those statutory duties have proved effective in reducing juvenile crime, yet the whole thrust of the Government's activity is to take that away rather than to add to it.
I was disappointed, in the part of the Statement which refers to the education system, to hear the phrase,
"the discredited philosophy of allowing children to develop in their own way, regardless of right or wrong".
I should have hoped that by this time the Government would cease to put up such irrelevant and untrue Aunt Sallys. There may be criticisms of progressive thinking in education but those criticisms must not extend to claiming that those who propose a more progressive and libertarian view of education do so regardless of right or wrong. If that point were put to A.S. Neill of Summerhill, he would deeply resent the suggestion that however libertarian his regime might have been, it was regardless of right or wrong.
Those subsidiary matters can be dealt with by Parliament when legislation is proposed. However, we are looking for a much clearer idea of whether there is, in the proposal for a secure training order, any real new thinking or whether it is simply a panic reaction to recent events. Our experience of panic legislation in recent years has not been happy. I hope that this will not be another example.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. I agree with the noble Lord's view that the rhetoric is admirable and the detail rather less impressive.
As the noble Earl will recall, some of us have been anxious about this issue for a substantial period of

563
time. Will the noble Earl recall the debate which we had in July of last year on child runaways? I have written to him in the past few days asking what progress has been made since that debate took place. I shall return later to that matter.
Precisely how will the new training order differ from secure accommodation provided now by local authorities? What, in detail, is the difference? I believe that we are entitled to a specific answer to that question.
Is the noble Earl aware that some of us are more than a little disappointed that, at a time of rising crime, the Government have allowed the number of secure places in England and Wales to decline from 329 in January 1980 to 288 in January of last year? That does not seem to many of us to be a very impressive example of how seriously the Government are taking the problem.
The noble Earl will be interested to know that more than half of that decline took place as a result of a decision taken by the London Borough of Wandsworth—a local authority which we are constantly asked to admire—which closed 28 places. The result has been the creation of some of the problems which the noble Earl identified this afternoon.
I return to the debate of July of last year. The noble Earl will recall that it took place as a result of a survey carried out by the National Children's Home, the Metropolitan Police and the Police Foundation. Will he recall that the report showed that about 43,000 young people had run away in Great Britain in 1990? A disturbingly high proportion of those young people were from residential establishments. As I understand it, residential establishments are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health. I shall return later to questions of ministerial responsibility. However, 30 per cent. of the runaways came from residential establishments, although less than 1 per cent. of children in this country reside in them? In one case, a home with 72 places recorded no less than 565 such incidents. Many of those children became involved in criminal activities. Is the noble Earl aware that the police have warned the Government, not over months but over years, about the development of that situation and about the consequences of them allowing the number of secure places in residential establishments to decline? Notwithstanding that, the decline has taken place.
Given the rhetoric of the Home Secretary's Statement, why have the Government failed to ensure an adequate number of secure places? I should be extremely grateful if the noble Earl will explain that to us. I recognise that it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health rather than the Home Office but I believe that we are entitled to receive a reply to that question.
I now ask specific questions to which I should be grateful for answers. First, how will the new secure training order differ from the short, sharp shock which was introduced after the present Government took office in 1979? As the noble Earl will recall, that collapsed in abject failure. As Home Secretary Mr. Hurd decided that he was not prepared to entertain
564
any more short, sharp shocks. Given the fact that when that policy was introduced, the language was remarkably similar to that used by the noble Earl this afternoon, I hope we shall have a clear answer to that question.
Secondly, how will the new system differ from the old approved schools system, which also collapsed as a result of its failure? I hope that the noble Earl can explain that.
Thirdly, which department of government will be responsible for the new order? As I pointed out, residential establishments are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health. The Home Secretary made the Statement this afternoon. Does that mean that the Home Office will be responsible for the new order and the new establishments, or will that be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health, whose record has not been very impressive?
Fourthly, what is to be the timescale? The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, raised that question. The implication of today's Statement is that the problem is urgent. The Home Secretary says that legislation will be needed to give courts new powers at the first opportunity. What is the first opportunity? Will that be in this Session and if not, why not? If the problem is as urgent and dramatic as the noble Earl suggests in the Statement this afternoon, does it not seem odd that we are not to be presented with legislation in the current Session?
Finally, all those who have looked at this problem over a period of time accept that it is a real problem as regards a small minority of children. If the problem is as acute as we all recognise it to be, then we should still like an answer to the question which I posed at the beginning. Why have the Government allowed the number of secure places to decline in the way that they have done?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that he welcomes the principle of the Statement although it was short on detail. If I might say so, the observations which he made were not short on questions. I do not know whether I can reply to all of the many questions he asked. He referred to child runaways and to a debate we had way back in July. That matter is rather a long way from the Statement. However, the noble Lord asked me what had been done about that matter.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, it is precisely the same issue. The noble Earl referred to secure accommodation in the Statement this afternoon.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the debate last July concerned child runaways from all kinds of different places. However, I shall not take any further issue with the noble Lord on that matter. Only last week I had a discussion with my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health about this matter and it is being pursued with the Department of Health and the Department of Education.
The noble Lord asked why the measure we are discussing is any different from the short, sharp shock treatment. This measure is totally different. Under the short, sharp shock treatment young people were

565
obliged to expend a great deal of physical effort, energy and exercise. A policeman has said that one of the results of that was that when they came out of the units they could run faster than policemen.
The object of the secure training orders is to remove from the community certain young people who are offensive to the rest of the community. That must be done to allow the remainder of the community to live in peace. Those young people will be placed in secure accommodation and while they are there great efforts will be made with the aid of training and teaching to try to make them better people so that when they are released they will, we hope, be better. They will, of course, be supervised on release. The noble Lord asked who would be responsible for the secure units. The prime responsibility will lie with the Home Office but the units will be administered in association with the Department of Health and the Department of Education.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked to what extent the secure training orders would differ from present provisions. As I explained, the secure training orders constitute a totally different concept. They are based on the concept that certain young people have to be removed from the community and placed in secure units. That provision is not available at present.
The noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked when legislation would be introduced on this issue. I can only say that it will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, say he disapproved of the expression that education should be carried out in a way which was not regardless of right or wrong. Knowledge of the difference between right and wrong is a fundamental principle and one by which any child should be brought up.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said no such thing. I said the suggestion that progressive education denied the difference between right and wrong was a total calumny. That is a quite different thing.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I have misconstrued the comments of the noble Lord, I apologise. I was trying to take down some notes on what he said and the notes I took down were the ones that rather impressed me. I am sorry if the inference I drew from what he said was incorrect. The fact is that the ability to discern between right and wrong is a fundamental part of education and of bringing up children. That is what we wish to encourage, whether in the home or in schools.
The noble Lords said that the Statement did not contain a lot of specific detail. That is perfectly true. Much work has still to be done. It is difficult to decide where the units should be located and how they are to be financed until my right honourable friend has made an announcement on those points. I cannot tell the noble Lords when that is likely to occur but it will occur as soon as possible.
5.5 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Government must be congratulated on their determination to tackle what for a long time has been an intractable problem? I hope that Members in all parts of the House, and indeed in all parties, will share the great humility that I personally feel through having tried to do something to deal with the problem but failed. I hope there will be no suggestion that this is a matter which should not be looked at on a broad basis throughout our whole political system.
I ask my noble friend to ensure that the Government take as many people as possible with them as regards their plans on this matter. It is desperately easy to criticise any plan that has been made or thought of. Nearly every proposal to solve this problem put forward so far has failed. If that were not the case we would not be in the position we are in today.
I hope the Government will take all the parties with them in seeking to obtain the right answers. I hope that Members in all parts of the House, and particularly the Opposition, will take this opportunity to work with the Government to solve this problem. We shall only solve this problem, or even go any way towards doing so, if there is a united effort in our country. That united effort is visible everywhere but no one ever reaches agreement on how to tackle this matter. It is the task of the Government to lead on this matter and it is the task of the Opposition parties to help the Government in their task.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitelaw for that intervention. He mentions the fundamental principle of all that we should be trying to achieve. He is quite right to say that most steps that have been taken to deal with this problem have failed for one reason or another. If there were a simple answer, it would have been found before now. I can assure my noble friend that we shall take as many people as possible with us on our new provisions.
I have visited a number of areas in the country and senior policemen have told me that they know of a few people who are responsible for the chaos and the trouble on various estates. The rest of the communities on those estates have been subjected to that chaos but it has often not been possible to deal with it adequately. There are some young people who must be removed from society to enable other people to lead normal, peaceful lives. While those young people are in secure accommodation, we must do the best we can to discourage them from their wrong ways.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I speak as a Back-Bench Member of the Opposition who has carried out a great deal of specialised work on this issue. I had better not mention the fact that I have just written a book on the subject as that might be considered bad form. Is the noble Earl aware that many people who are involved with this problem think it is a fatal step for the Home Office to take the main responsibility for it? If we are to offer these young

567
people a genuine educational and therapeutic rehabilitation, will the noble Earl take it from me that many people who are involved with these young people believe with all their hearts that the responsibility for this matter should lie with the Department of Health?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I take note of the noble Earl's view.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the success of the new institutions will result very largely from the way they are run. I hope my noble friend recognises that this tide of offending which we now face does not have its origin in the moment the offence is committed but rather way back in the histories of the young people who commit the offences. The most effective thing that can be done is to divert young people from offending very much earlier in their careers. This can be done in a number of ways, some of which have already been mentioned in your Lordships' House and one or two of which have been mentioned in the report of a committee, which I chaired for the former Secretary of State for Education, into discipline in schools.
One of the recommendations in the report was that there should be not only stringent supervision but also severe penalties for those who break regulations that concern the employment of young people during school hours when those young people are of school age. I hope my noble friend will encourage his colleagues to pursue that policy in parallel with the policy put forward in this very important Statement.
A second point which I should like to draw to my noble friend's attention is too complicated to advocate to your Lordships in detail. Broadly it is this. Young people in our society are increasingly deprived of benefits with which noble Lords and their contemporaries were amply supplied by their families and the societies in which they were brought up and in the workplace, namely discipline, caring and affection. Those are now in short supply for many young people in deprived areas. They can be and are supplied by the voluntary sector, working with young people in a whole range of institutions designed to bring out their qualities in challenging circumstances and under close supervision.
The voluntary sector is normally supported in that task by local authorities. As became clear in the Statement by the Secretary of State for Wales yesterday, that support is now diminishing. I ask my noble friend to ask his colleagues to look favourably on approaches from organisations in the voluntary sector directed to supporting what local authorities can supply in diminishing volume.
I declare an interest as the chairman of a new charity which was founded this month for that very purpose, the Divert Trust. It is directed specifically to enabling small local groups of concerned adults to set up local schemes, staffed by recognised adults known to the children concerned. They are not uniformed members of organisations of the state. They are not probation officers or social workers. They are not "them" but "us". Help given in that direction would be immensely powerful in supporting the policy which my noble friend has put forward.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I remember well my noble friend's report on schools. He is quite right to refer to the importance of both supervision and penalties. This is one of the matters which is giving my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education cause for great concern and consideration. He is anxious to see that children in school are brought up in the correct way and with the correct form of discipline.
My noble friend Lord Elton referred to the voluntary sector. He is quite right; a great deal of care, affection and discipline can be provided by the voluntary sector, although nothing replaces the value of the home. Certainly we would wish to see the voluntary sector able to do as much as it can. My noble friend referred particularly to the charity of which he is chairman, the Divert Trust. I know that it does excellent work. I note his plea for more money for the trust and for other causes, but I shall not go further at this stage.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this is just one measure coming forward to deal with the rising tide of crime and lawlessness in this country. Are we to have a review of the Criminal Justice Act, which has been so much talked about? Secondly, will the Government be doing anything to deal with the vicious and often sadistic violence which appears night after night on our television screens, often at times when young children are not yet abed?
In connection with the Statement, when social reports are received will social workers take a realistic view of what is happening? I do not wish to malign social workers, but all too often in the past it has appeared that social workers are totally opposed to children being sent to secure accommodation. Can the noble Earl comment on that point?
Finally, while I very much welcome the statutory duty which is to be placed on local authorities in relation to truancy, can the noble Earl assure me that local authorities will be in a position to employ truancy officers? In Berkshire only last week one truancy officer was sacked in order to meet spending targets. Will the noble Earl take that on board? I appeal to him to get in touch with Berkshire, and any other local authorities which are sacking truancy officers in that way, to reconsider the matter. Will he tell local authorities that he will make financial assistance available to them to enable them to employ sufficient staff to deal with truancy?
5.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord asked four questions. He asked whether the Criminal Justice Act will be reviewed. Of course all such measures are constantly under review. However, the noble Lord will understand that, as the Criminal Justice Act has only recently been brought into operation, it is a little early to consider altering it. The principle behind the Criminal Justice Act is to keep less bad offenders—although all offenders are bad—out of prisons where they would become more hardened prisoners. That is

569
the philosophy behind the Bill and it is not an unreasonable one. However, the Act will be kept under constant review.
The noble Lord mentioned television programmes. I agree with him that a great deal of what people read, see and hear affects them. It affects children. It moulds their minds in the same way as conditions in their homes and the attitudes of their parents mould them. That is why there are very strict rules and regulations about what is shown on television and when it is shown. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, will be the first to appreciate that it would be wholly improper for the Government to say what should be shown when. There are public bodies which carry out that undertaking. If the noble Lord thinks that they do not carry out that responsibility correctly he ought to inform them. He will know that there are guidelines which tell those bodies how to carry out their responsibilities.
The noble Lord said that social workers were opposed to secure accommodation. They may be. A lot of people may be. However, when a few people can ruin the lives of everyone in an area it is necessary that they should be removed from society because it is intolerable that they should ruin other people's lives.
I do not know the position with regard to truancy officers in Berkshire but I note the noble Lord's point.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I realise that this may be a little wide of the Statement, which is limited to the treatment of juvenile offenders. I am sure that the House will wish to support the Government in recognising that there are people who have to be removed from society, ineffective as that treatment has often proved. Does my noble friend agree with me that the whole of the discussion has to be seen in the context of the appalling decline in recognition by the nation as a whole of moral values? That is not confined to juveniles or criminal offenders. From the top of the intellectual world to the lowest and most miserable drop-out there has been a decline in respect for moral values. Can we consider this Statement in that context?
Earl Ferrets: My Lords, I am certain that my noble and learned friend is right. Nobody would feel that there has not been a substantial decline in moral standards. If those standards decline it is very difficult for younger children to pick up standards of high morality which may not be apparent in their parents or grandparents. There has been a decline and we have to seek to improve those standards from all points of view. But governments cannot do that. That can only be done by homes, churches and, to a large extent, by schools.
My noble and learned friend is quite right. I agree with him. It is the decline of those standards which results in much of the indiscipline and criminality which we now see.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, the noble Earl referred to conversations he had with chief police officers relating to the number of young offenders. He said that we are speaking of relatively small groups. I
570
am sure that that is right. Can the noble Earl give us any idea of the numbers which the Government have in mind as requiring such preventive detention? Are we referring to 200 or 500? What numbers are we talking about? The numbers may be small but they need to be dealt with.
The Minister referred to the fact that after sentence those people will continue to be supervised in the community. That is right and proper. However, he gave the impression that it would be an indefinite supervision order. Is that so? If it is, is it not rather dangerous when one considers concentrating the young offenders' minds on the end of the sentence in terms of finality and purpose?
Finally, I welcome what he said about the maintenance and development of alternatives to custody schemes. We much value the support that the Home Office has given to the development of such schemes in the community. From what he said, can we expect yet more sympathy from the Home Office in response to applications for support for the development of those schemes within the community?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, on the noble Lord's last point, we shall consider with sympathy all cases that are put to us.
He asked how many places will be required. It is too early to say at present. Much work has to be done to find out exactly how many places will be required, where they ought to be and the size of units.
The noble Lord referred to the fact that I indicated that supervision orders might be of an indefinite nature. Our thought at present is that they should be for two years.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister this question. Are the Government aware that under Section 1 of the Children Act the welfare of the child is paramount, but that the parents too carry a responsibility for their children? If the centres are spread widely over the country it will not be possible for parents to be in touch with their children. Furthermore, when looking after such children, I have found that a great deal of work could be achieved with parents taking part and talking to the children. If we separate the parents from the children, we shall still be in trouble. I take up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. Such a scheme would help families to keep together.
Secondly, I refer to accommodation. I say this with the utmost diffidence when the two Ministers are seated on the Front Bench. However, the Department of Health and the Department for Education have allowed the closure of a number of homes in the charitable voluntary sector which were doing good, preventive work with difficult children. Even at this moment schools are closing. Such closures have been bad for the children and mean the loss of a resource. If money is to be used to build new homes or to acquire new properties when there are already good properties available, that seems a waste of resources. Perhaps I may put a plea to the two Ministers: that the Government undertake a survey of the present

571
residential accommodation so that the best can be preserved, thus preventing a number of children getting into serious trouble.
Thirdly, a number of community projects—I refer in particular to one in Hampshire—could be run in conjunction with a residential secure unit. I believe that that should be considered.
Lastly, the success of the scheme will depend on the people who run it. However, the training of people who work with children in residential establishments is lamentable both from the Department for Education and the Department of Health. Unless a good training scheme is set up the scheme will fall.
5.25 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend said that she was anxious about parents keeping in touch with their children. She is quite right about that. Much of this criminality has come about where, for one reason or another, parents have not succeeded in bringing up their children. We shall certainly seek to ensure that family ties are strengthened, in particular when the children return home under supervision.
My noble friend referred to homes which have been allowed by the Department of Health and the Department for Education to close. That is a matter of detail. We shall see whether existing schools can be adapted for those new places. Obviously the subject is wide. It will have to be considered not only by the Home Office but by the Department for Education and the Department of Health.
My noble friend is quite right when she says that training is important. It is another subject which must be given a great deal of attention before we come up with firm proposals.

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill
5.26 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 5:
Before Clause 3, insert the following new clause:

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill

  Duty of Secretary of State
  . In the determination of applications for asylum by children under the age of 18, the Secretary of State shall—

  (a) ensure that a child is fully informed, in a manner appropriate to his age, of the nature of an asylum application and is provided with sufficient opportunity to describe his reasons for the application;

  (b) ensure that an independent assessment is made of the child's ability to articulate a 'well-founded fear of persecution'; and that such assessment should be undertaken by a childcare specialist with knowledge of refugee matters;

  (c) ensure that full consideration is given to objective factors including

  (i) the circumstances of the child's parents and other family members in the country of origin or elsewhere,

  (ii) the characteristics of the child's ethnic, national, religious or other social group in the country of origin,

  (iii) the general conditions prevailing in the country of origin, and

  (iv) specific forms of persecution directed at children in the country of origin;

  572

  (d) apply liberally in the case of a child the general principle that the benefit of the doubt should be given to an asylum applicant.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 is complementary to Amendment No. 3, which was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and agreed to by such a substantial and encouraging majority. Had that amendment not been passed, this amendment would have been rather a floating kidney and I do not quite know how it could have operated. Since Amendment No. 3 was passed, Amendment No. 5 becomes extremely relevant.
  The amendment imposes duties on the Home Secretary to ensure that the work done by the advisers is carried out properly and efficiently. It dots the 'i's and crosses the Ts. In answer to a point made in debate, the noble Earl stated that he wished to bolster local authorities. The amendment bolsters the Home Secretary and those who do the work in carrying out exactly what is provided for. The provisions that the amendment sets forth are perfectly obvious factors which unaccompanied children arriving in this country as refugees will require.
  The terms of the amendment are self evident and require little explanation from me. It is obviously necessary that a child shall be properly informed in a manner appropriate to his age. It is obvious that a proper and professional assessment should be made of the child's needs, and the capacity to articulate those needs. It is equally obvious that the items set forth in paragraph (c) should be dealt with. I do not believe that I need to spend your Lordships' time explaining why such consideration should be given. Under the earlier amendment, we now have, in the form of advisers, a means to ensure that such consideration is given, and that the child's needs are properly answered. I beg to move.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the concern that the asylum procedures should properly protect the interests of children. Children—especially unaccompanied children—are vulnerable and have particular needs to which we have to respond with sensitivity. I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, again that the fact that the Bill does not make specific provision for children should certainly not be taken as any indication that the procedures will not recognise the special needs of children.
  I must repeat that I do not think that any new legislative provision is necessary. I have accepted the need to make our procedures clear. I undertook during the Committee stage to look at whether it would be possible to include some additional material in the Immigration Rules on the matter. Work on it is in hand and I shall ensure that draft paragraphs for the rules will be made available in advance of Third Reading.
  The present amendment deals with procedural matters and, as such, it would not be appropriate to include it in the primary legislation. The amendment is clearly inspired by the section on unaccompanied minors in the handbook of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I made clear in earlier debates that the handbook is not binding. We value it

  573
  as a source of guidance for our case workers but we do not think that it would be right to legislate to give it any particular authoritative status. That reinforces my reluctance to accept the noble Lord's amendment. However, I shall explain our attitude to each of the points which it contains.
  First, I fully endorse the principle behind paragraph (a) and I think that it should—and indeed does—apply to all asylum seekers and not just to children. Applicants will certainly be informed of the nature of the process on which they have embarked and will have every opportunity to state their case.
  I am less persuaded by paragraph (b). I believe that it is a matter of common sense that the younger a child is the less one can expect him to give a comprehensive and reasoned account of why he is likely to be persecuted. Inevitably, it is necessary to look for information from other sources. The UNHCR handbook puts some stress on whether a child is capable of having a well-founded fear of persecution. Our approach is to look more at the objective likelihood of persecution. If we consider there to be a real threat, we would never dismiss an application simply because a child had not properly comprehended it or seemed insufficiently frightened or had inadequately articulated it.
  I find paragraph (c) a statement of the obvious. If the word "person" were substituted for "child" it would be valid for the consideration of any asylum claim. For those reasons, I believe that it would be inappropriate to insert the amendment into the Bill.
  Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his answer to the points I raised. Of course, it is true that the noble Earl himself recognises the need for the stipulations and for what is set forth in the amendment. The point is that his successor may not. We have had this conversation before: undertakings by one Minister on what he intends to do do not carry much conviction when other Ministers who may succeed him do not share his good will or understanding.
  I agree with the noble Earl in all these matters. Oddly enough, the subject came up in the statement which he made just before we returned to the Bill. It is crucial that those involved are properly trained. It seems to me that one attribute which immigration officers need is to be trained in interviewing children, even if now there will be an adviser present.
  I regard the amendment as complementary to the one moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. I believe that his amendment is not enough. It is important that it should be bolstered and supported by the terms of this amendment. I feel, therefore, that I must take the opinion of the House.
  5.34 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 108; Not-Contents, 138.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Ackner, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Acton, L.

  Kilbracken, L.

  Airedale, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Aylestone, L.

  Longford, E.

  Barnett, L.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  McCarthy, L.

  Beloff, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Bonham-Carter, L.

  Mayhew, L.

  Boston of Faversham, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Bottomley, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Brightman, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Broadbridge, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Mulley, L.

  Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Campbell of Eskan, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Carter, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Parry, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Pitt of Hampstead, L.

