Sitting of 23 March 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  DAWAT-E-HADIYAH (ENGLAND) BILL
    PWLLHELI HARBOUR (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Community Care
    Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how she intends to promote the interests of the users of community care services.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): At the very heart of our community care reforms lies the principle that all decisions about services must reflect the individual needs and wishes of users of the services and of anyone who helps to care for them.
    Mr. Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important aspects of the community care reforms is that they put the user and carer at the centre of services rather than the periphery? Under the old system, far too often needs were dictated by the