  Cobbold, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Darcy (de Knayth), B.

  Radnor, E.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Rea, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Richard, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Eatwell, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Falkender, B.

  Robson of Kiddington, B.

  Falkland, V.

  Rochester, L.

  Foot, L.

  Russell, E.

  Gallacher, L.

  Seear, B.

  Galpern, L.

  Sefton of Garston, L.

  Geraint, L.

  Serota, B.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Shaughnessy, L.

  Glenamara, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

  Simon of Glaisdale, L.

  Slynn of Hadley, L.

  Grey, E.

  Stedman, B.

  Hamwee, B.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Swinfen, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Healey, L.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

  Holme of Cheltenham, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Houghton of Sowerby, L.

  Underhill, L.

  Howell, L.

  Wharton, B.

  Hughes, L.

  White, B.

  Hylton, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Jay, L.

  Wilberforce, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  John-Mackie, L.

  Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

  Judd, L.

  Woolf, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Abercorn, D.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Brookes, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Buxton of Alsa, L.

  Arran, E.

  Cadman, L.

  Astor, V.

  Caithness, E.

  Auckland, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Banbury of Southam, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Barber, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Chilver, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Blatch, B.

  Clark of Kempston, L

  Blyth, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Boardman, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Borthwick, L.

  Constantine of Stanmore, L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Braine of Wheatley, L.

  Cranborne, V.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Brigstocke, B.

  Cumberlege, B.

  575

  Davidson, V.

  Mountevans, L.

  Denton of Wakefield, B.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Moyne, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Munster, E.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Elibank, L.

  Norrie, L.

  Elles, B.

  Onslow, E.

  Ferrers, E.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Finsberg, L.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Flather, B.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Pender, L.

  Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

  Perry of Southwark, B.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

  Pike, B.

  Goold, L.

  Plan of Writtle, B.

  Goschen, V.

  Plumb, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Gridley, L.

  Prentice, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Quinton, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

  Reay, L.

  Renton, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Rippon of Hexham, L.

  Haslam, L.

  Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Romney, E.

  Henley, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Hives, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Hooper, B.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Howe, E.

  Stevens of Ludgate, L.

  Ironside, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  Strange, B.

  Kitchener, E.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

  Lawson of Blaby, L.

  Layton, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Swansea, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Teviot, L.

  Long, V.

  Thatcher, B.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Manton, L.

  Wakeham, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Wedgwood, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Whitelaw, V.

  Milverton, L.

  Wyatt of Weeford, L.

  Monson, L.

  Young, B.

  Montgomery of Alamein, V.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  5.42 p.m.
  Clause 3 [Fingerprinting]:
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 1, line 21, leave out ("an "authorised person", that is to say").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9. These amendments are intended to make clear that a child under 16 should only be fingerprinted in the presence of a person who is independent of the immigration authorities or police and whose role is to look after the interests of the child. The amendments provide for this to be the child's parent or guardian, or a person who for the time being takes responsibility for the child. That would cover, for example, a local authority social worker; the child's legal representative; a relation other than the parent or guardian; or a worker with a voluntary agency. The amendment makes it clear that the person cannot be an immigration officer or other
  576
  member of the Home Office, or a police or prison officer. I believe that these amendments meet the principal concern which was expressed in Committee, that the adult should be seen to be independent of the authorities and to be responsible for looking after the child's interests.
  Amendment No. 9 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, seeks to achieve the same effect, although in a slightly different way. In this respect I commend to your Lordships the Government's amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for moving this amendment. As he said, the amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seeks to do similar things. To be honest, I have no means of judging which amendment is technically the better. On the whole the Government tend to have expert advice that is not always available to us.
  We on these Benches are grateful for what I consider an important concession which will be of considerable help to children in the circumstances that we have been discussing this afternoon. I know that my honourable friend the Member for Caithness who first raised this matter in another place will be equally grateful for what the Government have done.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: My Lords, I too wish to express my appreciation to the Government for recognising the validity of the arguments advanced from these Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches in particular at Committee stage. It is important for those who are not following the Bill in detail to recognise that this is a very limited affair. We are talking now about fingerprinting minors, whereas in the earlier amendments we were dealing with the wider issue of the way in which unaccompanied young people in particular are received in this country.
  The principle which has been adopted by the Government in these amendments—namely, that there is special recognition required for children—is a valuable one which goes wider than the issue of fingerprinting. I hope that in discussions on later amendments we shall be able to use the Government's welcome conversion to the recognition of the rights of children.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I am very hesitant about challenging the drafting abilities of the noble Earl or his department. However, I cannot make any sense out of Amendment No. 7. If it is incorporated as it stands, the last two and a half lines of subsection (2) (on page 9) will read:
  "fingerprints shall not be taken from a person under the age of sixteen ('the child') except in the presence of a person of full age who is not an authorised person".
  I wondered whether the original intention was to leave out the reference to the age of 16 and substitute "the child". That would make sense. The amendment as currently drafted does not.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall reply to that point as best I can. The point of adding the words "the child" is that they refer to the person who is under the age of 16. It is explanatory.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 6A:
  Page 2, line 7, after ("his") insert ("over the age of 7").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already made some progress on this clause. In welcoming the Government's amendments, I made clear that our view is that the whole issue of fingerprinting children is offensive. We are grateful for the protection that has been provided but our position remains that the very act of fingerprinting children is offensive, particularly as it is proposed that children can be fingerprinted at all ages, presumably right down to birth.
  The arguments put in favour of fingerprinting children were difficult because they depended in particular on the claim that it is very difficult to recognise the age of a young person. It was said that those who claimed to be dependants, in the sense that they were under 18, could easily be older than the age of 18.
  I appreciate that, if one is to pursue that argument, it may be pursued for any age—18, 16, 14, 12, 10 or whatever. We therefore considered the option of making fingerprinting impossible under a certain age, such as 16 or 14. In the end we decided to table a modest amendment and simply exclude fingerprinting for those aged seven or under. In other words, we allow fingerprinting under Clause 3(2) for those over the age of seven.
  It is not a satisfactory situation. I would rather see fingerprinting abolished altogether. However, it is in the proper tradition of your Lordships' House that, having tried to achieve the greater good and failed at Committee stage, we should at least have a stab at achieving a modest improvement in the hope that the Government may feel disposed to say, "We do not like the idea either of fingerprinting children aged seven and under". I am sure that that feeling must be in the minds of many noble Lords on the Government Benches. I appeal to them to support this modest but still worthwhile amendment. I beg to move.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I should like to make one comment in favour of the amendment. I was one of those opposed to the idea of the fingerprinting of children. As I understand the argument, fingerprinting is necessary to prevent multiple applications. It seems to me that the possibility of children under the age of seven making multiple applications is fairly slim and therefore the necessity for fingerprinting in those cases hardly exists.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in supporting this extremely modest amendment may I ask the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, if he cannot accept the age of seven, what age he will accept? Otherwise, perhaps he will tell us that he is leaving the way open to children being fingerprinted at the earliest possible age.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I realise the anxieties your Lordships have felt regarding the fingerprinting of
  578
  children. But it would be unwise to place in the Bill a lower limit on the age at which children might be fingerprinted.
  Many asylum seekers present themselves at ports or elsewhere in this country without any reliable means of identification. It would rarely be possible in those circumstances to determine a child's age with any degree of satisfaction by reference to documents. Often the documents do not exist or are inadequate. Whatever limit is set, there are bound to be disagreements about whether a child is under or over a stipulated age—be it seven or 17. Therefore the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is that we would prefer to see no age limit in the Bill. Whatever one stipulated, there would be constant arguments. If there are no documents with the child, it is obviously impossible to determine what age he or she is.
  We are not saying that children of seven or below are likely to instigate a fraudulent claim. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon thought that children under seven simply would not make fraudulent claims. That is a reasonable argument. However, some families are prepared to "lend" their children to relatives or compatriots at the time they are claiming asylum. That is done presumably to increase the amount of benefit that they may claim. There does not seem to be any other logical reason for it. I do not say that the practice is widespread but there have been several recorded instances of it. Some of those instances came to light because the children involved became distressed with their situation—being in a waiting area perhaps with a number of other people and accompanied by somebody whom they did not know very well.
  In order to deter that kind of abuse of children, it would be imprudent not to retain the ability to fingerprint any asylum seeker regardless of his or her age. However, I can assure the House, and repeat the assurances I gave earlier, that in the case of children it will be done only where it is deemed appropriate. It will be done in a suitable manner in the presence of the parent, guardian or other responsible adult. I believe that it is important to retain the provision in the Bill.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I find that argument today as unconvincing as I found it in Committee. It is true, as I recognised when moving the amendment, that there is no magical age at which a child is instantly recognisable as being above or below the age of seven, 10 or whatever it may be. But the right reverend Prelate rightly said that children under the age of eight are not likely to make multiple applications.
  In his response the Minister indicated that children were used in multiple applications. He said that there were examples of them becoming distressed at being presented by adults whom they did not know. It seems to me that in giving that example the Minister answered his own point. Clearly if children become distressed upon being presented by adults they do not know, the suggestion of multiple applications is evident without fingerprinting. Fingerprinting cannot be deemed to add much to the case that he gave. Either he is saying that they are getting through without being noticed, in which case the argument of distress

  579
  has no validity, or he is saying that distress is the argument, in which case fingerprinting has no validity. The Minister cannot have it both ways.
  Between Committee and Report stage the noble Earl was kind enough to see me to talk through some of these matters and to confirm subsequently that he hoped to be able to provide by Third Reading draft guidance on the treatment of children for inclusion in the Immigration Rules. It is probably better that I wait to see that draft guidance to consider whether it is adequate or whether action needs to be taken at Third Reading. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 2, line 9, after ("sixteen") insert ("("the child")").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
  Lord Brightman: My Lords, with great diffidence perhaps I may suggest that there is a mistake in the wording of the amendment. It reads, starting at line 8 on page 2,
  "fingerprints shall not be taken from a person under the age of sixteen ('the child') except in the presence of a person of full age who is".
  It should read,
  "fingerprints shall not be taken from a child under the age of sixteen except in the presence of a person of full age who is",
  which is where Amendment No. 8 comes in,
  "the child's parent or guardian".
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I agree.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord brings forward a point which I shall certainly consider. My initial reaction is that if Amendment No. 8 refers to the child's parent or guardian, one needs the fact of "the child" to be mentioned after the word "sixteen" to indicate that that is the person to whom the parent or guardian is referring.
  Lord Brightman: My Lords, it would then read,
  "fingerprints shall not be taken from a person under the age of sixteen ('the child') except in the presence of a person of full age who is the child's parent or guardian".
  6 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am nervous that we will get into Committee stage. With the leave of the House I make the following observation. My understanding is that if one refers to "the child's parent or guardian" one has to refer to who the child is and that is why the amendment is necessary. It explains that anyone under the age of 16 is regarded in this context as the child to whom the parent is referred later on. If I am wrong on that I will get in touch with the noble and learned Lord, but I will certainly consider what he has said.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that I need the leave of the House because the Minister has not yet responded to the debate. I suspect that he is right. It is clear that one needs a definition of "the child" in order to refer to the child on two occasions in Amendment No. 8. The question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was whether Amendment No. 7 should say "a child under 16"
  580
  rather than refer to a person under the age of 16 ("the child"). I cannot see that there is any difference between the two in sense although there is a difference in wording. It may be as well for the Minister to say that he will take advice on it. If he turns out to be wrong we will not chide him if he comes back with a further amendment at Third Reading.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall do that.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 2, line 9, leave out ("not an authorised person") and insert ("—

  (a) the child's parent or guardian; or

  (b) a person who for the time being takes responsibility for the child and is not an immigration officer, constable, prison officer or officer of the Secretary of State.").

  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 8 when dealing with Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 3, line 16, at end insert:
  ("() Nothing shall be done under this section which contravenes the provisions of the Convention.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 10 is a further attempt to seek concessions from the Government. I do not believe that we can do more than that at this stage, having achieved the minor concessions on fingerprinting that have been achieved. It is stated in Clause 2 that nothing in the Immigration Rules shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the convention. The provisions in Clause 3 relating to fingerprinting are not included in the Immigration Rules; they are explicitly on the face of the Bill. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Government are right and the Immigration Rules—which are subject to parliamentary scrutiny only in the most minimal sense—should be controlled by the requirement that they conform with the convention, surely the same applies to the rules for fingerprinting that are on the face of the Bill.
  We are not asking that other provisions of any other international legislation or agreements should be given this prominence in the Bill. We could have done so because there are plenty of rules laid down or guidelines suggested by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees providing protection that may be relevant to fingerprinting, particularly the fingerprinting of children. We have not done that because the guidance provided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees can vary from time to time and it is inappropriate for such variable guidance to be incorporated in United Kingdom legislation. However, since there is already a recognition in the Bill that the Immigration Rules should conform with the provisions of the convention it seems to us logical that the same thing should apply to the provisions for fingerprinting that are set out in Clause 3. I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure that all of your Lordships will agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that nothing should be done in contravention of the convention. However, the amendment refers to things "done under this section". I hope and believe that nothing we have so far enacted in Clause 3 is contrary to the convention. It is an enabling clause. If people exceed the powers contained in it, that is perhaps not only contrary to the convention but contrary to our own law. I should have thought it was unnecessary for us to insert this further subsection. It will be interesting to hear what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has to say about it. As for guidance by the High Commissioner, any guidance that he can give can only be an interpretation of the convention; he cannot add to or detract from it in any way. That also would not justify the insertion of this amendment.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, since we are at Report stage perhaps I may say before the noble Lord sits down that regrettably there are two respects in which what he says is in error, though I tremble in saying so. The necessity for this amendment is not in any way affected by the fact that Clause 3 is an enabling clause. The action taken on fingerprinting is authorised by the clause. Whether the Secretary of State is required, or has the ability, to implement it has no relationship to whether action taken with the Secretary of State's authority is mandatory or based on enabling legislation. The question that has to be answered—one that I am not capable of determining—is whether not just the enactment but the implementation of the provisions of the clause turns out, when seen in detail, to be in conflict with the convention.
  I am afraid I have forgotten the second reason why I believe the noble Lord is in error.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind our rules of procedure the noble Lord was kind enough to say that he was merely intervening in my speech. Perhaps I may say with humility and respect that I do not agree with the argument he has just put forward.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton. Obviously, in operating the fingerprinting provisions the Government have no intention whatever of doing anything which will contravene the convention. We have signed the convention; we are part of it and do not want to do anything that will contravene it. I would be reluctant to see added to the Bill a specific provision to that effect. I can see no possible way in which the operation of Clause 3 can contravene the convention. That is reinforced by the fact that the convention says nothing about fingerprinting. Clause 2 is drafted in such a way that quite properly it ensures that nothing in the Immigration Rules will conflict with the convention. I believe that that ought to be sufficient.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have remembered my second objection to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He said that the guidance given by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees could deal only with
  582
  matters covered by the convention. I am paraphrasing what he said because I do not remember his exact words. He will find that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—who has recently been appointed by acclamation by the General Assembly and whose remit has been continued for another five years—has very considerable powers and responsibilities that go beyond the convention on refugees. He is certainly entitled to give guidance to members of the United Nations.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord—
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has spoken three times and my noble friend Lord Renton is about to speak for the third time. It is Report stage and I think that we ought to try to keep to the rules.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is my amendment and I was responding to the debate after the Minister had spoken. I was giving way to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in the course of my speech. If the House thinks that that is inappropriate, I shall carry on, but I note from his attempted intervention that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, does not agree with me. Perhaps we could discuss the matter privately afterwards.
  The Minister said that he cannot conceive of any way in which Clause 3 conflicts with the convention because the convention does not. mention fingerprinting. It is exactly because the convention does not mention fingerprinting that the possibility arises that the clause may conflict with the convention. It may well be that there are elements of general protection in the convention which would be breached by the introduction of compulsory fingerprinting. This is not a matter on which I consider myself to be adequately informed to the extent that I would wish to take the opinion of the House on it. But I still think that there is a valid point here which may need further attention at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 [Housing of asylum-seekers and their dependants]:
  6.15 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 3, line 24, leave out (", however temporary,").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the housing provisions of the Bill and in particular to the words "however temporary" when used to describe accommodation. Clause 4(1) (b) provides that a housing authority should be satisfied that an asylum seeker has available for his occupation any accommodation, however temporary, which it would be reasonable for him to occupy.
  The words "however temporary" must mean something. Their natural meaning is that the accommodation in question may be accommodation which is very temporary indeed. Church halls and the floor of a kind friend were examples given to your Lordships in Committee. We were glad of the

  583
  Minister's comments then that he doubted whether those examples would be regarded as reasonable accommodation. I of course accept that comment in the good faith in which it was no doubt given but I doubt whether the Minister's doubts could amount to an assurance that those examples would not fall within the provision.
  The Minister also said that it was right to treat asylum seeker applicants in a similar way to other applicants for housing. I am sure that we would all agree with that. It was a comment which was made on a number of occasions during the debate. The Housing Act 1985 provides tests for a local authority which has to assess an application by someone who presents himself as homeless. Under Section 58(2) (a) of the Act a person is not treated as having accommodation unless it is accommodation which it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy. The Bill repeats those words in Clause 4(1) (b). It provides that the accommodation must be accommodation which it would be reasonable for him to occupy.
  What is added—or perhaps taken away—by "however temporary"? On re-reading the debate in Committee it seems to me that the comments made by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, were a little inconsistent with statements that asylum seeker applicants should be treated as other applicants. For instance, at col. 773 of the Official Report of 11th February the Minister talked of the clauses limiting the initial entitlement of asylum seekers under the homeless legislation to temporary accommodation to allow authorities to make better use of their permanent housing stock in providing homes for other homeless families. The Minister also sought to read the provision along with the reasonableness test. Again I ask: are the words "however temporary" therefore necessary?
  The noble Lord distinguished between temporary accommodation and accommodation under the 1985 Act. He referred to an applicant who,
  "has no interest in a property, or licence to occupy it—in broad terms, if he has no degree of security in his existing accommodation".—[Official Report, 11/2/93; col. 775.]
  The 1985 Act does indeed provide for the situation where a person must have accommodation which has a degree of security, which is how the Minister described it. But under Section 58(2) (b) of the Act it is reasonable for a person who has to occupy accommodation if he has an express or implied licence to occupy it. I apologise for the technical jargon but it is necessary to refer back to the existing legislation.
  To summarise, the 1985 Act provides that, if there is an implied licence to occupy accommodation, that will effectively knock out an applicant who is seeking local authority housing on the grounds that he is homeless. Surely the person who is using a kind friend's floor or a church or community hall has at the very least an implied licence to occupy it if not an express licence to occupy it. It cannot be, therefore, that the Housing Act 1985 is regarded by the Government as adequate to cover the situation. I come again to my question. Why it is necessary to have these words?
  The Minister also said in Committee that the provisions of the 1985 Act dealt with those who were threatened with homelessness and that those would continue to apply. Section 66 of the Act provides for those who are threatened with homelessness and requires a housing authority to take reasonable steps to secure that accommodation does not cease to be available. It would be quite hard for a housing authority to take steps to secure that a church or community hall did not cease to be available. In the case of applicants who are not in priority need the obligation is one of advice rather than the provision of accommodation. As noble Lords quite rightly mentioned in Committee, many asylum seekers will he single men who will not fall within the provisions of those who are in priority need.
  There was talk too in Committee of the code of guidance to which local authorities must have regard. It is quite difficult to accept that one should rely on provisions which may be in the new code or the revised code when one has not yet seen those provisions. But given the other provisions of Clause 4 I remained unconvinced at the end of the Committee stage debate that the words "however temporary" were necessary.
  Clause 4 is not about imposing duties on housing authorities. It is directed to making exceptions and variations to the provisions of the 1985 Act. In other words, it detracts from the homelessness provisions of the Act. If the words "however temporary" are necessary, they amount to an extra test which an asylum seeker applicant has to meet. If they are necessary, to those on these Benches they are words with which we are not very happy.
  Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I find that a somewhat confused argument. I listened very carefully and it seems to me that the noble Baroness has perhaps overlooked Clause 4(2) which deals with the "reasonableness" test bearing in mind the general circumstances. I believe that it is important that the words "however temporary" remain, because I can foresee arguments being created by certain well-meaning people who might encourage asylum seekers to say that the accommodation offered to them is not really suitable as there is no real degree of permanence in it. I believe that the Minister and those who drafted the subsection are perfectly right to make it clear. In my judgment it is not a question of an additional test; it is merely stating the facts. That is what I thought legislation was all about.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sorry if any element of confusion crept into my speech at Committee stage and the noble Baroness did not understand what it was that I was putting forward, particularly since my noble friend clearly did understand the point that was being made both in the drafting of the clause and in the way I explained it in Committee.
  The term "however temporary", as I mentioned in Committee, is used in subsection (1) (b) of Clause 4 in distinction to the requirements that flow from Part III of the Housing Act 1985 under which someone is defined as homeless if he has no interest in a property or licence to occupy it—in broad terms, if he has no

  585
  degree of security in his existing accommodation. The provisions of the 1985 Act are a direct route into settled accommodation for homeless households that meet the criteria set out in that Act. Although most homeless families these days do have a spell in temporary accommodation, that is not a necessary part of the 1985 Act. In the Act the yardstick for homelessness is set by reference to the security of tenure that flows from the duty of authorities to secure that accommodation is available for homeless families. In other words, because the 1985 Act is concerned with providing permanent accommodation, it sets its definition of homelessness by reference to the security of such accommodation.
  The housing provisions in the Bill are directed towards a different concern. They will ensure that an asylum seeker has adequate temporary accommodation, but they relieve authorities of the duty to provide permanent accommodation until he has been given leave to remain in this country. It is therefore appropriate that the need for an authority to intervene in providing accommodation should be set by reference to criteria based on the type of accommodation that the authority has a duty to provide in such instances at that time; namely, temporary accommodation.
  It is for that reason that perhaps the noble Baroness thought I was being contradictory at col. 773 when I said:
  "That will allow authorities to make better use of their permanent housing stock in providing homes for other homeless families".
  The point is that there will be no discrimination by local authorities concerning people who are treated for temporary accommodation.
  The Bill provides that an authority does not need to intervene if the asylum seeker has accommodation, however temporary, that it is reasonable for him to occupy. It is important to note the word "reasonable". "However temporary" does not mean "however unsatisfactory". As I have said on previous occasions, although the floor of a church hall, or a couch in a friend's flat, might meet the criteria of "however temporary", such accommodation would probably not be reasonable for an asylum seeker and his family. The test of reasonableness would embrace both levels of overcrowding, hygiene and safety as well as cost and the willingness of friends and relatives to continue to provide accommodation.
  Once a local authority has accepted responsibility to provide temporary accommodation for an asylum seeker and his dependants, there is no reason that this should be any different in quality from the accommodation provided for other homeless families. We have heard much about keeping asylum seekers in bed and breakfast accommodation. I remind noble Lords that bed and breakfast now accounts for only a small proportion of the temporary accommodation used by local authorities.
  When introducing legislation that treads new ground—as this does—it is inevitable that there will be some uncertainty as to how the new provisions will work out in practice. As I have said on a number of occasions, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee,
  586
  pointed out, we will be making revisions to the code of guidance that we issue to local authorities on the operation of the homelessness legislation, and to which authorities are required by law to have regard. Naturally, when we are drafting the new code of guidance, we will take note of the concerns and the uncertainties expressed by the noble Baroness as well as the views of local authorities.
  This measure will reduce the pressure on authorities to provide accommodation for asylum seekers while their applications are being considered. At the same time it assures asylum seekers of a sound underpinning level of accommodation should they need it. We believe that this is the proper way to proceed. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I regret however that I remain unconvinced. Perhaps I may first deal with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, when he argued that Clause 4(2) provided one aspect of the reasonable test. One of my objections to that provision is that it sees the situation from the point of view of the housing authority. That authority has very great concerns which need to be dealt with. This Bill is about asylum seekers. The test applied under Clause 4(2) is the circumstances prevailing in the district and not the situation of the individual asylum seeker. I see that the noble Lord agrees with me to that extent:
  The Minister cautioned against basing our argument on the use of bed and breakfast accommodation. Happily, its use is being reduced, although it is still necessary. It is also desperately unsatisfactory. If the provision remains it will be necessary for the housing authority, if not continuously, then very frequently, to reassess the situation of an individual because as he moves from one set of temporary accommodation to another, does not his position have to be reconsidered? An element of confusion and more work is unsatisfactory.
  The Minister concluded his argument by saying that the provision will reduce pressure on housing authorities. As I said, I am concerned for housing authorities and in this context concerned also for asylum seekers. In view of the time and unconvinced as I am, I suspect that courtesy to the House means that I should withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 4, line 4, leave out (", at that time").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 13. Noble Lords will remember that during our debates at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, argued, at col. 801:
  "Asylum seekers will acquire their full rights to a range of benefits, including full rights to housing, only from the time that they have been granted the leave to remain".
  The noble Lord called that "a principle" which we might disagree with, and I do disagree. I disagree with it because, as I argued at the time, the argument neglects to take account of the fact that the courts have decided that an asylum seeker is a genuine

  587
  asylum seeker from the moment that he puts in his application for asylum; therefore, his rights should start from that moment.
  At the end of that debate the noble Lord accepted that there was some confusion in what he was putting forward and said that he was happy to consider the debate that we had had and to reflect on it. He has reflected on it. He wrote to his noble friend Lord Brentford and was kind enough to send me a copy. I regret to say that his reflections did not take him very far for some reason or another which I shall try to discover. He wrote:
  "It would not make sense to offer someone permanent accommodation when manifestly he had ceased to be so entitled because, for example, his dependants had all left the country".
  The noble Lord said that in the debate. My noble friend Lady Seear asked him whether the asylum seeker was different to anyone else in the queue for housing who, by the time he had acquired the housing, found that his family had left him and left "the nest", as she put it. Is not a refugee who has now become a regular homeless person in exactly the same position? She asked: what is the difference?—and, asking, got no answer. The noble Lord simply repeats the question in his letter but does not answer it; so we did not get very far with those reflections. He then went on to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, who had used the metaphor of snakes and ladders to describe the position of the asylum seeker, that he thought this was not a very satisfactory metaphor. He said that it was wrong for a local authority to justify granting a secure tenancy when there was a queue of bona fide homeless people waiting. He went on to say in his letter:
  "There is no concept of a queue, or of prioritisation"—what a horrible word for the noble Lord to use—"in the legislation".
  Most housing authorities have some kind of list—a points system—in which residence plays some part. Therefore although there may not be a queue in which length of residence is the dominant qualification, it is always a qualification. Therefore you are in fact treating an asylum seeker extremely unfairly if you do not take into account the time he has spent here from the moment when he applied for asylum, which was the moment when the courts decided that he was a refugee. When the noble Lord says in his letter:
  "This measure is a logical complement to the main housing provisions of the Bill. I do not believe that it will materially disadvantage the former asylum seeker",
  he is guilty of inexactitude. The asylum seeker must be disadvantaged. He is disadvantaged by the length of time which his appeal for asylum took and the weighting which that length of time gives him in the points system which may be exercised by the local authority concerned. Of course it is grossly unfair and it is for that reason that I beg to move this amendment.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I should like briefly to support my noble friend. The Minister has quite rightly in his correspondence reminded us that there is no such thing as a waiting list for local authority
  588
  housing. There may be no waiting list as such, but there is a considerable degree of overload and de facto that means "waiting list", whatever term is used to describe it. Local authorities have discretion as to how they give priority to those whose other criteria for accommodation are very similar. As a matter of fact, housing authorities very often use the date order of applications so as to distinguish between those who are otherwise indistinguishable.
  This amendment is not seeking to put asylum seeker applicants at the head of the queue: nor at this point are we seeking to delete paragraph 6 of the first schedule, which is concerned with security of tenure. That subject is dealt with in a later amendment. But, at the very least, if this amendment is not accepted I hope the Minister will be able to give us some assurance as to the good practice which the code of guidance may suggest with regard to the treatment of those who might fall down a snake on the board of snakes and ladders.
  Lord Hylton: My Lords, I do believe that we need a national policy for the reception of refugees. If we are going to have such a thing, that policy will need to have a housing component. These two Amendments, Nos. 12 and 13, seem to me to relate to the housing element of a national strategy and for that reason I am very happy to support them.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, when we discussed this at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as he said, recognised that I had said there had been some confusion in the debate and I agreed to reflect on it. As the noble Lord also said, I have done so and indeed I have discussed the matter with my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, who has lead responsibility in these matters.
  I do understand the anxieties expressed by noble Lords but I think we need to remember the purpose of the Bill and the contribution made by the provisions which the amendment seeks to delete. The housing provisions are essentially concerned with ensuring that the entitlement to permanent accommodation under the homeless legislation follows from someone being granted leave to remain in this country. Secure and assured tenancies are a scarce resource in many parts of the country and it is therefore only sensible for a housing authority to assess whether a person is entitled to it at the time that he acquires his entitlement.
  In these circumstances it would be difficult to defend giving a secure or assured tenancy to someone who had ceased to be in priority need. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, re-asked me the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, as to how the asylum seeker might be different from others whose families leave the nest. For homeless households in general there is no requirement for local authorities to reassess the circumstances, because there is no clear break between temporary and permanent accommodation. The noble Baroness may indeed reflect the practice of local authorities, but not the law, and there is an important distinction.

  589
  Under the 1985 Act a person acquires the right to permanent accommodation the moment he is accepted as homeless by the local authority, but in the case of asylum seekers, as I have already pointed out, the intention is that such a right should flow only once leave to remain has been granted. I stated in Committee that the noble Baroness might not like the answer I had to give, and I am sorry to bring her into this debate because of course it was the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who raised the point.
  I am reminded that I should be addressing the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I do apologise. Much has been said about how this provision would result in the asylum seekers going to the back of the queue for a secure tenancy and how this would mean a long period of uncertainty in substandard accommodation for the asylum seeker and his family. I would remind the House that temporary accommodation provided by the local authorities is often of very good standard. That is part of the debate that we have just had. In some cases it is better than the standard of secure tenancies that a local authority allocates within its own stock. I say that because much temporary accommodation now takes place in assured short-term tenancies, some of which are of a very high standard indeed: better than that of some local authorities.
  However, more importantly, I should make it clear that there is nothing in the homelessness legislation which requires an authority to operate a queueing system for the allocation of secure or assured tenancies. It is for the authority to rehouse homeless families in whatever order it feels to be most appropriate, taking into account all the circumstances. If an authority feels that, bearing in mind the length of time already spent in temporary accommodation, the former asylum seeker needs or deserves a secure tenancy the moment he is granted leave to remain, then the authority is at liberty to allocate such a tenancy to him.
  The local authority must treat all applicants fairly and if there is a ranking then it should reflect the length of time spent in temporary accommodation. This is a system which is run by local authorities and therefore it is for them to find the system which is most appropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, also suggested that, when a refugee is granted asylum, this is in effect a decision which shows retrospectively that he had the right to remain in this country from the moment that he entered it. It is argued that that should mean that he has full housing rights from that time. That goes to the nub of the provisions.
  In a substantial number of cases an asylum seeker is granted not asylum but exceptional leave to remain. So one cannot assume that all asylum seekers are refugees, nor, until an asylum claim is resolved, that a person has any entitlement to remain in the country. As I have explained, an important principle underlies the provision, although I hope that in most instances it will have little practical consequence for the asylum seeker.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I hope the Minister will forgive me. With the leave of the House, because I
  590
  have not yet spoken, will the Minister elaborate on what he has just said? It seems to me that he is saying, "OK, an asylum seeker has rights which will be exercised retrospectively"—we are talking about asylum seekers and not people given exceptional leave to remain—"once he has been granted asylum. In all other ways he will be treated as if he had been a refugee from the moment he put in his application". What the Government are saying in the legislation is that they will not allow that to apply to housing. Is that what the Minister is saying?
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, when an asylum seeker is granted leave to remain in the country, a local authority can re-assess his priority needs under the homelessness legislation. It is up to the local authority to decide how it deals with his time in temporary accommodation. There is nothing in the Bill that means that the local authority has to treat him differently from any other homeless person.
  The Bill is designed to shorten the period during which someone awaits a decision on his application for asylum. We believe that under the Bill it will be reduced substantially. Any delay in his being eligible for permanent accommodation will thus be reduced correspondingly. The provision gives authorities a safeguard when handling homelessness applications from former asylum seekers. It does not require the asylum seeker to make a fresh application under the homelessness legislation. For those whose circumstances remain unchanged from the time of their initial application, its effect is likely to go unnoticed. I hope that I have this time explained the matter clearly, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, will withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Seear: My Lords, since I have been brought into the controversy as a result of a remark I made previously, I must say that I wonder sometimes what the Government will do when they have finally got rid of local government, which is what they seem to be aiming to do. Whenever there is a difficult decision to be made they say that it is the responsibility of local government. The Minister has used a good many words, but he has not answered the question. The nub of the matter in our view is that once a decision has been made by the court that the man is a genuine asylum seeker, he has been a genuine asylum seeker since he came into the country. The court is saying, "This man is a genuine asylum seeker. He always was". If he always was a genuine asylum seeker and put in his application at the time, that is the point of time from which his entitlement should be measured. That seems to be a matter of the most simple logic. The Minister has not answered that point.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness is being slightly uncharitable about the Government's views of local government. We are fond believers in local democracy—a local democracy that works. I hope that what the noble Baroness says about our feelings towards local government will be proved to be untrue, but only time will tell.
  Baroness Seear: My Lords, of course the man loves his wife deeply; he beats her every night.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I said, the noble Baroness was being uncharitable and she is continuing to be so. We believe that when an asylum seeker is given leave to remain his position should be re-assessed. It should be re-assessed to ensure that the priority needs under which he made his application are still relevant. I accept that there might be a fundamental disagreement on that point between the noble Baroness and the Government. The point of today's discussion is to explain what the Government mean.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I have listened to the Minister's argument with increasing bewilderment. I shall read what he says with a wet towel around my head. I must tell him one or two home truths. First, it is impossible to be uncharitable about the Government's views on local government. Secondly, if this place were not privileged he would put himself in danger of a double libel action from me and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter for muddling us up. Both of us resent that deeply. If he cares to say that outside, I shall take him to the courts. However let us put those matters to one side.
  We are not talking about people with extended leave to remain, and so that is irrelevant to my argument. We are talking about asylum seekers. It is unquestionable that any ordinary person reading the clause would interpret it to mean that an application for local authority housing put in by an asylum seeker on arrival would not operate until his request for asylum had been granted. It would start from that moment and not from when he arrived.
  The Minister said two things about that. First, he says that under the homelessness legislation local authorities have to re-assess the situation, irrespective of whether the person was an asylum seeker. In that case, the clause means nothing. Is he saying that the clause is meaningless and that the whole matter is entirely one for the discretion of the local authority, or is he saying that it does mean something? If the clause means something, it surely means what I have said; that is, that there is a contradiction between the fact that the court says that the man was a refugee from the moment that he applied for asylum and that local authorities treat him as a genuine refugee only from the time that that decision is made. That contradiction remains. It can only be resolved by saying that the clause means nothing.
  I find this matter bewildering. I shall not press the amendment because I found the Minister's speech even more bewildering. I shall have to read it carefully to interpret it and to see whether I can make sense out of it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 14:
  After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:

  Grants to local authorities
  The Secretary of State shall make a specific grant to any local authority which in any year incurs expenditure in making housing, social services or education provision for asylum-seekers or their dependants.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 15. I am not prepared to accept the suggested grouping which includes Amendment No. 16. It is a different point and I ask for it to be debated separately.
  Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are similar to those moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I am bringing them back because since the Committee stage my noble friend, who unfortunately cannot be present today, arranged a meeting with the Department of the Environment at which I was present with officers of the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities. We met my noble friend the Minister and Robin Squire.
  The meeting was to discuss the cost of refugees and asylum seekers. It was an interesting and informative meeting. Some matters emerged which meant that we were not achieving a satisfactory result. The Minister admitted that homelessness is not at present covered by the SSA. He also said that the Government might be willing to take it into consideration if they could properly define an index by which it could be assessed more accurately. We stressed that we considered asylum-seeking homelessness to be different from ordinary homelessness. Needs are assessed, but homelessness on its own is not assessed. Homelessness for asylum seekers was a different category.
  There is a changing pattern in London. The boroughs which are suffering the most this year may not be those which suffered last year or which will suffer next year. Last year Westminster's housing costs for asylum seekers were £1.3 million. However, this year the London Borough of Ealing is the most adversely affected.
  It should be appreciated that the burden of homelessness falls unfairly on London. I was interested in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, when speaking to Amendment No. 13. He said that there should be a national system for sharing the responsibility of homelessness, in particular for those homeless people who are seeking asylum. If it is the case that the London boroughs are carrying the burden and not boroughs nationwide, there should be a special grant for them. There should be a special grant for those boroughs which are carrying the burden at the time. That is a fair way of supporting homelessness at a national level because some boroughs would not contribute if asylum seekers were not in their area.
  The Minister said that he hoped to speed up the process of deciding whether people should be granted leave of asylum or merely leave to remain. That is necessary because the average period of time for that process is two-and-a-half years. The boroughs which accept people in the first instance, and provide what the Minister has pointed out will be only temporary accommodation, will be providing that for two-and-a-half years. The Minister also pointed out that often the temporary accommodation is of a high standard.

  593
  That may be so but it is certainly the most expensive standard. The costs are out of all proportion to that spent by many boroughs on other people. We have long been dissatisfied with bed-and-breakfast as a form of accommodation, and we remain so.
  The burden will not be reduced, however, as a result of the change to providing accommodation on only a temporary basis. We are being misled by the Bill into believing that there will be a reduction. The temporary accommodation will remain just as expensive. At present the number of people who are given leave to remain is four times greater than the number of those who are given asylum. Yet those who are given leave to remain will, until they are moved, stay in the same temporary accommodation as the asylum seekers. The notion that the numbers will suddenly reduce dramatically is not correct.
  When discussing Amendment No. 12 a great deal was said about who would be responsible for housing. The view of the London boroughs is that any borough which has accepted a person as an asylum seeker and offered temporary accommodation will pick up the tab and the later responsibility for providing permanent accommodation if that person qualifies. I was slightly confused about the issue but I did not wish to intervene in the debate because the amendment was not in my name. However, the London boroughs believe that there is no way in which the receiving borough will be able to shed that responsibility to others.
  The London Borough of Westminster believes that it is most important for boroughs to be able to provide permanent accommodation in a different borough because there may not be enough space for the numbers who want it. Westminster has found 277 permanent homes in its borough but more than 1,500 homeless people have been put into Westminster by other boroughs. There is a two-way arrangement but if that is restricted the chances of rehousing people will be much reduced. That is an important point to consider.
  The Bill continues the costly obligation to provide temporary accommodation, which will later turn into permanent accommodation. If a family is placed in another borough its temporary accommodation costs will be paid by the original borough. However, all the services provided—that is, the social services and education—will be the expense of the receiving borough. There, too, a large amount of money is involved. The London Boroughs Association reports that in 1991–92 more than 2,400 asylum seekers were accepted as statutorily homeless. The cost of those to the London authorities was about £40 million, including social services, education and housing.
  The point was made that last November and this year specific grants were given as a result of the situation in Yugoslavia. They were welcomed but they hardly touched the London boroughs. Indeed, no London borough qualified for any of the money for the Yugoslavians because only 4 per cent. were accepted by the London authorities compared with 21.5 per cent. of those from Somalia and 17 per cent. of those from Zaire. The Yugoslavian special grant
  594
  did not help the London boroughs and therefore my amendment does not specify the fact that grants should be for a particular body. They should be made in relation to the special expenses which the boroughs must incur in order to comply. What is needed is a permanent, statutory, specific grant for making provision for refugees.
  Amendment No. 15 calls for an annual report, which is more or less a formality. However, it would provide a valuable way of monitoring expenditure and enable us to see annually the changing pattern in London. I strongly support the amendments and hope that the Minister will view them seriously. At our meeting in his department we made it clear that our anxieties are genuine and that the national burden is being borne most unfairly by London. Indeed, even across London particular problems exist in certain boroughs and the cost is not distributed evenly. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that it is the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that my Amendment No. 16 should not be debated with the two amendments standing in her name. That is her right and I accede to her wishes. That enables me to say how strongly I support her amendments. In many ways they are better than mine because they cover not only housing but social services and education. As we learnt from our debates in Committee, expenditure on the provision of social services and education for asylum seekers is in many ways greater than the cost of providing housing for them.
  I also welcome the fact that the amendment has removed what I considered to be an unworkable and unduly restrictive provision; that there should be a specific grant only for local authorities whose expenditure is 10 per cent. above that which it would otherwise have been because of the presence of the asylum seekers and their families. Although my suspicion could never have been proved, I believe that provision would have applied only to Uttlesford, which is the district council affected by Stansted airport. I understand that it received the special grant in respect of people coming from Yugoslavia. We now have a more general requirement for a specific grant —in other words, a permanent provision or a provision to be renewed annually according to need —rather than the grace-and-favour special grant which has been given by governments in respect of Yugoslavian and Kurdish refugees.
  I was shocked by the noble Baroness's report of her meeting with Ministers. I have always known that the SSA is an inadequate basis for determining the needs and resources of local authorities. However, when she tells the House that no account whatever is taken in the SSA of homelessness—not just homelessness of asylum seekers but of homelessness tout court— I am profoundly shocked. The noble Baroness and I know from our experience of local government that homelessness is a substantial and expensive element of local authority expenditure. The noble Baroness is quite right to say that bed and breakfast accommodation in particular, which is far from being the best, although it could be acceptable, is far more expensive

  595
  than proper permanent accommodation, which all local housing authorities would wish to provide for those in need in their areas.
  Amendments Nos. 14 and 15, and in particular Amendment No. 14 which is critical, provide for housing, social services and education provision for asylum seekers. That is provided as of right and it is to be renewed annually when necessary. The amendment implies that the specific grant would be adequate to the purposes, as reliably and reasonably reported by local authorities.
  As all of us in local government know, there are problems as regards specific grants. Philosophically there is a conflict between the desire of local authorities to have complete control over their expenditure and their need to have recognition of their particular problems at particular times. We encountered that problem when we considered ring-fencing of the expenditure on care in the community. Although we do not like ring-fencing we felt that it was necessary to insist on it—and the House agreed with us—for the specific purpose of an element of expenditure which was quite new to local authorities, which was unpredictable and for which it was impossible to say whether adequate provision would be made. I believe that this too is one of those cases.
  The expenditure required by local authorities for dealing with asylum seekers and their families is unpredictable. It is difficult to say what it will be area by area and year by year. Under those circumstances, although in many ways I should prefer the SSA to be sufficiently flexible to be adjusted accordingly, I accept that it would be far better to have the specific grant proposed by the amendment than to have nothing at all.
  I say that for two specific reasons. The amount of expenditure required is considerable. In the current year about 2,000 households in London fall into that category of asylum seekers and their families. There have been 6,500 over the past three years. London boroughs—notably, Hillingdon, Camden, Lambeth, Hammersmith and Fulham and Haringey and I do not have Westminster on my list but I have no doubt that the noble Baroness could convince me that it should be included—are incurring expenditure of about £1 million in each area on caring for unaccompanied children. There are 5,000 adults and 4,000 children receiving additional language tuition, and many more are on waiting lists for additional English language assistance. Therefore, the amounts of money are large.
  The second reason why it is necessary to make special provision is that despite considerable pressure from the noble Baroness and her colleagues at her meeting with Ministers, no specific indication was given that the SSA would be amended quickly, effectively and specifically for that purpose. It is true that if the total population goes up, eventually the size of the population will be reflected in SSA, but that could take a long time. We know how long it has taken for the 1991 census data to be published. The answers given to the noble Baroness and her colleagues are inadequate, bearing in mind the urgency of the problem addressed in the amendments. I hope that the Government will accept them.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Hylton: My Lords, as regards the last amendment I said that we need a fully thought-out national policy for the reception of refugees. I say that again now, because it cannot be said too often.
  In the past there have been moments when we have reached the point of having such a national policy: for example, immediately after the Second World War, when the free Polish forces in Britain were rehoused and resettled in this country; or again, in the immediate aftermath of the Hungarian uprising, when many Hungarians came to this country; or again, during the 1970s, when there was a large influx of Asians, particularly from Uganda.
  However, since those days, by and large, it has been left to the individual local authority at the point of arrival or reception in this country to do the best that it can for those people in urgent need. I have corresponded about the health aspects of this question with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and she tried to be as helpful as she could in correspondence, particularly as regards health care needs in places such as Bayswater and Hackney where there are large concentrations of asylum seekers. That is so because of the existence there of bed and breakfast hotels.
  The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, mentioned the childcare aspects which have been concentrated around principal airports, particularly Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. It is quite unfair and wrong that the local authority at the point of entry should have to bear a national burden. This amendment tries to alleviate that problem and to put it right. I am very glad that it does so, though I am not sure whether it goes far enough. It speaks of a specific grant. I hope that that specific grant will turn out to be a 100 per cent. grant. Perhaps when the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, replies, she will tell me what rate she has in mind. However, I am delighted to support the amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I warmly support the amendment—even more warmly as it now extends to the provision of social services and education as well as housing.
  Your Lordships have heard a number of large sums quoted this evening. Considerable sums must be borne by local authorities. Perhaps I may add a figure to that list. In the past year, Kensington and Chelsea budgeted to spend £207,000 on housing, but the borough budgeted to spend £850,000 on social services for people in need of those particular services and who fell within that category.
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I am uncomfortable about the philosophy of providing specific grants to meet those problems. However, the enthusiasm and confidence in local government and local democracy expressed by the Minister this evening does not extend to allowing local authorities the discretion to set their own spending limits and raise their own taxes. Therefore, we are stuck with a specific grant.
  The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the time which it would take for the numbers who might be affected to work through into the SSA. From some

  597
  of the debates earlier this evening I wonder when asylum seekers begin to count as real people for the purposes of assessing needs.
  The cost of temporary accommodation has, quite rightly been referred to. That cost is considerable. It is a bad type of provision and it is a terrible waste of money. It is regarded as such by local authorities which are forced into using bed-and-breakfast as a means of accommodation. At the previous stage of the Bill there was mention of what I believe is known as the Bellwin formula; that is, the formula for reimbursing local authorities for unforeseen major expenditure. I believe that that is intended to provide for emergencies, natural disasters and that type of event. We cannot foresee the specific level of asylum seeking but we can foresee that it is not a problem that is likely to go away.
  At the previous stage of the Bill the Minister said:
  "a well-managed authority will have made a sensible provision for fluctuations in the predicted level of homelessness acceptances".—[Official Report, 11/2/93; col. 826.]
  He also said earlier that prudent authorities budget to discharge all their responsibilities effectively. Many authorities are well managed and prudent, which is no doubt why the noble Lord is so fond of them. However, they still have problems. I do not believe his answer dealt with the point that was made so effectively by the noble Baroness, which is that this is a national problem and not a problem that can be disaggregated and dealt with on an authority-by-authority basis.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, this is a most desirable pair of amendments not only for the reasons set out so forcefully and effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and others but also for another reason that I do not think has been touched upon this evening. The Government, the Opposition and all political parties are unanimous in agreeing upon the desirability of promoting good race relations. I use the word "race" in its broadest sense. It is hard to think of anything more likely to promote bad race relations than allowing ratepayers, community charge payers, or council tax payers to feel victimised because of an accident of geography as they happen to live in an area which has a large airport or sea port where large numbers of asylum seekers end up. Those asylum seekers have to be looked after and in the circumstances that is inevitably expensive. I urge the Government to consider carefully this additional argument in favour of this pair of amendments.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I, too, shall speak to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. We shall discuss Amendment No. 16, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in a moment. In seeking additional financial support for local authorities' expenditure on asylum seekers generally, these new clauses raise questions of a very different character from the housing issues with which this part of the Bill is properly concerned. I submit that this is not the Bill in which those provisions should be placed. They should be discussed in the context of
  598
  local government finance. However, this is the Bill we have in front of us and we must deal with the new clauses on that basis.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when the noble Lord is discussing whether these provisions are in the right Bill, he should refer to the Long Title of the Bill which states that this is,
  "An Act to make provision about persons who claim asylum in the United Kingdom and their dependants".
  The Government have quite properly in terms of the Long Title chosen to take that to include the housing provision made for asylum seekers and their dependants in this country. However, there is nothing improper in seeking to extend that to education and social services provision, as these amendments do, in terms of the Long Title of the Bill and what is permissible as an amendment. I do not think that the Government, having taken advantage of the breadth of the Long Title, should then criticise other noble Lords for doing the same.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, what the noble Lord has just said rests on the assumption that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is correct in her assertion that money is not made available for people who are asylum seekers. I shall demonstrate over the course of the next few minutes that that assumption is misconceived.
  There are, of course, well established mechanisms for discussing the costs that local government incurs and how these should be funded. Chief of these is the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance which the Secretary of State for the Environment chairs and upon which all the main local authority associations are represented. Within the same set of arrangements there are also regular and indeed very helpful meetings between officials of the associations and my department in the Settlement Working Group and its various technical sub-groups.
  When we debated similar amendments in Committee, I was happy to accept the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding that we should discuss these matters with the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities away from the Floor of the House. As we heard from my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, we met those associations last week and we explored their concerns. I found that meeting most helpful. The discussion which took place has very much helped to crystallise our understanding of local authorities' concerns and indeed some of their misconceptions.
  There is one point that I can deal with straight away. Of course we monitor acceptances of asylum seekers under homeless legislation and we shall continue to do so. There is no suggestion anywhere that we do not do so. It is apparent that the associations' concerns are not specifically about the presence of refugees or asylum seekers. Rather they are concerned about the extent to which the present method of distributing resources to authorities through standard spending assessments properly reflects the costs of providing various types of services. Although asylum seekers may make full use of these

  599
  services the main demands come from other sections of the population. I have in mind such spending needs as provision for the homeless, the education of children with special needs and the provision of social services for children from ethnic minorities. There can be few authorities (if any) where asylum seekers are the largest client group for such services.
  The Government are only too well aware that different sections of the community give rise to different spending needs. The system of standard spending assessments is designed to embrace and reflect the diversity of spending requirements in different local authority areas and to allocate spending resources accordingly. We continually monitor the workings of the SSA system and always seek to use the most recent data in its various indicators.
  Recognising the concern felt in some quarters about the detailed workings of the SSA system, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced last month that we are planning to conduct a fundamental review of SSAs over the next few months to ensure that they continue to take the most appropriate factors into account.
  The homelessness indicator in SSAs is one of the matters that we shall consider in the review. We need to identify a reliable indicator for inclusion in the SSA formula. If local authority associations wish to make suggestions, it will be most appropriate to consider them at that stage.
  My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes asked about a special grant for London. The point here is that SSAs in London are already much higher than elsewhere in the country precisely because London faces a range of problems such as the problem of asylum seekers. In London the average figure is about £1,055 per head compared with £814 per head in metropolitan areas and £677 per head in shire areas. That demonstrates that we are already aware of the different needs.
  The Government accept that there are instances where the SSA system does not fully reflect the distribution of spending needs. In 1989 we made available a special grant towards the extra costs to certain London boroughs that resulted from the sudden influx of a large number of Turkish Kurd asylum seekers; and last November the Minister for Housing and Planning announced that we would be making a grant available to those authorities that faced exceptional burdens as a result of the sudden influx of displaced persons from the former Yugoslav republic. When the 1992–93 allocations of that grant were approved in another place last month, the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that the grant would continue to be available for 1993–94. He also mentioned that for 1993–94 a special grant would be made available to cover the immediate costs associated with the arrival of unaccompanied children seeking asylum. Those are the exceptional cases. I hope that noble Lords will realise that in making special arrangements in these instances we are demonstrating our awareness of the limits of the present system.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked when asylum seekers become real people. Their presence will
  600
  be reflected in population figures about 18 months after their arrival. That is understood by everybody because all changes in population are only reflected after a certain time lag.
  Perhaps I may remind the House of the purpose of the Bill in general and of the housing provisions in particular. We see this legislation as part of a package of measures which will result in a speedier and more effective system for determining applications for asylum and will reduce the scope for misuse of the asylum process. Its central provisions concern new administrative arrangements for the handling of asylum seekers and others. Its effect will be the containment of, or indeed a reduction in, the substantial amounts of public spending, both centrally and locally, to which unfounded applications for asylum give rise. Additionally it will reduce expenditure on temporary accommodation by housing authorities and assist them in the better management of their housing stock.
  I turn briefly to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes concerning a national policy for refugees. As I have already demonstrated, where pressures become unsustainable the Government act centrally and quickly. Examples are the Vietnamese refugees, the Bosnian refugees and other displaced persons. Generally we are clear that there is no need for central direction. Very often central action can be ineffective since refugees tend to drift back to a few key areas.
  We accept that arrivals from overseas give rise to additional costs. That is one of the reasons we are concerned to control the numbers involved. However, it is wrong to say that the additional burden is not recognised in the resources made available to authorities. It is always tempting to try to identify and then to seek recompense for any additional burden, but the Government consider the amendments are not justified. Therefore, I ask my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what the Minister said but I am not at all satisfied with his reply. For example, his statement that the boroughs are concerned only about the cost is not correct. There are much greater worries. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, made it clear that there are pressures on the communities. That could reach an alarming point if the pressure goes beyond a certain point. It is not all a matter of cost.
  I must say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I do not think that I said that "no account whatsoever" was taken of homelessness. I think that I said that we were told that it was not dealt with as a specific issue, but I shall look in Hansard to see whether I used the words "no account whatsoever". It sounds rather a sweeping statement, and rather like me, but I may not have said that.
  The difference between ring fencing for community care and a grant such as this is that money for community care is allocated in advance. In this case rather than a grant being made in a budget it would be based on actual expenditure. One would not know until after the event how many asylum seekers had to be dealt with. In one year it will be borough A which

  601
  is affected and the next it will be borough B. Therefore, it would be a real figure rather than an estimate. In that sense it would be easier than ring fencing.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pressed me about the percentage of the grant. One of the great merits of my amendment is that it does not tie the Government to a specific percentage. Perhaps they have not realised that. The amendment mentions a grant but does not say how much or whether it would be 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. That provides an easy escape route for the Government. They should have been delighted to see that instead of rejecting the proposal.
  The Minister told us that we shall have speedier and more effective decisions. That is true. We welcome that. However, we must recognise that at present 75 per cent. of asylum seekers do not even qualify for accommodation. It is only 25 per cent. who cause the present problems. Therefore, even if the procedures are speeded up it will not make a great deal of difference because 25 per cent. of the families will still need to be rehoused. In 1991–92 Westminster had to provide housing for 228 asylum applicants, involving temporary accommodation at a cost of £1.3 million. I quote that figure because the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he had still to be convinced. Westminster's housing expenditure for asylum seekers that year was higher than that of any other borough in London. Now the figure has fallen and Ealing has very high costs.
  In the case of the Vietnamese an attempt was made to move people out of London, but they gradually filtered back. It is not easy to suggest to people where they should go. There is a natural tendency to go somewhere where one feels safe, which is familiar or where there are people one knows. That is why my amendment is important. It will help the authorities which are receiving the applicants and providing accommodation and services for them. It is a national issue yet the burden is being carried by a few areas. The amendment would cover that point.
  I do not intend to divide the House tonight because I intend to work very hard on the matter before Third Reading and raise it again then. I hope that that will be earlier in the afternoon, when more votes will be available. I am sure that we shall be competing with other amendments, but I hope that in the meantime the Minister may produce an amendment himself and that I shall not be obliged to divide the House. On that basis I am prepared to withdraw the amendment tonight but I shall certainly not forget it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
  Schedule 1 [Housing of asylum-seekers and their dependants: supplementary]:
  [Amendment No. 15A not moved.]
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 16:
  After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:

  Resources for housing authorities
  .—(1) The Secretary of State shall in respect of each financial year in which sections 4 and 5 above have effect
  602
  satisfy himself that the resources available to housing authorities are adequate to enable each authority to fulfil the requirements of those sections.
  (2) Where he is satisfied in accordance with the requirements of subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall so notify each House of Parliament setting out his reasons.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I realise that in speaking to Amendment No. 14 I somewhat rubbished my own amendment. Nevertheless the argument is still worth putting forward. In speaking to the earlier amendment I recognised that the financial problems of local authorities dealing with the needs of asylum seekers and their families are wider than the housing issue. Despite what I said about the Long Title of the Bill, perhaps we are being a little too respectful of the Government's intentions in Clauses 4 and 5. We have drafted the amendment to relate to Clauses 4 and 5 and therefore to be restricted to housing expenditure.
  Although the amendment avoids the trap of a specific grant and requires the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that adequate resources are available for dealing with housing needs, I thought that I had made out a reasonable case in support of the noble Baroness for saying that a specific grant is an appropriate procedure for that purpose because of the unpredictability which she emphasised in her closing speech.
  Although the need is unpredictable in specific cases, the formula on which such a need can be predicted and costed is still available. It ought to be within the SSA. The advantage of putting it in the SSA, and my reason for moving the amendment despite its known disadvantages, is that the grant would be available as part of the formula and therefore could be included in the budget of the local authority which can show that it has a need for the coming year. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, for all its virtues, provides only for post hoc payment of a specific grant after the expenditure has been incurred, and the budget has presumably been exceeded. There are difficulties relating to that in current local government financial legislation which I am sure that the noble Baroness with her special knowledge will recognise. My amendment has the advantage of providing that it is the duty of the Secretary of State, dealing no doubt through the revenue support grant and the standard spending assessment, to make sure that the needs are covered.
  The noble Baroness said that she will consider how to bring the matter back at Third Reading. I welcome that. We shall give any help we can to grant her a more favourable time. I do not give away secrets; the Government Whips know that perfectly well. I hope that in the noble Baroness's reconsideration on the wording and scope of the amendment she will consider the needs of local authorities to prepare their budgets in advance. If she will take that matter on board and include it in any amendment which she puts forward, it would improve the case that she puts. In support of Amendment No. 14, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, I beg to move the amendment.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord lost me in his exposition. I assume that we are still speaking to Amendment No. 16. The amendment invites the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that the resources made available to housing authorities for the provision of temporary accommodation are indeed adequate. It requires that he should set out his reasons for doing so. That is exactly what happens at present. The Secretary of State determines the annual local government finance settlement under the terms of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. He has to consult with representatives of local authorities and subsequently has to justify his conclusions when seeking Parliament's approval of his proposals by resolution in another place. I am therefore happy to say that the legislation already provides what the noble Lord seeks in his amendment. I hope that on that basis he will withdraw the amendment.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that sounds a suspiciously simple argument. I shall read it with care in Hansard. I shall consider the Minister's words carefully before determining whether the argument is indeed as simple as he claims. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage be resumed at 8.30 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

London Docklands Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
7.35 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. I should declare at the outset that I have the honour to be deputy chairman of the London Docklands Development Corporation, the public body which is promoting this Private Bill, the main purpose of which is to give the corporation powers to make and enforce by-laws to regulate the behaviour of the public in the dock estate.
The London Docklands Development Corporation was set up in July 1981 under the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980. Section 136 of that Act defined its mission as the physical, economic and social regeneration of the area. During the 11 years of its existence it has achieved much. One thousand five hundred acres of derelict and polluted land have been reclaimed; over 16,000 new dwellings have been built; new road and rail systems have given a once isolated area excellent communications; the population has risen by over 55 per cent., and jobs by over 90 per cent; and over £9 billion of private investment and £1.5 billion of public investment has been devoted to the regeneration of London docklands.
Although much remains to be done, I could go on with many more telling examples of the giant strides that have been made in improving the economic,
604
social and physical environment of this previously neglected part of London; but your Lordships will be relieved to hear that it is not my intention to do so. I merely wish to paint the background with a broad brush, so that the purpose of this excellent little Bill may be the more apparent.
The most striking feature of London docklands is, as noble Lords might expect, the dock estate. It comprises over 400 acres of enclosed water and over 25 miles of dock edge. When the LDDC acquired them from the Port of London Authority at various times during the 1980s, the docks were in a sorry condition. Some of them, having fallen into the control of the local authorities, had been filled in. A large part of the Surrey Docks in the London borough of Southwark and a great deal of the London docks in the London borough of Tower Hamlets had already been filled in by the time they were acquired by the LDDC. The remaining docks were rescued—that is not too strong a word—by the LDDC just in time. Even in 1985, the London borough of Newham was pressing strongly in its draft local plan for the filling in of the Royal docks.
The LDDC has spent a great deal of public money in restoring the docks and their machinery, maintaining them to a high standard, opening them up everywhere to the public, conserving their industrial archaeology, creating a pleasant dockside environment and encouraging a diversity of uses—sporting, recreational, and commercial.
There are, for instance, water sports centres in the Millwall, Greenland and Royal Victoria Docks, and a youth water sports club in Shadwell basin. An Olympic rowing course has been proposed for the Royal Albert Dock. The headquarters of the London Sea Scouts is in the West India Docks. There are marinas in South Dock and Greenland Dock, and one is about to be set up in the Albert Basin. There are several floating restaurants and a new 250 place floating Chinese restaurant will shortly be located in the inner Millwall Dock. Historic vessels are moored in the docks and there are many visiting ships, in particular naval vessels, which are a focus of local and tourist interest. Recently the, NATO fleet attracted 30,000 visitors to the Isle of Dogs and the international power boat championships drew massive crowds.
There is some commercial traffic. For instance, construction materials and excavated spoil from the many developments around the docks have been, and will continue to be, transported by barge through the docks, thus sparing the residents of East London many thousands of movements of heavy lorries. That will apply to the construction of our Jubilee Line extension, and especially the new station at Canary Wharf. There have been proposals, not yet brought to fruition, for the large quantities of newsprint required by the Telegraph/Express printing works at Westferry to be brought in by motorised barge instead of by lorry, as at present. There are proposals for a water taxi service.
There are any number of activities—rowing regattas, angling, wet bike racing, water ski-ing, bungee jumping and dragon boat racing—which the

605
LDDC encourages in the dock waters. I shall not attempt to give an exhaustive list of all the diverse public activities which the LDDC facilitates and promotes. It is enough to paint the broad picture.
I should, however, mention that it has been and will continue to be the policy of the corporation to open up the dock edges to the public, from which of course they were totally excluded when the docks were part of a working port. As the regeneration of London docklands reaches fruition the docksides will become increasingly animated with large crowds of people. Port East, for instance, on the North Quay of the West India Dock, will become a Covent Garden by the water, with large crowds of tourists, shoppers and other leisure seekers taking their recreation on and around the water's edge. The potential for this kind of activity around the 10 miles of waterfront of the Royal docks is enormous and will begin to be realised this year with the opening of the Beckton extension of the Docklands Light Railway. A market will begin operations next Sunday on the edge of the Royal Albert Dock. We have played host to the London marathon for several years.
All this activity, diversity and life is splendid. But there is a darker aspect to it all. Docks are dangerous places. The water is 30 feet deep. Much of the dockside consists of false quays, with the water extending under them. There are many structures in the water, some of them hidden, and heavy machinery which moves. Uses which are relatively safe in themselves become hazardous when mixed with other incompatible uses.
There is a most definite need for an effective regime to regulate the conduct of people in and around the dock estate to ensure public health and safety, to prevent pollution and to secure the reasonable and quiet enjoyment of many diverse uses of the water and the dock edge.
Until now the corporation, as landlord of the vast majority of the dock estate, has relied on a mixture of bluff and good will to achieve these objectives. The corporation employs two harbourmasters and 20 water wardens and the dock edge is managed by a large number of security staff. They have done a manful job, but it is clear that the lack of an effective deterrent handicaps them in keeping good order in the docks. That handicap could one day prove fatal.
There have been very many incidents. Noble Lords will not wish me to reel off a long list of them. To convey the flavour, I might refer to incidents where water skiers cut up a flotilla of child canoeists in defiance of instructions and to other occasions when wardens and even anglers have been threatened, assaulted and even pitched into the water by obstreperous members of the public. As the use of the docks by members of the public increases, as it will greatly in the coming years, so the degree of danger to the public will multiply.
It is for this reason that the docklands corporation is seeking, through the promotion of this Bill, powers to make and enforce by-laws in the dock estate. At the same time, the Bill would make other provisions for regulating the dock estate and for clarifying and regularising its legal position following the rundown
606
of the commercial port and the change in character of the area. There are also provisions for the future alteration of boundaries of the dock estate, and the transfer of the powers to some other body.
The deterrence of criminal sanctions and summary trial as a last resort will give the safety regime the teeth it needs to work properly. We have the full support of the local police. Without the powers, noble Lords will see that either the public enjoyment of the magnificent environment and opportunities of the dock estate will have to be curtailed, or the risks to public safety, and activities against the quiet enjoyment of the public will rise greatly —perhaps unacceptably. The powers will of course be subject to appropriate safeguards. In particular, the by-laws will have to be confirmed by the Secretary of State and will be subject to review by the courts in the normal way.
The London Docklands Development Corporation is a very serious body with a track record of achievement. It is diligent in interpreting and fulfilling its responsibilities. It has consulted over 90 bodies in preparing the Bill which your Lordships are now considering. If the Bill becomes law, there will be further consultation on the by-laws themselves before they are made. Virtually every body consulted has been strongly of the opinion that the by-law powers are a vital necessity. Concerns have been raised by some consultees with respect to the protection of private interests, public accountability, public consultation, and the interface with the jurisdiction of other authorities. In every case the corporation has been able to make or promise amendments to the Bill or to give undertakings which have sought to satisfy those concerns. They have been sufficient, in particular, to cause the London boroughs of Newham and Southwark not to petition against the Bill.
Only in the case of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, and its associates, the Docklands Forum, have there been petitions against the Bill. The substance of the petitions is that the London Docklands Development Corporation is not a fit and proper person to administer by-laws. As noble Lords will know, many precedents exist for this type of Bill. Our sister urban development corporation in Merseyside was given very similar powers back in 1985. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets petition proposes that the Bill should not be passed and that instead a consortium of the Port of London Authority and the boroughs should regulate the behaviour of the public in the dock estate through the exercise of by-law powers which already exist for other purposes: namely to control the port of London and to control municipal public open spaces. This is an unrealistic suggestion, which could not work. For a start the PLA does not want to assume the role; the powers are inappropriate; and the proposed regulating bodies would have little interest and no resources to carry out the functions, and, I am sorry to say, do not have a good track record in caring for the docks. Responsibility for the by-laws should be united with responsibility for managing and maintaining the dock estate. Divided responsibilities are a recipe for muddle, inaction and buck-passing.

607
I do not want to conclude on a negative note. This practical, sensible measure is designed to underpin the widened access of the general public to the opportunities for sport and recreation which the former docks afford and to share in the wonderful waterside environment which the LDDC has been creating over the past 10 years. It will enable diverse uses to flourish in safety and good order. The Bill is wholly beneficial and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe.)
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe for introducing the Bill. I shall resist the temptation to comment on the history of the LDDC in the docklands area. It has perhaps been a little more checkered than he would have us believe. However, I would not have suggested to your Lordships that the promotion of bungee jumping was necessarily the greatest attribute and achievement of the docklands corporation. I wonder whether it is something they should discourage rather than encourage.
I was encouraged by the noble Lord's reference to the increasing use of water transport and I hope that the corporation can assist the process. The use of water-borne transport has been extremely limited. It has and will continue to have problems and clearly it needs assistance and—the dread word—resources.
The noble Lord said that only the London Borough of Tower Hamlets has petitioned against the Bill. The report to the relevant committee in the borough refers to the two other boroughs, Newham and Southwark, stating that they have indicated that, although it is unlikely that they will petition, they hope,
"that a combination of further officer level negotiations with the LDDC and lobbying by local MPs"—
I have no idea what that may have achieved or of what the lobbying may have consisted—
"will result in a more reasoned approach by the corporation to the matter".
I rather gathered from that, and from a conversation with representatives from Tower Hamlets, that although Newham and Southwark were not petitioning they were quite glad that Tower Hamlets was doing so. It would ensure that matters dealt with in the Bill would receive a full airing. I put it this way, when perhaps Tower Hamlets would not, that the petition would ensure that if the Bill is passed it will be as good a Bill as possible.
I understand that the petitioners do not object to the principle of harbour by-laws. They accept, as will your Lordships, that it is necessary to have a sensible, responsible approach to good water management for reasons of safety, for the prevention of pollution—a matter which I think was not mentioned by the noble Lord—and for restricting dangerous practices. They do not refer to bungee jumping in the petition.
However, the concern expressed in the Tower Hamlets petition that the corporation is not an appropriate body is, I believe, not merely over the extent of its powers but that it will not be with us for all time. The corporation was formed to undertake a
608
specific task; namely, the regeneration of the docklands area. It is now seeking to extend its role into public service. I accept that one cannot entirely separate questions of regeneration and service, but nevertheless this is an extension into an area that a permanent authority would seek to undertake.
The withdrawal of the corporation from the urban development area is, I understand, a matter which is currently being seriously discussed. Whether it is appropriate for the corporation to be the enforcer and promoter of the by-laws is a different matter from whether the by-laws themselves should be promoted.
The noble Lord suggested that a consortium of various authorities dealing with these issues would be a recipe for muddle. He based that argument somewhat on history. I accept that some years ago things in the area were not perhaps as they should have been. The local authorities then may not have done what they should have done to regenerate the area. But it would become us all to treat that history with a little humility and accept that the attitude of the local authorities may be more positive now than it was then.
I have referred to the withdrawal of the corporation from the urban development area. When it withdraws —as at some time it will—its functions will have to be transferred to a successor body. I suspect that resources will need to be made available to that successor body and performance of the duties under the Act will require quite substantial funding.
I turn from that area of reservation to look more specifically at the Bill. It is an enabling Bill. I do not suggest that effort would be put into the promotion of a Bill without any intention of pursuing its content. But it might be appropriate that the corporation or its successor body, if they are to be the relevant bodies, have an obligation to undertake activities in the areas of safety, navigation, hygiene, the prevention of pollution and so on. In particular Clause 4(1) of the Bill might impose a duty rather than merely confer a power on the corporation.
Additionally, there seems to be no provision relating to the proper enforcement of the by-laws. The LDDC has certain commercial interests as well. It might be appropriate not to allow anybody even to think that its objectivity in enforcement could be compromised by being also on the receiving end of enforcement. Therefore, it might be a good idea to put into the Bill a positive obligation to enforce.
Clause 23(3) is one of a number of clauses which do not put a specific obligation on the LDDC to consult —in this case to consult the local authorities about disposals. I accept the assurances given by the noble Lord about the consultation that has already been undertaken and will be undertaken. But perhaps not all those who will run the corporation in the future will be as circumspect as the noble Lord who has presented the Bill to the House this evening. I should prefer to see the obligations written into the Bill.
The Bill provides the corporation with extensive powers. One criticism of the LDDC's powers and activities (rather than of the corporation itself) is that they should be open to public scrutiny in the same way as for local authorities; for instance, in relation to

609
obtaining information from people who want to use the waters in the docks to board vessels. There is provision for an annual report. It would be a welcome amendment for that report to be made available to the public and not be merely a document which remains private.
I referred to consultation. In particular there should be consultation before the alteration of the boundaries of the areas affected by the by-laws. That is a matter on which it will clearly be necessary to talk to all concerned.
I read the Bill but had to re-read Clause 11 because I was not sure that I had understood it correctly. It allows the corporation unconditionally or subject to conditions to:
"permit … any person to place any structure or object on the waterside".
There are extensive planning laws which might apply here. I am concerned about how the clause relates to the town and country planning legislation.
Clause 17, by which the corporation seeks to appropriate private and public rights of navigation within the designated areas, is a very tough measure. No doubt it will be considered carefully at Committee stage, particularly as there seems to be no mention of compensation in that context.
As a member of a riparian authority I know a number of organisations which have powers and responsibilities connected with the river: for example, the Port of London Authority and the National Rivers Authority; the City of London which in this area is the port health authority; and the local authorities. I am concerned that the Bill should make proper distinction between the responsibilities of the local authorities, which have highway and environmental health obligations and powers, and the corporation.
With regard to environmental matters, I am concerned about the power to dredge contained in Schedule 4. I trust that consideration will be given to the possible environmental damage caused by dredging up what may be toxic material. That is a very difficult matter. If one were not talking about rivers it could be said that one might disturb things that would be better left to lie and rot quietly.
I was glad to hear what the noble Lord said about the importance of public access to the waterside. That is vital and must be safeguarded. All the rivers in London, but particularly the Thames, are vital public assets. The highways and walkways that will be adopted in the future must be properly controlled.
Finally, to sum up, I am concerned that the docklands corporation, for the reason I gave of its possibly short life, may not be the appropriate body to exercise such powers. If it is to have those powers then the concomitant responsibilities should be shown on the face of the Bill.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I apologise for not having put my name on the list of speakers. I had thought of moving an Instruction to the Committee in regard to this Bill. But on re-reading the Bill I realised that if I was suspicious of the Bill and perhaps of the
610
London Docklands Development Corporation, maybe I should not table an Instruction but simply mention my concern.
The mover of the Bill told the House that in 1985 the Merseyside Development Corporation took similar powers. I am very concerned about the Merseyside Development Corporation and its growth. I might say that it was Liverpool, with the combined efforts of the leaders of all the main parties in Liverpool during the tenure of the last Labour Government, which first proposed to government the question of a dockland development corporation. It is somewhat different from the development corporation that appeared ultimately because we insisted upon the inclusion of a strong representation from local authorities.
My noble friend went on to say that in 1985 they took these powers. If they took these powers, then I do not know how and under what Bill they extended the powers of the development corporation. I am assured that the Bill does not seek to extend the powers of the development corporation; all it seeks to do is to control, within a reasonable boundary, the activities within docklands. Nobody would object to that. We listened to a glowing report of the wonderful and exciting things that will happen under the London Docklands Development Corporation. I do not criticise that. However, as some Members may be aware, I have reservations about the powers of the docklands development corporation as regards local authorities and the continuance of local government in this country.
The Explanatory Memorandum states:
"The Bill contains powers to enable London Docklands Development Corporation … to manage and regulate certain lands and waters within or in the vicinity of its area, together with other powers".
In the explanation of Clause 4 it says,
"Clause 4 confers on the Corporation general powers to provide, preserve, maintain, regulate, manage and improve the designated areas and services and facilities afforded therein or in connection therewith".
I would not object to that taking place within the area that is generally recognised, now as the London Docklands Development Corporation area. But it not only says that. Clause 4 states:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Corporation may provide, preserve",
and so forth, as I read from the Explanatory Memorandum. If that does not mean that it will have the power to build and maintain different structures in an area, I do not know what it means. Again, if that was contained within the area I would not be concerned about it. But it is not.
Clause 19—and this is the part about which I should like an assurance and about which I intended to table an Instruction—states:
"The Secretary of State may by order made under this section alter the limits of jurisdiction so as to exclude from or include within the designated areas for the purposes of this Act any area of land in the London borough of Newham, Southwark or Tower Hamlets".
If that meant that that was done in order to enable the corporation to have proper control over the activities of London Docklands I would not object. But it can

611
go further. The land can be extended for the purposes of the Act, and the Act says that the corporation will have general powers to,
"provide, preserve, maintain, regulate, manage and improve the designated areas and services".
Let me conclude by saying this. I had assurances, as did several other people, that when they set up Merseyside Docklands Development Corporation that was it. They knew where they wanted it; they knew what it was going to do, and that would be the end of it. Was it? No, it was not. The first report from the auditor practically told the Government that if that was all they were going to achieve in Liverpool by the docklands development corporation, they might just as well pack up. It achieved nothing. The proof of that is the fact that the EC recognises that Liverpool and Merseyside are now on a par with Corsica in regard to the improvement in the health of Merseyside.
Ten years ago I forecast that the population of Merseyside and Liverpool would decline to such an extent that we would be the most deprived area in Europe. It now is. Therefore the corporation did not succeed. What was the Government's attitude? Did they look at the problems of Merseyside? No, they did not. They extended the powers of the Merseyside Docklands Development Corporation—to do what? To go into New Brighton and build a lot of exciting prospects—new railings for the promenade and new paving that was not needed—but which contributed nothing to the welfare of Merseyside.
All I am concerned about—perhaps the mover of the Motion will be able to reassure me—is that it does not mean an extension of London Docklands Development Corporation. In spite of the glowing picture, I do not believe that London Docklands Development Corporation has been a success. It has gone along without any control of its own and when making planning decisions in regard to the docklands it had no regard to the effect on London. That is enough condemnation. The consequential effect of carrying out that development uncontrolled and unplanned was catastrophic for the property market in London. According to today's Evening Standard, there is even talk of developing a major city on the east side of London. To do what?—to sustain the rash promise made by Mr. Heseltine in regard to the development of the eastern corridor. If that is carried out, it will be the death-knell for any decent development in the rest of the country.
If I am given the assurance, fair enough. But the Bill will come back and I shall be asking whether we have a guarantee that it is not extending the powers of the corporation.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the number of points I make will echo those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Sefton. I do not propose to be too long.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cocks for his exposition of what the docklands development corporation has done. Some of us could make an equally pessimistic declaration and description of
612
what it has done. In certain respects I am sure that my noble friend would admit that it has been a complete fiasco. One cannot even get there sometimes, let alone do anything or find anything or anybody when one does get there. In addition there has been constant friction between the local authorities and the docklands development corporation. I am sure that my noble friend would accept that as part of the history of the corporation. Obviously, it is unavoidable.
The Bill provides for by-laws over a large area of the waterside. I am with my noble friend Lord Sefton in querying Clause 19 of the Bill which allows the Secretary of State, by simple order, to alter the limits of jurisdiction of the Bill and deprive Newham, Southwark or Tower Hamlets of land or waterside which they may or may not wish to have or hold. It is a curious provision and I hope that when we come to Committee that aspect will be explored in full.
Nevertheless, we must accept what my noble friend says; that is, that there has been something of a vacuum in terms of statutory controls since the Port of London Authority effectively left the area. At present the docklands development corporation, whatever one may think of it—one must accept in real life that it exists—has no powers to govern the area other than those of an ordinary private landowner. To date, as my noble friend pointed out, it has done so by a mixture of bullying, bluster, general encouragement or whatever weapons were available to it. That is not a sound way to proceed and I do not believe that any of your Lordships would think it right that there should be no by-law-making powers and that by-laws should not be there and should not be enforced, particularly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out, the duty in the Bill laid on the docklands development corporation is to allow visitors access to the waterside as it is regenerated.
There are dangers, as my noble friend pointed out. No matter how well managed the waters are, they can be dangerous. People can be tempted into diving from bridges or other structures into the docks; vehicles can be pushed in and submerged. I understand that last year 24 submerged vehicles were recovered from the docks on the Isle of Dogs alone, including one Rolls Royce and a forklift truck. It is not a satisfactory situation. We must recognise that by-laws to prevent that kind of thing, particularly the pollution aspect to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred, are necessary. The powers are not entirely novel. Large public and semi-public landowners currently have such powers. The National Trust, water authorities, transport undertakers and airports have similar powers to make and enforce by-laws, as do port and harbour authorities. As my noble friend Lord Sefton pointed out—though from a rather different direction—the Merseyside Development Corporation Act 1985 conferred by-law-making powers upon that development corporation.
The problem is: what happens when the docklands corporation disappears as in the course of time it will? This is left hanging in the Bill, as it were. There is nothing in the Bill that says what successor body will have these powers once the corporation has

613
disappeared. It is for that reason that I am tempted to sympathise with the point made by the noble Baroness that perhaps some further consultation between the local authorities and the docklands corporation to ensure that there is an orderly transition when these matters come to their natural end is desirable. The local authorities are much more progressive in these matters than in the past, and there may be some room for a gentle compromise to satisfy all parties. Nevertheless, I do not believe it is right to bring the Port of London Authority back into the area it has vacated. I accept the assurance of my noble friend that it simply does not want to return. It would be wrong if there was any kind of consortium consisting of the Port of London Authority and local authorities that attempted to do what it was proposed that docklands should do in this Bill. For myself, I would resist the petitions of Tower Hamlets and the Docklands Forum. On the other hand, I would argue that the Select Committee should at least pay attention to what accommodation could be achieved between the corporation and the local authorities with whom they have to maintain good relations.
Subject to what I have said, on balance I support the Bill. I believe it fills a vacuum and allows for proper regulation of the waterside. I believe that the docklands corporation is mature enough to operate the powers sensibly and with discretion and will be able to enforce them without, I hope, too much aggravation as far as the general public is concerned. It has worked successfully in a number of areas and I believe that it will work successfully here. In general, I support the Bill while entering the caveats I have made, hoping that the Select Committee will take a close look at them.
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government have considered the proposals in this Private Bill and are broadly content with the purposes of the Bill. However, there are some points of detail to be taken up with the agents for the promoters. There are some points of greater substance on Clause 12 relating to water pollution. Apart from those matters, the Government take their usual neutral stance on Private Bills. The Select Committee will be in a position to consider points of detail and hear expert evidence on them. We hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and will be allowed to proceed to Committee for its detailed consideration.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this Second Reading debate. In particular, I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that ever since I joined the corporation I have done my best to encourage the use not only of the dock water but of the River Thames, which is the widest motorway in the country and requires virtually no maintenance. I am very much at one with her and will continue to do what I can. We have consulted widely, particularly with the boroughs. A number of their suggestions
614
have already been incorporated or are the subject of assurances about amendment during the passage of the Bill. By-law powers are necessary because, quite frankly, we are haunted by the fact that we may be faced with a serious accident involving fatalities. It will be no good going to the coroner's court and saying, "Well, we had a very long discussion about who should administer the by-law powers but we had not got around to putting them in place". I would beg your Lordships to allow the Bill to proceed.
The question of water purity is a cogent one. The corporation is constantly monitoring the quality of water in the docks and keeping an eye out for what I believe is called algal bloom and matters of similar nature. In particular, the noble Baroness mentioned the riverside walkway. The planning committee is absolutely meticulous that any application that comes before it involving river frontage includes the walkway. Our ambition is that eventually it will be possible to walk the entire length of the docks. A walkway will be incorporated into every development enabling people to walk for miles and enjoy the Thames.
My noble friend Lord Sefton and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the question of the powers being passed on. My noble friend Lord Sefton wanted an assurance that there was no intention on the part of the corporation to expand its empire. I can give him that assurance, because there is no question of a successor body. For over a year the corporation has been having detailed discussions with the three boroughs about an exit strategy for leaving the area. The Housing and Urban Development Bill now passing through Parliament contains provisions for de-designating particular areas of urban development corporations so that they can be gradually dismembered. Areas have been identified in Southwark, Newham and Tower Hamlets for early de-designation. Rather than the corporation growing, it is planning to dismember itself and its own demise.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether he is aware that the URA contains provisions that can reproduce the docklands development corporation under another name and with wider powers.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I think that Parliament would have to deal with anything along those lines. I do not believe that this little Bill would do it. It is an innocuous measure, and I beg my noble friend not to be too suspicious of it. It is designed to protect people who want to enjoy the docks. I hope that the House will allow the Bill to proceed tonight. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.20 to 8.30 p.m.]

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 6 [Protection of claimants from deportation etc.]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 27, leave out ("the Secretary of State gives him notice of the decision on the claim") and insert ("any outstanding rights of appeal under this Act or legal proceedings in the United Kingdom in relation to the decision have been exhausted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is proposing to reply to the amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ferrers will be with us in a moment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that puts me in something of a difficulty.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to continue, my noble friend will be able to reply to the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am delighted to see that the noble Earl has just entered the Chamber. He is in good form, I am sure.
We seek through the amendment to give an assurance to an asylum seeker that he cannot be removed while an appeal against a refusal to grant asylum could be lodged, while leave to seek judicial review has been applied for or while any other appeal is pending. We are anxious that there should be no recurrence of the situation which arose when a previous Home Secretary was found to have been in contempt of court when an asylum seeker from Zaire was removed while a judicial review application was pending. It is a matter which is subject to appeal and I am not proposing to allude to that situation at all save for the reference I have just made to it. We think it is necessary to state clearly the position which normally obtains and to deal with a possible anomaly which is dangerous.
The situation is that the new clause as drafted confirms what has always been accepted as the position; namely, that while an application for asylum is pending the asylum seeker is able to remain in the United Kingdom. Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of Schedule 2 confirm that when an appeal has been lodged and is pending the asylum seeker will not be required to leave. Indeed it is usual practice that, when leave to appeal has been granted by the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords, no arrangements will be made for the asylum seeker's removal. But that situation has not been formalised, as I understand it. Nothing is laid down about the procedures to be followed where a person has a right of appeal but has not yet exercised that right by lodging the appeal. In the Bill, either 48 hours or 10 days for an initial appeal are the periods allotted.
It may not always be clear whether a person intends to appeal. People are entitled to receive advice and they can decide upon that advice up to the last moment, so to speak. During that period there is no statutory protection in relation to the asylum seeker's position. There would, in theory, be nothing to
616
prevent the Home Office making removal arrangements during a period in which an appeal is capable of being lodged. It is accepted that that practice is very unlikely to be widespread. I am sure that that observation will come from the Minister, and I would certainly agree with that. But it has happened. It has happened in the case to which I alluded before and, apparently, in defiance of the court order.
If the amendment is passed it will mean that such an action would be illegal from the outset, and consequently the Home Office would be less likely to attempt to annul appeal rights in the way that happened in that case. The amendment states what is generally believed to have been the situation and I would hope that it is uncontentious.
In referring to a rather similar issue which was debated in Committee, the noble Earl said:
"If the noble Lord's amendment were agreed to, one would be obliged to retain for 10 days a person who did not want to appeal. That is an absurdity".—[Official Report, 11/2/93; col. 841.]
But that person is entitled to exercise consideration of that situation right until the end of that period, short as it is. I speak also as a solicitor who dealt with a large number of immigration cases when I was in practice. I have to say that these cases are never easy. The shortened period for appeal will make life difficult not only for the asylum seeker but for those giving advice.
One further factor has not been mentioned in these debates. Most of these cases will presumably be on legal aid. An adviser has other cases to deal with. The solicitor may have to go down to see the asylum seeker in detention. That takes a great deal of time. I just wonder to what extent members of my profession who may be under a great deal of pressure will be able to undertake work which will only add to that pressure. When we talk about people who may not want to appeal, that is an assumption which I do not think the Minister is entitled to make. The period of appeal that has been given applies to the Minister as much as to anyone else, and he must respect that period.
In Committee the Minister went on to say:
"As a matter of practice, we would not normally remove a person who is seeking judicial review".—[Official Report, 11/2/93; col. 841.]
What does "normally" mean? Does it mean that exceptional circumstances could prevail? What are those circumstances? For those reasons, because the situation has in a particular case already been found to be unsatisfactory, it is necessary to write the procedure into the Bill so that the asylum seeker can be sure that he will not be removed during the period in which he is entitled to lodge an appeal, regardless of whether he exercises that right within the time allocated—short though that is.
I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the position. I hope he will say that there is nothing very contentious in the amendment—it is not intended to be contentious—and that he will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support this amendment and in doing so draw attention to the fact that over the years, and at the present time, quite a substantial number of asylum seekers are detained, for example, at Haslar near Portsmouth and in the past in such

617
prisons as Winchester and Gloucester at a considerable distance from London. It is in London that the bulk of the legal expertise on asylum and immigration cases is concentrated. That is where one finds most of the solicitors who are knowledgeable about these matters. If they have to visit their clients at a considerable distance from London, the situation becomes much more complicated and advice is less capable of being received by those who need it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is a similar amendment to one which was dealt with in Committee. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in that I do not believe that this matter is particularly contentious. As far as the amendment goes, it seeks to protect an unsuccessful asylum seeker against removal during the period his appeal is pending. We believe that that is unnecessary. The Bill already makes provision, in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of Schedule 2, to suspend any action to remove a person from the United Kingdom while his asylum appeal is pending.
The amendment would go further than that. It would prevent any steps being taken to remove a person during the period in which he could appeal even if he had no intention of doing so. In most cases under the Bill that would be a period of 10 working days (which is in effect two weeks) after the refusal of his application. If the amendment were accepted it would mean that a person who indicates immediately that he does not wish to appeal and is content to be removed would have to stay in this country for that period and would probably have to be kept unnecessarily in detention for that time, to his own disadvantage and at considerable public expense.
But the amendment goes further still. It speaks of any legal proceedings in relation to the decision. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, probably has judicial review in mind. An application for judicial review normally has to be made within three months of the decision concerned. I cannot believe that the noble Lord really wants us to keep people in detention for up to three months just in case they might seek judicial review. The whole central purpose of the Bill is to enable asylum cases to be dealt with more quickly and effectively than before, but the Bill creates a specialised appeals system to ensure that every asylum applicant has the opportunity to have his case independently reviewed.
Even if the noble Lord intends to prevent a person's removal only where judicial review or other legal proceedings have begun—and the amendment goes further than that—I do not think that it would be right to put such a provision into the Bill. I said in Committee, and I repeat it again today, that it is our firm intention and policy not to seek to remove an asylum seeker who has been granted leave to move for judicial review and before that has been considered.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, would it not be possible to include in an amendment of this kind some provision which said: "Save in those cases where the asylum seeker indicates
618
that he does not wish to appeal or go for judicial review"? That would deal with the objection which the noble Earl has just made.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the whole purpose behind this matter is that one should not keep in detention those who have no desire to appeal because that is a waste of time for everyone. I cannot see that there is any purpose in putting that into the statute because the intention of the Government is that anyone who wishes to appeal will be given the right to do so and will be able to stay on to achieve that. I do not believe that that should be written into the Bill.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, makes a good point because that is the gravamen of the Minister's case; namely, that one may have a number of people who have no wish to exercise the right to appeal. Additional costs are to be borne by the state in maintaining them during a relatively short period, leaving aside the question of judicial review. If our amendment is defective by not taking that fact into account, then that matter can be cured. The Minister's response has been less than satisfactory.
The difficulty that the Minister might have alluded to was that there could be pressure brought to bear on somebody to indicate that they did not want to appeal. Therein lies a particular difficulty, although it is not an argument that the Minister could adduce because that would imply some potential wrongdoing on the part of the authorities. I am disappointed that the Minister has not been prepared to be a little more forthcoming in response to the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.
However, it is clear that the Minister is not prepared to respond favourably. I shall read again what he had to say. I reserve the right to come back to this matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Curtailment of leave to enter or remain]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 41, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I argue that the Home Secretary already possesses the right to curtail a person's leave in the first place, to initiate deportation proceedings in the second place and in the third place to detain a person who is to be deported. But in all those cases, under the immigration Act that person has a right of appeal. What is new in the subsection which I am asking your Lordships to delete is that the right of appeal is removed from a person whose leave is curtailed. That is the one change that it makes. In my view that is an extremely serious change.
Let us consider, for example, the case of a student who comes here on a three-year course. The curtailment of the right of appeal at that stage could have disastrous consequences. Let us suppose that he is admitted for three years and that that is the length of the course which he has undertaken. At the end of one year there is a revolution in his country which

619
totally changes his circumstances. He then feels bound to apply for asylum and his application is rejected. He is therefore obliged to leave the United Kingdom without completing his course.
That is a very serious matter for such a person. He would have no right of appeal under Clause 7(2). He would have to wait until the Home Office, in its good time, made a decision to deport him. He could then appeal against deportation. That is the situation which this clause puts into law. He can then appeal against deportation under Clause 8(3). But while waiting for that to happen he would be guilty of over-staying. What is the alternative course of action for that wretched student to take? To avoid the situation of being guilty of over-staying after one year he had applied for asylum and his application had been rejected. He would then have to wait until the deportation order was made.
Suppose he took another course. He waited to complete his course for three years without applying for asylum. If he did that, he would fall foul of the rules by failing to make a prompt and full disclosure; so he is caught and the noble Earl must recognise this. He is caught on what is called "the horns of a dilemma". If you were advising him, it would be extremely difficult to tell him which course to pursue. On the one hand, he would appeal for asylum and get sent home or get sent to a third country, but he would be unable to complete his course. On the other hand, he would complete his course but would then be sent home to a dangerous country. This is a kind of Swiftian situation—it might come from A Tale of a Tub or something—devised by our Government, by those wise men sitting on those Benches. It has been carefully devised to put a wretched student who has come to this country in a dilemma which, in terms of logic, I do not think can be resolved.
I have no doubt about what I expect the noble Earl to say. He will tell us that this will not happen to what is called a diligent student. Indeed, in another place the then Minister, Mr Peter Lloyd, said at col. 156 on 5th December 1991 during the Committee stage:
"Of course, my rt. hon. friend the Home Secretary is not obliged to curtail leave and there will be various cases in which he will not wish to do so, such as that of a bona fide student who has made an unsuccessful application".
I should like to quote again from col. 157 on the same date:
"it is probable that no curtailment would be made".
Yes, it is probable that no curtailment would be made and I have no doubt that the noble Earl, who is a nice, honourable and kind-hearted man for whom we all have great affection, would not do anything so beastly. However, he might have a horrible unkind-hearted and unjust successor who would do exactly that. It is honestly no good that we here in your Lordships' House should depend on the words of a transient Minister. We want something more permanent than that to protect the wretched student I have described, who has been put in the most appalling dilemma by words put into this statute which we are asked to endorse and which I think we should not endorse. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, Clause 7 deals with people who have got limited leave to stay here for a short
620
period in the first place. They then apply for asylum, and they do so either as an afterthought or else because it was their intention all along. The Secretary of State decides that the case is not a genuine case, and rejects it. Surely it is only right in those circumstances that the original leave should be curtailed, and it follows that there should be no right of appeal against that curtailment. This issue arose—
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell us why it follows that there is no right of appeal? He said that it followed that there should be no right of appeal, and I could not see the logical connection.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if the noble Lord had heard what I said when I started to deploy the case against the amendment he would have heard me say that the Home Secretary, when considering the application for asylum, decides that it was not a genuine case. It is manifest in the circumstances that it would not be a genuine case. It was either an afterthought or the fulfilment of an original intention that made the person apply for asylum. This issue arose in Committee in a somewhat different form, and my noble friend Lord Ferrers said at col. 849 on 11th February—I hope I am not stealing words that he may be proposing to use again, but they seem to me to be very apposite and, although I have not got my glasses with me tonight, I propose to try to read them—the following:
"The fact is that the great majority of those who claim asylum after entering the United Kingdom are people who have obtained leave to enter as visitors. It often becomes clear that seeking asylum was really their intention from the start and that they have no intention of leaving at the end of their purported visit".
In those circumstances I should have thought it was a complete answer to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, and I hope that my noble friend will reject it.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Lord is talking about a totally different case.
Lord Renton: No, my Lords.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it is a totally different case from the one that was suggested by my noble friend. The noble Lord is talking about someone seeking to use this provision fraudulently. He is talking about somebody who is in a very different situation. The noble Lord is saying that the Secretary of State is all-seeing, all-powerful and all-wise. However, we are saying that that is not necessarily always the case and it may be necessary to have a right of appeal in certain cases.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord, if I may say so, postulated two cases but he did not postulate the case that my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter put forward, which was that the student came in as a student, then the situation in his home country changed. It had not been his original intention to stay but, as my noble friend suggested, something happened at home and he then needed asylum. At that

621
point he applied. This is quite different from what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said: he never considered that case.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we shall all be reminded in a moment, quite rightly, that this is not the Committee stage. But I would say that, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, was moving Amendment No. 19. That amendment proposes that subsection (2) should be left out of Clause 7. Subsection 2 reads;
"No appeal may be brought under section 14 of the 1971 Act or section 8(2) below against the curtailment of leave under subsection (1) above".
What I have said is totally relevant to that amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I think, with respect, that the case which has been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has not been answered by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Let me start by postulating a proposition, with which I am sure he will disagree, in the friendliest possible way. I would assert that it is fundamentally wrong in principle and that it can lead to potential injustice to deny a right of appeal against an executive decision of this kind. The Government may say that is perfectly all right: leave it to the discretion of the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is capable of being given faulty advice and acting on it. We know that that has been the case. But having regard to the fact that it is the Home Secretary who, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would decide that something is or is not a genuine case does not remove, but rather emphasises, the need for the matter to be written specifically into the Bill.
We may be asked whether some of us do not trust the Home Office, and we would say that we do not. It is not that I do not trust the Minister, but there may be a different Minister being given different advice which is not benign. Unless protection is afforded by an Act of Parliament, no remedy will properly lie. That is a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Perhaps I could take the case postulated by the noble Lord a little further. This point was referred to by the Minister (Hansard col. 849). Let us assume that the facts are as the Minister set out. Let us suppose that a student here on a long course hears of sudden changes in his country which cause him to be frightened. He claims asylum. He may do something else. He may think, "I am not entirely sure that I have good grounds for claiming asylum, because something could go awfully wrong here. So I propose to hope that the problems back home will blow over. I shall carry on with my studies". They do not blow over. He then makes an application for asylum. What is the position then?
That situation is one that needs to be addressed by the Minister. It was not addressed on 11th November in Committee. I hope that it will be addressed now. That is something that could easily arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that the adviser may be put in a difficult position. As someone who has been an adviser in that position, and as chairman of the Refugee Council, I know many
622
people who are in that position. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is associated with me on that council. Advisers are not just put in an impossible position. A paid legal adviser might expose himself to an action for negligence which can be brought from elsewhere. It is not an easy problem to resolve. I hope that the Minister—once again, I am hoping against hope—will be more helpful on this issue than he was on the last. I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
9 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, described a person who came here as a student, who found that there had been a coup in his country and who therefore wanted to seek asylum. The noble Lord said that that person would be on the horns of a dilemma. If he asked for asylum and that application was rejected, he would have to go home. If he did not ask for asylum he could stay and finish the course but he would have to go home at the end of it. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, that is a dilemma. He asked what the poor chap should do.
I hope that I can persuade your Lordships that there is a good regime in place. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Renton quoted the words that I used in Committee. I would not have had the temerity to use them again. It was kind of him to remind the House and myself of what I said.
The whole point of Clause 7 is to create a much quicker way of dealing with the person who is found, when his asylum claim is considered, no longer to qualify for the leave which he has previously obtained; for example, the visitor who plainly has no intention of leaving at the end of his visit or the student who has dropped out of his studies. We are seeking to create a workable system which will enable us to remove within a reasonable time people who have no further claim to remain here, while providing proper safeguards against the possibility of removing people wrongly.
My noble friend Lord Renton reminded us that I told your Lordships in Committee that many people come here as visitors and when here seek asylum. The idea of being a visitor is to obtain a foothold in the country and once here to seek asylum. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said that the person described by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, could not appeal. He can.
Under the new system which we are proposing, if it is decided to curtail an existing leave when an asylum claim is refused, the applicant will at the same time be served a notice of a decision to make a deportation order against him. He will be able to appeal against that decision and to argue the full merits of his case — both the refusal of asylum and the related decision to deport. So there will be one appeal which will deal with all the aspects of what is essentially one decision — a decision that the person should no longer be allowed to stay in this country.
The amendment seeks instead to preserve existing rights of appeal. Let there be no mistake about the effect of those existing rights. The power to curtail the leave of a person who no longer qualifies to stay here,

623
which already exists under the 1971 Act and the current Immigration Rules, is rarely used because it is a protracted and cumbersome way of seeking to ensure a person's departure. Under the 1971 Act when a person's leave is curtailed there is a right of appeal under Section 14(1). He appeals to an adjudicator. If that appeal fails he may seek leave to appeal to the tribunal. If that fails the curtailment takes effect and the person has no further lawful basis upon which to stay in this country. He is obliged to leave. But if he refuses to go voluntarily, he must be served with a notice of a decision to make a deportation order against him. He then has a right of appeal to an adjudicator under Section 15 against that decision. If he is turned down by the adjudicator, he may apply for leave to appeal to the tribunal. It is therefore quite possible for a person to spin out his stay for several years pursuing those successive rights of appeal. That is a slow and inefficient system.
Whether one likes it or not, that is the system that the amendment seeks to preserve. I do not believe that that is right. We are trying to simplify the system and to give plenty of opportunity for appeal. The right of appeal exists, but the system is being modified to prevent the abuses which happen at present.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he be kind enough to deal with the example which I cited? It was a situation comparable with that to which he alluded in an earlier debate. The person concerned may be on the horns of a dilemma and hope that the situation in the home country will blow over. As a result he may not apply for asylum although the circumstances for doing so would be relevant at that earliest moment. The application for asylum would not therefore be timely but would perhaps be made later. Does the fact that the person has failed to exercise the right of application in a timely way at the beginning count against him or will it be considered that, because the situation in the home country still prevails and the civil war, or whatever, continues, it remains appropriate and timely for that person to make an application for asylum?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is difficult to give a pontifical answer to any individual case. I accept that a person may come here genuinely as a student only later to find that there is turmoil in his country. He may then wish to apply for asylum. Whether an application for asylum is made immediately or later on, it must be determined whether that application is genuine. If the conditions in his home country were so intolerable that on return he would be subjected to the privations of his country as they then existed, the chances are that he would be granted asylum. However, it is impossible to answer a hypothetical question. The provision is being introduced in order to prevent an abuse of the procedure. It is being introduced in order to allow a person to ask for asylum and, if his application is rejected, he will have a right of appeal. I do not believe that one can go much further than that.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, in answering the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the Minister
624
revealed what I regard to be the central weakness of the Bill. He said that in the circumstances pointed out to him by the noble Lord the chances are that the person would be given the right of asylum. He pointed out that in a hypothetical case of that kind it is difficult to predict the outcome. The point he made was that such situations are extremely difficult and demand careful judgment. One is dealing with human situations which have extremely serious consequences for the individual in question. Therefore, they are not to be taken lightly and ought not to be taken down the line.
Perhaps the process introduced by my old friend Sir Roy Wilson—he introduced the immigration rules some 20 or 30 years ago—is laborious. They have stood the test of time and have ensured that elements of justice were done. It is now proposed to abandon them and I must confess that that is not a decision to be taken lightly. I am surprised that a lawyer such as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, should find that a process of appeal can be dropped and dropped with some enthusiasm.
The point is that, in order to achieve what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, described as a quicker way of dealing with the person who has come here under false pretences, we are jeopardising justice to others. That is what we are doing —we are jeopardising justice to other people in favour of administrative speed. That is something which no government should do and no government should be allowed to do. It is shocking that the provision should be passed without dissent. I do not believe that this is the time to test the matter but perhaps we should call in question what is a serious issue of principle. The present procedure has worked since the immigration rules were devised by Sir Roy Wilson and now the Government are proposing to drop it. I see that my colleagues consider that we should put the matter to the House—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps with the leave of the House I may interrupt the noble Lord. He said that we are dispensing with the appeal rights. That is not so. The right to appeal will exist. If it is decided to curtail an existing leave when an asylum claim is refused, the applicant will be served at the same time with a notice of a decision to make a deportation order against him. He can appeal against that deportation order. When the deportation appeal is considered, all the circumstances will be taken into account. Therefore, a right to appeal exists. We are merely abolishing an appeal system which enables a person to spin out one appeal after another. However, the principle of the appeal remains.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the point that I wish to draw attention to is the idea that the notice of deportation is simultaneous with the rejection of the claim for asylum. That was simply stated in another place by the then Minister on 5th December 1991. As far as I know, that is not in the rules and is not on the face of the Bill. Why should we believe that that will happen? It might be another matter if the noble Earl were prepared to say that that should be written on the

625
face of the Bill or if he will even say that he will consider it. However, he merely tells me that his right honourable friend Mr. Peter Lloyd said:
"it is probable that no curtailment would be made. However, if the Home Secretary decided to curtail an applicant's stay, the applicant would be notified of the curtailment and the rejection of the asylum claim at the same time".
That is merely a statement in the House.
This conversation took place previously when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was present and he agreed with me that we should not continue to accept statements made on the Floor of the House as though they have statutory significance.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I hesitate to speak again. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, would be good enough to look at Clause 8(3), where he will see that:
"the person may appeal to a special adjudicator against the decision or refusal on the ground that his removal in pursuance of the order would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations".
Therefore, there is an appeal provided for in Clause 8(3).
Lord Bonham-Carter: But, my Lords, Clause 8(3) refers to deportation and not to any earlier decision to refuse the right to asylum. He cannot appeal against that rejection. I am saying that he should be able to appeal against that for the very reasons which the noble Earl gave. That is a very difficult and delicate decision to take and is a matter of grave human importance. There should be some second-guessing about the nature of the decision which the Home Secretary has taken. We know that the Home Secretary must take such a decision on the advice of someone who is relatively junior. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
9.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 68.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L

Brightman, L.

Palmer, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Parry, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Richard, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Seear, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Judd, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kagan, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Arran, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Astor, V.

Caithness, E.

Belstead, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Blatch, B.

Coleraine, L.

Blyth, L.

Cranborne, V.

Boardman, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Ferrers, E.

626

Finsberg, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gisborough, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Goold, L.

Quinton, L.

Goschen, V.

Renton, L.

Hacking, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Harlech, L.

St. Davids, V.

Harvington, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Haslam, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Hayhoe, L.

Seccombe, B.

Henley, L.

Selborne, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Stewartby, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Long, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Lyell, L.

Tebbit, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Teviot, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trumpington, B.

Manchester, D.

Ullswater, V.

Marlesford, L.

Vinson, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wakeham, L.

Moyne, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wise, L.

Norrie, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 8, after ("order") insert ("if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person will not report to an immigration officer at an appointed time").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, an amendment in the same terms as Amendment No. 20 was moved at Committee stage by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu. The basis of our case is that Clause 7(4) is otiose.
Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act enables the Secretary of State to detain a person against whom a decision to deport has been made. The question immediately arises as to why that needs to be repeated in this Bill. The amendment would provide for bail to be granted, as normal, in the case of an asylum seeker who was appealing against his deportation unless—and the proviso is important—reasonable grounds for detention could be established by the immigration officer. I do not see why the situation should be different in this instance from that which prevails in the criminal law. The normal practice in criminal courts under the Bail Act 1976 is that a person who opposes bail should justify that opposition. The onus of proof lies on that person. In this instance it would be the immigration officer. In the event of an appeal, the immigration officer would have to justify the position that he had adopted earlier.
Why should not detainees be apprised of the reason for their detention? Why should they not be made aware that they can apply for bail? Everybody concedes—and the Minister conceded in the speeches which he made earlier—that detention is a serious matter. I suggest that it is even more so when it affects people who are especially vulnerable and who have probably suffered appallingly in the country from which they have escaped. They have probably suffered detention and torture. They come to a country with a long history of democracy which they believe is a safe country and then somehow or other they find themselves in detention once again. In my view that is not an acceptable situation.
The amendment merely provides that bail facilities will be given unless there are reasonable grounds for supposing that the asylum seeker will not report to the immigration officer at the appointed time. That is a very similar provision to that which applies in criminal cases when applications for bail are made.
Two arguments have been adduced against that proposal, neither of them substantial. The first is the presumption which runs right through the philosophy of the Bill, namely that an asylum seeker is seeking to abuse the system. I do not believe that that is a proper assumption to make when we are dealing with civil liberties and civil rights.
The second argument which the Minister adduced is referred to in col. 857 of Hansard for 11th February. On that occasion the Minister said:
"The power to detain will only be exercised if we do not think that the person will keep in touch and that a failure to detain will frustrate the intention to enforce departure".
Therefore, he argued that detention has to remain an option. That is precisely the purpose of the amendment, but we seek to inscribe into the Bill something which the Minister asks us to take for granted. Because of the importance of the matter we believe that it is essential that it should be spelt out in the Bill. Unfortunately, doubts remain because of the way in which the clause has been drafted. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the amendment introduces the issue of bail into the legislation. That is important, given the people with whom we are dealing. I wish to make a narrow point. In many cases people who seek asylum have suffered persecution and detention and to them detention therefore has overtones of horror. They may be rare or exaggerated but are nonetheless there. For those people it is a serious matter. I see my noble kinsman Lord Hylton is in the House. He is closely associated with the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. If one reads the annual report of the medical foundation, which deals with victims of torture, one sees how serious is the impact of detention on those people and the prospect of repeated detention in a country to which they come for safety and to escape from the horrors of the past. Bail will not be easy for those people to acquire since they probably will not know many people in this country. However, to introduce the idea of bail would be a great and humane advance.
Lord Renton: My Lords, one must agree with the noble Lord that for some people, even those who are about to be deported, detention is a serious matter. I refer to honourable people who never intended to get themselves into the position in which they find themselves under Clause 7. But of course they do not have to be detained. That is the discretionary power given to the Home Secretary. The Bill provides that the person,
"may be detained under the authority of the Secretary of State".
That is a different situation. It is right, as the Government propose, that there should be some
628
flexibility. However, I should have thought that in the vast majority of cases the only safe thing to do would be to detain the person pending a deportation order.
We went over precisely this part of the course at Committee stage. I do not wish to repeat fully the arguments that I then put forward or those of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. However, we know that in this country there are always a great many people who, simply, are able to get lost, either having come here illegally or, having been ordered to go, decide that they will evade the order. Therefore I believe that the Government are right in formulating the subsection in the way that they have done.
However, if the amendment is added to the provision, it creates an extraordinary situation. The amendment provides,
"if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person will not report to an immigration officer at an appointed time".
It turns the Secretary of State or his officials or both of them into thought readers, reading the thoughts of the person who is about to be given a deportation order. They have to read the thought as to whether or not he will report to the immigration officer within the appointed time. The intention of such a person may change from day to day and to expect the Home Secretary and his advisers to anticipate exactly what is going through the mind of such a person is asking the impossible.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord has been an experienced legal practitioner at the Bar. I assume that he had many criminal cases. He will therefore know that one of the grounds frequently put forward to the court by the police officer or the prosecuting counsel resisting bail is: "I have reason to suppose that the defendant will not appear before the court". Sometimes that goes wrong. Is the magistrate or judge said to be a thought reader? He is exercising a diligent and reasonable view of the situation. Why should a person who is an asylum seeker be treated in a more adverse way than someone who is appearing before a criminal court?
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord has made an astute point and a fair one, but the circumstances of magistrates granting bail to people resident in the United Kingdom are quite different from the circumstances of those who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and who are about to be deported. Let us face it, it is not the same situation as that which the courts have to consider when granting or refusing bail.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I fear that I was not able to be present in your Lordships' House when this point was discussed at the Committee stage. However, this evening I thought that the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Bonham-Carter, made an extremely strong case for the amendment. I can only recount my own experience, going back quite a number of years and certainly more than three. I had been frequently assured by Home Office Ministers, including Home Secretaries and the present Minister with responsibility for immigration, that detention is only used sparingly and in the absolute minimum of cases. One has to accept what they say.

629
I should have thought that it was extremely important that those who wish to detain someone should be made to state their reasons and to justify them. As to the proposition that that makes them become thought readers, I imagine that frequently there are factual circumstances in the record of the individual and his past behaviour which indicate how he is likely to behave from now on. People have a track record. If they are reliable, they will probably continue to be reliable. If they prove themselves to be unreliable, all right, let them be detained. But it is most important that reasons should be put forward for the detention.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said that the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Bonham-Carter, made an extremely strong case. I rather agreed with my noble friend Lord Renton that it would be unreasonable to expect the Home Secretary to anticipate what is going on in the mind of a detainee. The amendment would provide that a person could only be detained if there were reasonable grounds for believing that he would not comply with the requirement to report to an immigration officer. That is essentially what happens already. It is our practice when considering detention in all immigration cases. The specific power to detain in Clause 7 of the Bill will only be exercised if we do not believe that the person would in fact keep in touch with the immigration authorities, and that unless he were detained, it would be impossible to enforce his departure. That is what happens.
I can assure noble Lords that there is no intention whatever to exercise the powers of detention when there is a practical alternative. Apart from the obvious effect on the detainee, detention is costly. The Home Office has no wish to tie up limited detention accommodation unnecessarily.
However, detention must remain an option for those relatively few cases where we have reason to believe that a person will not co-operate or comply with the other restrictions which might be placed upon him. But I cannot see that it would be right to adopt this amendment when there are no similar qualifications to the general powers of detention in deportation cases contained in the 1971 Act. That Act has worked perfectly well and it would be inconsistent to introduce such a restriction only in relation to the specific power in Clause 7.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with respect that is not a satisfactory response. The Minister says that there is nothing between us because detention must remain an option. I agree. But we on this side of the House and those on the Liberal-Democrat Benches say that because this is such a sensitive issue it ought to be inscribed in the Bill and not left to the say-so of the thought-reader. It is a very strange view of adjudicating on bail to think that somehow one becomes a thought-reader. What one becomes is an investigator. Just like a police officer who is in charge of a case, one makes sure when investigating a question of reasonable grounds that the person resides at a specified address. One finds out who else resides
630
with him. One considers whether it is appropriate to report daily, less frequently or more frequently at a local police station. Sureties might be provided. That is how bail operates in the criminal courts. I find deeply offensive the argument about thought-reading, which is the most unmeritorious argument that I have ever heard adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in all my pleasurable experience of crossing swords with him in another place and in this Chamber.
The fact is that in a sense anybody who adjudicates on matters of bail has to make a judgment. Judgments are made all the time. They are not made capriciously but on the basis of evidence. That ought to apply here. I cannot see why these unfortunate people—many of them are unfortunate; I do not suggest that detention is practised widely, but it is practised—should be placed in an inferior position to that of someone appearing before a criminal court. There is no reason for it. It simply does not make any sense at all.
I am very unhappy about the situation. It would be foolish to divide the House on the matter now, bearing in mind that there are so few noble Lords in the Charpber. I listened to what the Minister said. I am not convinced and reserve the right to return to the issue at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Appeals to special adjudicator]:
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 6, line 16, at end insert ("or on the ground that if removed from the United Kingdom he would be required to go to a country where he has a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinions or membership of a particular social group.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 23, standing in the names of my noble friend Lord McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for the convenience of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 27, 28A and 29. The amendments were argued by my noble friend Lord McIntosh at Committee stage, starting at col. 859.
Clause 8(1) to (4) deals with the obligations of this country under the Geneva Convention. The amendments are designed to widen the grounds upon which an appeal may be brought. That is made necessary because Article 33 of the convention only prevents states from sending refugees to any country where their life or freedom will be threatened. No specific provision is made in the convention which prohibits the return of persons to countries where they would be at risk from a form of persecution not involving a threat to life or liberty.
The restrictive nature of the proposed right of appeal is reinforced by the provisions of the draft asylum laws, which have the effect of restricting the grounds of asylum to those who are able to establish a threat to their life or freedom. That contrasts with the current rules of asylum whereby people are

631
entitled to asylum on proving that they have a well-founded fear of persecution. There is no need to prove a threat to life or liberty.
Article 33 in the proposed asylum rules is therefore significantly more restrictive. Unless the amendments are accepted, we believe that people who have a well-founded fear of persecution cannot hope to succeed in an appeal. Consequently, we believe that it is a matter which should not be regarded as unduly contentious. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 23, moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. In recent times we have moved into new horrors in relation to asylum seekers. The situation in Yugoslavia has pointed to the problems that people can face. The systematic rape of women in Bosnia is a case in point. Clearly, as one reads the Bill, somebody who felt that they were likely to be subjected to systematic rape on being returned to their country, would not be covered by the provisions of the convention in relation to threats to their life. Similarly, people being forced back into torture, provided it did not mean that they were being detained for a long time, would not be covered.
People who feared that they might go back to their country of origin and not face a threat to their life but face a threat to their property—in other words, that their property may be burnt down if they went back —would not be covered by the convention as we understand it. That is why we sought to extend the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill at a much earlier stage. That is the reason we support the provision to extend the measures in the clause.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, proposed something that I am sure he has never proposed before in his long and distinguished parliamentary life and I doubt whether he will ever propose it again; namely, that the same four lines should be repeated four times in the same clause of the Bill, admittedly in different subsections of it. It would lead to a strange result in the drafting of the Bill and I hope that on reflection he will not try to press the amendment. Perhaps I may set at rest not only his mind but also the minds of other noble Lords. The sentiments, principles and the high-minded ideas of these four amendments are to be found in the convention that the Government have agreed must be followed in any event and which is written into the Bill. I suggest that the amendment is not only unnecessary but, with the other three amendments that go with it, is unthinkable as a piece of legislative drafting.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I hesitate to argue with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on a matter of law. However, in so far as he interprets the convention, his view is contrary to the legal interpretation that we have received. We have been assured that it does not cover civil war, systematic rape or the circumstances mentioned by my noble friend Lord Tordoff. This is a matter on which I should like a ruling. Unfortunately, the noble and learned Law Lords have disappeared and therefore we will not receive their advice.
632
Presumably, the Government have had advice. It would be a different matter if we had an assurance that the convention covered those eventualities. The point made by my noble friend that the motives for asylum had changed since 1951 was an important one. As we discussed on Second Reading, the 1951 convention was devised in a cold war situation and was cold war ideology. It was about people opposing the ideology of the governments that dominated them. We are now concerned with different forms of persecution that require wider definition. I should like to know on the best possible advice whether the kinds of persecution raised by my noble friend are covered by the convention. The advice we have received is that they are not. That is something that needs to be covered.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, objected to the drafting of our amendment. We are always ready to receive expert advice on better drafting.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I will not comment on the elegance or otherwise of the drafting. I should like to ask the Government the following question. Had the substance of this amendment been incorporated in existing legislation, would it have been possible for those Sri Lankans to be deported to Sri Lanka and suffer torture and persecution there as a result, and for those Kurds to be deported to Turkey and subsequently come back to this country and receive considerable sums in compensation from the Government?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is another point that we discussed at some length during Committee stage. The amendments would entitle a person to appeal not only on the grounds that his removal would be contrary to our obligations under the 1951 convention but, alternatively, that he had a well-founded fear of persecution. I am bound to tell your Lordships that I believe it is superfluous to provide this alternative ground of appeal. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that he wanted to know whether the cases referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—systematic rape—would be covered. I cannot give noble Lords an answer to what may be described as a hypothetical case. The noble Lords opposite shake their heads, but the fact is that it is a hypothetical case if one wants to generalise. Each case has to be considered on its merits. It is perfectly possible that that kind of case would be considered to be persecution but it would be inappropriate for me at the Dispatch Box to answer the general question of whether systematic rape would be covered under the Bill. It is a matter which would have to be discussed in each particular case. It is perfectly possible that on some occasions that would be so covered. I had hoped that I would have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who sits there with a frown on his face looking most dissatisfied. I cannot do anything more than that. It would be quite inappropriate for me to pontificate on a subject like that in a generality.
In considering claims for asylum there are two key issues which have to be decided. First, does the applicant have a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion? Does

633
he have a well-founded fear of persecution? If the answer to that question is yes, he is a refugee as is defined in Article 1 of the 1951 convention. If he is a refugee, then the second question is whether, if he were required to leave this country, he would have to go to a country where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of one of those factors. If the answer to that question is also yes, then his removal would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 33 of the convention. Those are the issues to which those who are responsible for determining asylum claims and the authorities which are responsible for deciding asylum appeals must address their minds. Those are the issues which are covered by the grounds of appeal set out in Clause 8.
The amendments would simply confuse matters by introducing an alternative ground of appeal, based on wording which muddles the language of Article 1 and Article 33. They would not in fact add any measure of protection for people whose removal would be contrary to our obligations under the convention.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that is precisely the point. We say that the convention is not wide enough. The cases mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, are actually happening. They are not hypothetical cases. They are actually happening. If one is dealing in Parliament with a Bill concerning crime is it said that one cannot deal with cases which have actually happened because one would have to look into every aspect of them? One needs some guidance from the Minister, which, with great respect, we are not getting, as to the general way in which the Government will go about their business in dealing with and investigating such cases.
We have here a situation which is clearly spelt out. Unless there are some grounds for supposing that the information given is bogus or anything of that kind, which would be within the purview of the immigration officer to examine, one makes an assumption that the person has suffered terribly. But it does not come within the convention. That is precisely the point we are making.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, assailed me for the drafting of the amendment. I could make the point that my name does not appear on the amendment, but I do not make that point because I am adopting the argument. When we are dealing with an issue of principle we ought to look at the issue rather than at the specific drafting and technical points. If the Minister were moved—he is not—to say that he is interested in the principle underlying the matter he could offer to come back with better amendments. The noble Lord is very familiar with that argument and no doubt, in his ministerial career, was perhaps a little more generous than the Minister is being today. Therefore, I shall not take that point very seriously. The noble Lord is right in those narrow terms but it does not go to the heart of what we are talking about.
The noble Earl said that the amendment is superfluous. If it is superfluous, he has no reason to fear it, and he should be embracing it. We say that it is not superfluous. We say, as the noble Lord, Lord
634
Bonham-Carter, said—I apologise for earlier confusing him with the other "B-C"—that legal advice has been taken on this matter and that that advice is not idle. It is to be taken seriously. The Minister has not in fact sought to assert that it is advice that is fundamentally wrong. He says that the amendment is superfluous. Again, were it otherwise I would divide the House on this matter, but for the reasons which I gave before—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and with the leave of the House, may I ask whether he does not find it curious that the Minister, in referring to mass rape, says that it might very well be that people could sustain an appeal on those grounds. But "might" includes "might not". Does he not find it strange that somebody might be sent back in those circumstances?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is strange that the Minister is somewhat ambivalent. It is not right that he should be so. I believe that the Minister is under instructions not to make concessions. I have the feeling that he has strongly imprinted on his brief the words "resist" or "resist at all costs". It is a pity. Again I reserve the right to come back to this issue at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24 to 27 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 6, line 22 at end insert:
("() No appeal to a special adjudicator may be heard within ten working days of the date upon which notice of appeal is given to the Secretary of State other than with the consent of the appellant.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I hope that the Minister has no objection if we consider with it Amendments Nos. 30, 31, and 33. The amendments are designed to provide for adequate time in order to deal with appeals in a proper way. That includes being able to prepare a case for appeal; to explain why and to obtain evidence to support the claim that it is not groundless. That is why we have inserted 14 working days and 10 working days, which is tantamount to the same thing.
It is right that people should have sufficient time to make appeals against refusal. That implies that they should have sufficient time to prepare and to have their cases conducted properly. I do not believe, when one considers the so-called groundless cases, that 48 hours to lodge an appeal and five days for an appeal hearing is anything like sufficient. Even if the case is supposedly groundless, it is the duty of the person advising the appellant to look into the matter, most specifically where there are difficulties in terms of communication, of language or of understanding.
I have already laboured the argument about the problems facing those who give advice and I do not need to go into that again. It is almost impossible to do that properly and even more so if the person in question is subject to detention. Those are real, practical problems which I suggest the Minister has

635
never experienced personally. I wonder how he would feel if he were a legal adviser in such circumstances, beset by all kinds of other cases and problems and not finding this kind of case particularly rewarding. Most such work is done almost on a pro bono basis.
So if the case is going to be contested properly, supporting evidence has to be procured and statements have to be taken. This could entail long interviews and detailed research about conditions in the country of origin—because they would be important and the legal adviser would have to be aware of them. Maybe it would involve the necessity to trace and interview witnesses and to look into documents. Then there is the whole question of what is happening in the third country to which it is proposed to remove the person. There is a duty to investigate that too in order to discover the practices of that country.
My experience has been that people who are involved in this area of work undertake these cases with extraordinary diligence, but they do need time. I believe it is quite impossible within the five days prescribed to undertake that task properly. If that is the case, it is not inconceivable that miscarriages of justice could occur. Of course it might possibly lead to applications for judicial review of such cases—cases without foundation—after this kind of very truncated procedure. I believe that on those grounds, and on the grounds of natural justice and of efficiency—preventing the courts being clogged up, which the Home Secretary himself wishes to avoid—we need to have a longer period inscribed in the Bill.
Even the full appeals process is very short, allowing only six weeks for a full hearing. Of course in the abbreviated situation it is infinitely worse. The Bill provides time limits for appeals processes but no time limits for the Home Office to deal with the original application for asylum. Indeed, the longest delays are the responsibility of the Home Office, and of course the Bill does not deal with that. The Minister says, "Of course we are bringing more people in"—but still delays persist.
The Home Office suggested, when the Bill was published in October 1992, that a target date for dealing with applications would be three months. The Government then went on to accept that many applications might take considerably longer. So we have one situation for the Home Office and quite another for the person seeking the right to appeal. I believe that that is a palpable injustice. I would hope, although I fear that my hope will be in vain, that the Minister will see that there is an important element of natural justice which has to be met here and which is frankly not being met and will not be met if the Bill as drafted goes into law. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with the intention behind Amendment No. 28 and I hope that my noble friend will consider it sympathetically. However, I do not think it is right to have it in a clause in the Bill. We have a schedule dealing with procedural matters and it is more appropriate that details of that kind, even if they do raise matters which are to some extent matters of principle, should go into schedules rather than
636
forming part of clauses. The second schedule, after all, is at present just an enabling schedule for the making of rules of procedure. Those rules will have to be made.
I also have some sympathy with the use of the word "shall" instead of "may" in Amendment No. 30. As to Amendment No. 31, I must say that without having considered this matter in very great detail I do not feel inclined to offer an opinion on it. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say. On this occasion I was rather persuaded by the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has just said. Even at this relatively late stage of the Bill, and late hour of the night, it is necessary to appeal to the Government to have second thoughts about time limits. No one can deny that since the Bill was published all those persons with experience of dealing with immigration and asylum have said unanimously that the time limits are too short and should be lengthened.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made an important point when he referred to the possibility of the legal adviser having other business on hand. Legal advisers often do. Recently, I had occasion to call in a legal adviser for someone else in a criminal case. The legal adviser said that the hearing was scheduled for five working days from that time; that it was far from the only urgent business that he had on hand; and that he could not possibly have his defence ready in that time. That argument was acceptable to the prosecution. It was a reasonable reply.
It is not to be supposed that those who are advising people under the Bill will be any less busy. They too will have urgent cases in hand. So we must consider what they will do. They have an inflexible time limit under the Bill and rather more flexible time limits in the ordinary courts. What they will do is to ask for postponements of a great many other cases in the ordinary domestic courts.
I happened to be in the House on 10th February during a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, on the legal aid regulations. I listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, talking about the immense expense caused to courts by the alteration to listings through the postponement of cases. By forcing legal advisers to have all their other cases postponed, the Bill will cause a great deal more dislocation to court lists than we already have. So will not the effect of the Bill be to cause an unnecessary waste of public funds?
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I too was interested to hear the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. It touched a chord in my mind of the many cases with which I had to deal on a constituency basis when I was in another place. It was often difficult to find the right legal adviser who could act as quickly as one might want. 1 am puzzled—I do not believe that I missed it—but there seems to be a difference in the timing between Amendments Nos. 28 and 31. One talks about 10 working days and the other

637
about 14 working days. I should have thought that the figure of 10 was the more suitable because it affords what I would call two normal working weeks. I do not think that I heard any explanation as to why there should be that difference between what are essentially two similar matters; that is, the obtaining of proper advice to present a proper case.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, wounded me to the quick on the previous amendment by saying that I had "Resist" written all over my brief. I should be only too happy to accept some of the noble Lord's amendments if they were worthy of acceptance. My difficulty is to try to persuade your Lordships that the amendments which some noble Lords have put down, motivated by the best of intentions, do not achieve what they want or alternatively do not improve the Bill.
I was worried when my noble friend Lord Renton said that he was persuaded by the amendment. I must ask him to act in the mode of a metronome and swing back a little from being persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. The amendment would provide that without the appellant's consent no appeal could be heard within 10 days of the lodging of an appeal notice.
I would remind the House that accelerated procedures—where the case has to be heard within five days—will apply only to cases which are deemed to be without foundation; that is, where they raise nothing to engage our obligations under the convention or where they are clearly frivolous. It seems patently absurd, for example, not to deal as swiftly as possible with someone who makes an asylum claim on the basis that he is bored in his own country or does not get on with his mother-in-law. Your Lordships may think that such a situation is curious but that has happened on some occasions. I cannot believe that your Lordships would not consider that it should be dealt with expeditiously.
Despite the clearly unfounded nature of those claims, the majority of such applicants will have 10 working days in which to lodge an appeal. It is only in port cases where the applicant is detained and the claim is certified as unfounded that the two-day time limit for the submission of an appeal will apply. In the majority of those port cases applicants will face removal to a safe third country where it will be open to them to lodge an asylum claim for consideration by that country. They will not be put at risk by our new procedures. Nevertheless, applicants will still have a right of appeal to an independent adjudicator here before their removal and we believe that that represents a significant strengthening of the safeguards which are available to asylum seekers.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and other noble Lords, said that two days or 10 days is not long enough. I remind your Lordships that under the rules there is the ability for that to be extended. The rules state:
"Where a special adjudicator or the tribunal is required to determine an appeal, or where the tribunal is required to provide written notification of the determination at or within
638
a time prescribed, the special adjudicator or the tribunal may if necessary extend the time so prescribed either to enable it fairly to determine the appeal or, as the case may be, to provide the notification".
So there is the ability to extend the time if necessary.
Given the nature of third-country cases, it is important that the applicant is returned as quickly as possible and we believe that a rapid system in those cases is both justified and essential. It is important that in creating new rights of appeal we do not encourage further misuse of our asylum systems and that the new systems do not become overloaded, to the detriment of genuine refugees. Our experience is that very few applicants would do other than try to extend their stay for as long as possible. I think it extremely unlikely, therefore, that many would "permit", as the amendment suggests, a hearing before the 10-day limit specified, even where their claim was clearly groundless and there was nothing for them to prepare. One must also question whether it is desirable that the length of time spent in detention should unnecessarily be increased in this way.
We have repeatedly made clear our belief that some form of filter mechanism is essential if the new appeals procedures are not to become clogged by those seeking to misuse the system. The Bill and the associated draft procedure rules seek to achieve that by creating a fast-track system for certain appeals where the asylum claim is certified to be without foundation. The proposed amendments would make it impossible for the procedural rules to make effective provision for accelerated procedures for dealing with claims which are without foundation.
It is worth bearing in mind that the Bill introduces new rights of appeal which had not previously existed. There is a likelihood that people who arrive here will make completely spurious applications if they believe that that will secure for them a reasonable period in this country. The proposals in the Bill and in the draft procedure rules do not put genuine refugees at risk. They are designed to enable us to deal quickly with those cases where no real issue as regards the need for protection arises; for example, where it is proposed to return a passenger to a safe third country where he will be dealt with in accordance with the convention.
The proposed amendments would undermine that intention. Even though it may not be the intention, they may be a further invitation to misuse the asylum system. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will not seek to include the amendments in the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thought that the Minister was being rather uncharitable to his noble friend Lord Renton. It has taken us until 10.20 p.m. to get the pendulum to swing in our direction. We have tried and on this occasion we have succeeded and the noble Earl cannot share our joy with us.
agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it would be more appropriate for those issues to be dealt with in the schedule rather than in the clauses. However, we are dealing with a matter of principle. I am glad that apart from Amendment No. 31, on which he has no opinion, the noble Lord supports the position which I sought to represent.

639
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made the point that all experienced practitioners have advised in favour of the amendments. That has not been gainsaid by the Minister. He must know the views of people who deal with these cases day in and day out. Perhaps I may say with great respect that they have more experience than the Minister in such matters and they know what they are talking about in this regard.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned the difficulties about legal aid. I shall not go into the argument which he adduced about the knock-on effects on other cases, but that is certainly true.
As regards the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, 10 days or 14 working days amounts to the same thing and there is nothing in that.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I do not follow that, because they both refer to working days. I was taught that there is a difference between 10 and 14.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lord, yes, the noble Lord is quite right. He has always been perspicacious throughout his political career. In legal calculations there is no difference between 10 working days and 14 days. In the latter the weekends are excluded. I do not believe that the argument is essential to the point I am making. It may be that we have miscalculated. Again, we are considering a matter of principle.
On the questions raised by the noble Earl, there is again an underlying assumption that the Home Office
640
could never be in the wrong about those so-called groundless cases. Having been a solicitor for almost all of my adult life, I should say that there have been groundless cases which I have won, and also groundless cases which I have lost. A lawyer must investigate every case on which he is consulted. Noble Lords who have been in another place who have dealt with constituency cases will know that it is the stuttering inarticulate people who are most difficult to deal with. They may or may not have a case. The noble Earl has never been in another place and therefore has never had any constituents to deal with. I can assure the noble Earl that in this regard I have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg. I do not know whether the noble Earl is saying that these cases are simply not worthy of investigation by a lawyer. In that event he is turning this whole case upside down. He says that under the rules the period of time may be extended. That is perfectly true but one does not simply apply for an extension idly. There must be grounds for that application and that in itself requires investigation on the part of the lawyer concerned. I again do not accept the argument that has been raised by the noble Earl. We are in something of a difficulty because we cannot really divide on the matter. Again I reserve the right to return to the issue. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28A and 29 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Appeals to special adjudicator: supplementary]:
[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 31A:
Page 14, line 7, at end insert:
("(3A) Any special provision made in the rules of procedure under section 22 above pursuant to sub-paragraph (3) above shall include provision for—

(a) the production of a written statement by the respondent to an appeal of the facts relating to the decision of action appealed against and the reasons therefore;

(b) the bringing of detained appellants before the appellate authority for the hearing of their appeals;

(c) procedures for the resolution of any dispute as to the existence or extent of any right of appeal whether conferred by this Act or by Part II of the 1971 Act;

(d) procedures for the purpose of ensuring that appellants have access to free legal advice and representation throughout appeal proceedings;

(e) time limits of sufficient length to enable appellants to seek and obtain legal advice before bringing an appeal, to prepare grounds of appeal, to seek evidence in support of the appeal and to prepare adequately for the hearing of the appeal.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when the rules of procedure are made they take into account those matters vital to the way in which an appeal is brought, conducted and determined. As the rules are made by statutory instrument, we cannot amend them in this House or indeed in another place. These provisions would ensure that when the final rules are made they would redress the shortcomings of the draft rules.
First of all, the Home Office would be required to provide the appellant with a statement setting out the evidence; the findings of facts; the inferences made; the applicable law and how it was applied, and so on. Under the draft procedure rules no explanatory statement is necessary. Only the notes of the interview, notice of appeal and the notice of decision need to be given.
Secondly, the provisions would ensure that the appellant would be present for, and able to give evidence at, any hearing of the case. Thirdly, the rules would be required to provide mechanisms for deciding whether or not there is an asylum issue before the adjudicator, and therefore whether the more generous procedures in the 1984 appeals procedure rules for the generality of immigration appellants should apply. This can most speedily and efficiently be dealt with as a preliminary issue as provided for in the 1984 procedure rules.
Fourthly, there would be a requirement that all applicants should have free legal advice and representation. The draft procedure rules do not impose any duty to ensure the availability of legal advice free of charge. Clearly that is a critical matter having regard to the issues which we have debated in the past few amendments and having regard to the power to be exercised by the Secretary of State in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to certify that a case may be without foundation.
In the debate on Second Reading the noble Earl gave assurances to the House on a number of
642
occasions that legal advice would be available when an application was made, before an appeal was lodged and while an appeal was being prepared. Therefore there should be no objection to an amendment which would secure that objective. Paragraph (e) of the amendment would ensure that any time limits which are set must be capable of ensuring that legal advice can be sought and a case properly presented and argued. I do not think I need refer further to that, because it has been extensively argued this evening. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I long to give the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, some encouragement. He said in connection with the previous amendment that he did not feel that he could divide the House. Of course, if he does not wish to do so he need not. I understand the noble Lord's problem. If he had the facility of a chameleon and could swivel his eyes through 180 degrees he would discover that the reason why he does not want to divide the House is that there are no Back-Benchers behind him. Therefore, I understand the difficulty in which he finds himself. I do not suggest that the House should be divided, merely that the noble Lord has a difficulty.
The amendment would require a number of points to be dealt with in the procedure rules for asylum appeals. The first is to require the production of a written statement by the respondent to an appeal. Preparation of a separate explanatory statement will not be necessary in asylum appeals. All the required information will have been given to the applicant when his application is refused and will be put before the special adjudicator.
The second point would require provision to be made for the bringing of detained appellants before the appellate authority for the hearing of their appeals. I doubt whether that is really necessary. The draft procedure rules give only a very limited discretion to an appellate authority to determine an appeal in the absence of the appellant, whether or not he is detained.
The third item is a procedure for the resolution of any dispute as to the existence or extent of any right of appeal. Such a procedure exists under rules 8 and 11 of the 1984 procedure rules which require that if the respondent alleges that the person is not entitled to appeal the appellate authority shall determine that as a preliminary issue. I can confirm that provision for a similar procedure is to be included in the final revision of the asylum procedure rules.
The fourth point concerns access to free legal advice. That is not an appropriate issue for inclusion in these rules of procedure. The availability of legal aid is a matter for regulations made under the Legal Aid Act.
Finally, the fifth point of the amendment requires the procedure rules to provide time limits of sufficient length to enable the appellant to do a number of things. We believe that the time limits provided in the draft procedure rules, both for the lodging of notice of appeal and for the determination of appeals, are adequate and fair.

643
I suggest to your Lordships that there is no need to put those provisions upon the face of the Bill and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will accept that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, time is getting on. I shall not pursue the matter at this stage. I listened to what the Minister said. I am beginning not to understand it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31B not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 14, line 25, leave out from ("convention") to end of line 26.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 32 we seek to ensure that all cases where there is a potential claim for asylum will be subject to a full right of appeal rather than the fast-track system. I would not expect the noble Earl to agree with that because superficially it would undermine his position. I believe that the Government have rushed into the issue almost regardless of natural justice and of the rights of even the genuine asylum seeker, who is likely to be caught up in the situation which the noble Earl regards as unacceptable.
Under the provisions of the Bill, the Home Office will exercise its view as to whether a case is without foundation —whether it is frivolous or vexatious. In law the position relating to frivolous or vexatious litigants has to be adjudicated upon most carefully by the court. It does not lie within the ability of a defendant to an action to say that someone is vexatious or frivolous. He can claim that; he can argue it. But he has to go before a court to obtain an order to that effect.
In the Bill we have a totally different situation. The Home Office makes that determination, perhaps in good faith, but I argue that it can be wrong, just as some defendants to civil actions may be wrong in seeking to declare that someone is vexatious or frivolous. Sometimes those actions do not succeed. Frequently they relate to a person who brings his case in person and does not employ a lawyer. One often sees such persons in what is known as the "Bear Garden" in the Royal Courts of Justice. It is familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Such people may not appear capable of running an action. They may appear vexatious or frivolous from the way they dress and the bags that they carry full of papers, but that is not always so. Yet asylum seekers—they are in a different situation from the one to which I have referred—are to be declared to be vexatious or frivolous in the objective view of the Home Office alone. I do not believe that that system attracts natural justice.
The situation could be used against people who are at present granted exceptional leave to remain or against the temporary refuge granted to Bosnian ex-detainees when the Home Office is not satisfied that such applicants qualify as refugees under the terms of the convention but also believes that it would be wrong to force them to return at present. I hope that the Government will give an assurance that the power is intended for use against third country cases only. I
644
do not suppose that they will do so. However, when discussing the practicalities of the matter, I should like to hear from the Minister how the Home Office will decide on the safety of a third country. That point has been raised on many occasions previously and has not attracted a reasonable answer from the Minister. Although, as I anticipate, the Minister may reject the amendment, he may be able to cast some light on that issue. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will resist the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, we have lost the pendulum.
Lord Renton: My Lords, that is the noble Lord's misfortune, not mine. However, even in the light of the remarks of the noble Lord, the adjudicator will be assumed to be capable of deciding whether there is a breach of the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention. An adjudicator capable of deciding that would be at least as capable of deciding whether the appeal was frivolous or vexatious.
I never like to use harsh words when the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has given us the benefit of his wisdom. However, I believe that his amendment is quite without foundation.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is a point of considerable importance. Anyone who listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in Committee will appreciate that there is at least some strong ground for arguing that whether an appeal is frivolous or vexatious is a judicial matter, susceptible to judicial determination. In this provision we appear to have an attempt by the Executive to act in the capacity of judge.
I appreciate that all courts are the Crown's courts, but it is a long time since the Crown or its Executive representatives attempted to sit and act as judge within them. King James I, in an unwise moment when he was new to this country and its legal system, revived that claim. It did not take long to explain to him that because he was not trained in the law he could not do it. Being on the whole quite a sensible fellow, he accepted that argument.
However, the Executive now seems a little more resistant to the argument that it is not capable of acting in a judicial manner. It is not just that the Executive is not learned in the law. There is also here a question of the Executive acting as judge and party in its own cause. Anyone who has listened to debates on the Bill will appreciate that there is a strong sense within the Executive that the flow of asylum seekers must be reduced. I think that the Minister will not wish to dispute that. Since the Executive has that sense, in judging whether an appeal is frivolous or vexatious it will be acting in its own interests to achieve an object which it has itself set. That means that it is a little unlikely that it will be capable of acting in the proper and impartial judicial manner. So deciding whether an appeal is frivolous or vexatious is something which the Executive lacks the training to do, is not judicially competent to do, and in any case is an interested party.

645
This section of the Bill is serious in its constitutional implications. I do not know whether tonight is the time, but I hope that there will be a chance for the opinion of the House to be expressed upon it before the Bill is through.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that he did not think that the Government would wish to accept his amendment. I am bound to say that he has the powers of a clairvoyant. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that we were anxious to stem the flow of asylum seekers. That is not right. We are not keen to stem the flow of genuine asylum seekers. What we are concerned to do is to stem the flow of spurious asylum seekers and to permit only the genuine ones to come.
Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Bill creates special appeal procedures cases which the Secretary of State certifies to be without foundation. Sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 4 makes it clear that a claim is without foundation if, and only if, it does not raise any issue as to the United Kingdom's obligation under the convention, or it is otherwise frivolous or vexatious.
The proposed amendment would change that definition by omitting reference to claims being frivolous or vexatious. That would give access to the full asylum appeals procedures to anybody whose claim raised any issue as to our convention obligations, however frivolously, however vexatiously. I find that remarkable.
It may be helpful to remind your Lordships why it is necessary to have a special appeals procedure for cases without foundation. Under the 1971 Act certain appeals may only be brought after a person has left this country. There are appeals against refusal of leave to enter unless the appellant holds a current entry clearance; appeals against a refusal to revoke a deportation order; and appeals against directions for a person's removal as an illegal entrant.
Under the Bill an asylum seeker will for the first time have the right to appeal to a special adjudicator against any of these decisions while he is still in this country. That is a considerable change. Only an asylum seeker will have that right. So there would be a temptation for, say, a person who has been refused leave to enter, or who has been detained after entering this country in breach of a deportation order, to make a wholly spurious asylum claim in order to delay his removal. It is in order to discourage that kind of misuse of the asylum process and to prevent the asylum appeal system from becoming overloaded with cases which have nothing to do with the protection of refugees that a special appeals procedure is required.
Under that procedure there will be shorter time limits for determining the appeal. If the appeal adjudicator does not agree that the Secretary of State is right to regard the claim as without foundation, he may refer the case back for further consideration. If he does agree that the claim is without foundation, there is no further right of appeal to a tribunal.
We believe that the measures will provide a sensible and effective filtering system. But if this amendment were to be accepted, the definition of "without foundation" would be weakened. I suggest to your
646
Lordships that totally unmeritorious cases in which the applicant has failed to show any plausible basis for his asylum claim would nevertheless get into the full appeals process. The result would be to encourage rather than discourage the misuse of the asylum process.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made a number of remarks, but all that the Secretary of State will do is certify that in his opinion the claim is without foundation. The special adjudicator will have to decide whether that opinion is right. So the issue of whether a claim is without foundation will not rest with the Secretary of State alone, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, suggested.
The noble Lord wanted to know how we assess the third countries. The safety of a third country will be assessed on our knowledge of that country's laws and practices in relation to asylum seekers. We will need to be satisfied that a person who is sent to a third country will be treated in accordance with the principles of the convention.
For those reasons I suggest to your Lordships that the amendment would be inappropriate in the Bill.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, at this hour I am sure that in my concluding remarks I shall not persuade the Minister to change his mind. However, I should like to make two points.
First, the offensive part of this measure is the way in which the effect of the certification that an application is vexatious or frivolous, made by the Home Office—as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, indicated, made by an interested party—is to contaminate the whole matter of the process of appeal. This is an argument that I put earlier and I shall not weary the House with it again. But in my view those periods for contesting an appeal are quite impossible and will be seen to be working in an impossible way in practice.
On the matter of the third country, I am not at all satisfied that the Home Office goes about determining by proper investigations the practice within such a third country. Much is taken for granted. Again, that is what we find offensive about the procedures deployed by the Home Office in that regard. Sometimes even a cavalier attitude is taken. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Appeals from Immigration Appeal Tribunal]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 7, line 5, leave out ("material to that determination").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we move to Clause 9 of the Bill, the clause which deals with appeals from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Although I wish to speak separately to Amendment No. 35, I feel that it would be wise for me to make one or two observations about Clause 9 as it was amended in Committee. In a sense, Amendment

647
No. 34 is a paving amendment to Amendment No. 35, which seeks to remove the amendments moved by the Government and agreed at Committee stage.
Amendment No. 34 is a probing amendment. I want to be clear as to what is meant by the phrase which we propose to delete—"material to that determination". My understanding is that the phrase restricts the grounds of appeal under Clause 9 to matters of immigration law; in other words, those matters which have been dealt with at an earlier stage. Mr. Charles Wardle, the Minister, assured the Committee in another place that Clause 8 did not subtract any right of appeal because judicial review was a separate process that begins in the High Court. He said,
"The view of my noble friend the Lord Chancellor is that it is better to allow the appeal to go direct to the Court of Appeal and keep delays to the minimum. That is, I understand, consistent with the way in which appeals arising from tribunals under social security legislation are dealt with".
In moving the amendment I am asking whether it is the case that the words, "material to that determination" restrict the consideration of the appeal court to immigration law. Does it therefore mean that issues of administrative law are excluded from the consideration of the Court of Appeal? Administrative law, of course, is concerned with much wider questions. It can be concerned with issues of fairness and with issues of legitimate expectation and so forth, which are not covered in immigration law.
The Minister in another place referred to social security legislation. I suggest to the Government that neither social security legislation nor employment legislation are strictly comparable with immigration appeals. The employment appeals tribunal, unlike an immigration tribunal, is chaired by a judge. An immigration tribunal is only chaired by a legally qualified person. The analogy, therefore, which Mr. Wardle drew between other legislation and immigration law is not strictly valid.
Before I move on to the more important and more wide-ranging Amendment No. 35, I hope to obtain an ' answer from the Government in regard to what is meant by "material to that determination" and whether, as I suspect, it restricts the issues to those covered by immigration law. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that I can satisfy the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. If so, I shall be delighted, as I know he will also be. He believes that the words restrict consideration to matters of immigration law. However, the words do not confine the Court of Appeal only to questions of immigration law. The court can look at any issue of law which is involved in the tribunal decision, including any other kind of law such as European Community law. Any part of the law in which the tribunal decision was made can be included. Therefore, it does not only refer to immigration law.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall have to consider that answer. It is helpful to know that European Community law can be covered. But the phrase used by the Minister referred to any part of the law relating to the basis on which the original decision
648
was made. I do not believe that that extends to issues relating to administrative law and I do not believe that it extends to issues comparable to those considered in either employment or social security appeals. I think it would be inappropriate for me to pursue this amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may intervene again. The consideration with which the noble Lord is concerned is covered. Administrative law is covered if that is a matter which the tribunal has considered.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, one asks whether the tribunal is capable of considering issues of administrative law. The reply of the Minister was conditional on the matter being considered by the tribunal, whereas surely the tribunal would not itself be capable of considering issues of administrative law. Therefore, to the extent that the tribunal cannot consider these matters, the Court of Appeal cannot consider them. I wonder whether the House will allow the Minister to respond if he feels disposed to do so.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am hesitant to break the rules of procedure. Probably the best thing for me to do is to write in detail to the noble Lord to make it perfectly clear. But my understanding of the position is that any of the matters of law which the tribunal has considered can be considered by the Court of Appeal. If it considers matters of administrative law that is fine.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful. However, it does not reassure me as far as the amendment is concerned. I believe that the Government ought to be briefed about what matters of law the Immigration Appeal Tribunal can cover. My amendment is not obscure but very explicit. The amendment refers to matters "material to that determination". It ought to have been included in the Minister's brief for him to be able to say exactly what issues of law are covered by the administrative tribunal. All the Minister is saying is that I am virtually obliged to come back to the matter at Third Reading after receiving his letter. I am grateful for that letter and on the basis of it I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, it will be obvious that I am not satisfied with the response.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.35:
Leave out Clause 9 and insert the following new clause:

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill

  Appeals from Immigration Appeal Tribunal
  9.—(1) Where—

  (a) under Part II of the 1971 Act (as it applies by virtue of Schedule 2 to this Act) an appeal has been brought to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal from a determination of a special adjudicator, and

  (b) the Immigration Appeal Tribunal has made a final determination of the appeal,

  any party to the appeal may bring a further appeal to the appropriate appeal court on any question of law material to that determination.
  (2) An appeal under this section may be brought only with the leave of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal or, if such leave is refused, with the leave of the appropriate appeal court.
  (3) In this section "the appropriate appeal court" means—

  (a) the Court of Appeal where the determination of the special adjudicator was made in England or Wales or Northern Ireland; and

  (b) the Court of Session where it was made in Scotland.

  (4) Rules of procedure under section 22 of the 1971 Act may include provision regulating, and prescribing the procedure to be followed on, applications to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal for leave to appeal under this section.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No.35 we come to the much wider issue, of which my previous amendment was perhaps only a special case. In case it is not clear, Amendment No.35 seeks to remove all four of the amendments put into Clause 9 by the Government late on the evening of Thursday, 11th February. I can do no better than read the entire speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in moving the amendment (just before 11.45 p.m.):
  "In moving Amendment No.40 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos.41, 44 and 46. This group of amendments will extend the new avenue of appeal, which is created by Clause 9, from asylum cases only to all final determinations by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. It will, I hope, be generally welcomed by the Committee. It means that the opportunity to seek leave to appeal on a point of law to the relevant court will be available both in asylum and other immigration cases. I beg to move".—[Official Report, 11/2/93; col. 888.]
  To my shame, I did not respond to that because I did not see the significance of it. The significance of what was being done to Clause 9 was very great and much wider than suggested by the entirely harmless little speech of the Minister. The first point I make is that, in extending the scope of Clause 9 from asylum cases only to all final determinations by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, at the very least he runs the risk—and in the view of many qualified people has incurred the fault—of going outside the Long Title of the Bill. As far as immigration is concerned, the Long Title says,
  "to restrict certain rights of appeal under the Immigration Act 1971".
  I suggest to the House that what the amendments did in extending the final determination from asylum cases only to all final determinations by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was in effect to take away the right of judicial review from immigration appeals as well as from asylum appeals. It applies to all immigration appeals under Part II of the Immigration Act 1971 and not simply to certain rights of appeal as is suggested in the Long Title.
  On that issue alone I suggest to the House that the amendments extend the law in relation to immigration appeals wider than the scope of the Long Title. They make judicial review unavailable to those who have been subject to final determination by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal because judicial review is the only alternative remedy. An appeal on a point of law to the Court of Appeal will amount to a remedy which therefore prohibits the use of judicial review because judicial review is not available on the ground that the remedies available have not been exhausted.
  No one wants to encourage judicial review itself, but if the alternative is between judicial review and a consideration by the Court of Appeal, I suggest that we have to look very closely at the arguments, at the costs, and at the issues of natural justice involved.
  650
  Judicial review, after all, invloves only one divisional judge. He acts on his own. The Court of Appeal is made up of three appeal judges. It goes through many formal procedures. The cost must be several times that of a judicial review. The logjam in the Court of Appeal is very severe. At Second Reading noble and learned Lords referred to the judicial review logjam. No one wants to increase the logjam but if the alternative to one logjam and one cause of delay is another, it is difficult to see what justification there is.
  The point about the Long Title—this is my final point before I go on to the more substantive issue of judicial review—is that the Long Title specifically says that the Bill is creating new rights of appeal for asylum seekers. That is what we always understood Clause 9 to be attempting to do and that is why our reaction to Clause 9 has on the whole been favourable. But what we are now saying is that Clause 9 as amended in Committee—it should not have got past us; we were at fault and should have noticed—is very much less acceptable than it was.
  I turn to the more general issue of the dangers of bypassing judicial review. If one bypasses judicial review one cuts out a whole level of protection—the level of protection in the High Court. The ability of the High Court to scrutinise decisions is a vital step in the due process of law. Even if there were a case for introducing a statutory right of appeal from decisions of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal there is no case for going straight to the Court of Appeal.
  The High Court is presently used in all kinds of other cases —planning appeals, social security appeals, coroner's appeals and so on—and it has not only the advantage that its terms of reference are more wideranging than the Court of Appeal but it leaves open the possibility of judicial review. If Clause 9 remains with the Government's amendments in it the Court of Appeal will be the first opportunity for administrative law arguments—arguments of fairness, procedural impropriety, natural justice and legitimate expectation—to be aired. But these matters—I am now prepared to say this as a statement rather than a question—are outside the remit of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
  Therefore, the answer which the Minister gave to me in response to the last amendment—which was that the Court of Appeal considers those matters which are within the remit of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal—he can now confirm. I am sure that he will be able to do so now that he has got advice; namely, that these matters of administrative law are outside the remit of the Court of Appeal because they are outside the remit of the tribunal.
  If that is the case—and I claim that it is—then the alternative of having the remedy of the Court of Appeal is a very much poorer alternative than having the combination of High Court and judicial review where administrative matters can be taken into account.
  Perhaps I may make one more point. I am sorry to go on for so long but these are extremely important matters which were dealt with in a very summary manner and very late at night in Committee and in a way which it—and it was our responsibility—should

  651
  not have let pass. The argument has been used on a number of occasions that judicial review is undesirable in general terms because it takes so long to get there. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, made that point and we do not disagree with it.
  Since Second Reading I have had an opportunity to study the most recent report of the Law Commission, Series 5, Report No. 126. The commission is concerned specifically with judicial review and does not advocate its abolition. The commission faces the problems which exist of long delays and suggests that instead of restricting access to judicial review, which is in effect what the Government are doing, they should be using more judges to deal with judicial reviews; for example, those judges currently doing family cases. Courts should be used outside London. It is astonishing that so few of these procedures are available outside London. Selected circuit judges and QCs should be used to carry out judicial reviews.
  These are serious matters to be raised late at night either at Report or Committee stage. I suggest that it was the responsibility of the Government, in introducing amendments which restricted access to judicial review, to make that clear when they introduced them. I do not believe that the Minister's speech at Committee, which I quoted in toto, makes clear the implications of the amendments which he moved. Our view is that the only proper thing to do at this stage is to remove those amendments totally and to return Clause 9, with all its defects, to its condition before the government amendments.
  I suggest to the House that the Government were less than open and frank with the Committee in the way in which these amendments were presented. I suggest that their implications have not been made clear. It would be wise for the Government themselves, without forcing us to seek the opinion of the House, to recognise that something is seriously wrong and either to accept this amendment or to indicate enough understanding of the thrust behind it to enable us to withdraw it on a basis that we can negotiate something effective between now and Third Reading. I beg to move.
  Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I intervene briefly to say that the case which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has made is a very serious one and must be taken very seriously. I very much hope that in answering the noble Earl will do so in those terms. I hope that he will respond to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that either the Government must make some concession or some proposal indicating that they have taken on board the implications of what he said. When the amendments were introduced in Committee on 11th February I totally missed their significance. So I was to blame, but I was to blame in good company.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to make only two short points. The first is that in Amendment No. 35 the expression "material to that determination" is used. I am glad to see that he is keeping an open mind on that subject. The other point is that the noble Lord mentioned judicial review and indicated that it was dangerous, or bad to have; but one must remember
  652
  that in a very high proportion of cases judicial review has turned out to be in favour of the citizen—in this case the alien seeking protection—and has not turned out necessarily in favour of authority.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, reinforcing my point. I was not claiming the judicial review was a bad thing but that the silent removal of the right to a judicial review, which is what the government amendments did, was bad.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is a very difficult person to satisfy. I thought that I had satisfied him on the last amendment and had quietened his anxiety. However, he now says he was not satisfied at all, so I despair over trying to satisfy him in this respect. The noble Lord chided me for making a short speech in Committee. If that is a failing I apologise and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I will never chide him for making short speeches—I daresay I shall not have the opportunity to do so.
  In, this amendment the noble Lord seeks to reverse a decision which was taken by your Lordships in Committee, and I wonder whether that is wise. In fact, I find it quite surprising. The effect would be to undo the amendments which were made in Committee and it would restrict the new avenue of appeal to asylum cases only. The creation of an avenue of appeal from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to the courts on a point of law is a change which has been advocated for many years by the Council on Tribunals and by many of those who represent appellants. The Government accepted that it was right to take the opportunity afforded by this Bill to effect a modest and, one would have thought, uncontroversial reform.
  But the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, does not see it that way. Instead of welcoming that extension of the new avenue of appeal, the noble Lord seeks to reverse it. He even mentioned the matter of relevance to the Long Title of the Bill. I can only tell your Lordships that Clause 10 will have the effect that judicial review will be available in fewer cases than at present because of the avenues to the Court of Appeal. But it will still be available in some cases where it remains an appropriate remedy. The Court of Appeal can look at administrative law if it is relevant.
  The tribunal is not the High Court: its jurisdiction is inevitably more limited. But Clause 9 has nothing to do with abolishing or restricting judicial review. In so far as points of administrative law are material to tribunal determinations, the Court of Appeal may deal with them on a Clause 9 appeal. If a point of administrative law is not within the scope of an appeal under Clause 9, the judicial review would still be available. So those avenues of appeal are available, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, agrees that it would not be suitable to take out that which many people considered desirable in Committee.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister is saying something different now from what he said on the previous amendment. On the previous

  653
  amendment I asked whether matters of administrative law could be dealt with by the Court of Appeal. He said that they could if they were within the tribunal's remit. I say to him now, as I said to him a few minutes ago, that it is my firm conviction that they are not within the tribunal's remit. He now says that the Court of Appeal can take into account matters of administrative law if they are relevant. I have quoted what he just said. I do not know what "relevant" means. Under the rules of procedure, on Report I cannot cross-question him on that issue. I am suspicious because his answer is different from the answer he gave a few minutes ago.
  It is a matter which we should discuss elsewhere between now and Third Reading, rather than across the Floor of the House. I pay deep attention to what the Minister said about the ability to seek judicial review, even after the Court of Appeal has considered the matter, if there is a relevant matter of administrative law. I do not know what that means. I do not know the extent to which considerations of administrative law have at some stage been excluded from the process between the tribunal and the Court of Appeal.
  654
  I heard no effective response to my argument about the Bill's Long Title. I did not hear any argument to the effect that a Long Title which restricts certain rights of appeal can possibly apply to a restriction of all rights of appeal under immigration legislation; in other words, in many ways I am deeply troubled by the Minister's response. I wish to talk to him calmly across a table rather than across the Floor of the House between now and Third Reading.
  These are matters of the utmost importance, even at this time of night. I apologise for detaining the House, but I believe that I have been justified in so doing because the Minister's response did not indicate that I am being unreasonably cautious or suspicious about the Government's intentions or the effects of their actions. Pending further discussions to which I know the Minister, with his usual courtesy, will agree—I do not need to ask him—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at eighteen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  UN INHUMANE WEAPONS CONVENTION
  UN INHUMANE WEAPONS CONVENTION
  TREATY OF ROME
  TREATY OF ROME
  DEFENCE INDUSTRIES COUNCIL
  DEFENCE INDUSTRIES COUNCIL
  MINING AREAS: ERDF ALLOCATIONS
  MINING AREAS: ERDF ALLOCATIONS
  WINE GLASSES: STANDARDISATION
  WINE GLASSES: STANDARDISATION
  WINE BY THE GLASS: MEASURE AND PRICE CONTROL
  WINE BY THE GLASS: MEASURE AND PRICE CONTROL
  MURDER STATISTICS, NORTHERN IRELAND
  MURDER STATISTICS, NORTHERN IRELAND
  THAMES REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES: NON-MEDICAL STAFF
  THAMES REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES: NON-MEDICAL STAFF
  ORGANOPHOSPHATES: HEALTH RISKS
  ORGANOPHOSPHATES: HEALTH RISKS
  PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHANGE CONFERENCE: NGO PARTICIPATION
  PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHANGE CONFERENCE: NGO PARTICIPATION
  INTEGRATED POLLUTION CONTROL
  INTEGRATED POLLUTION CONTROL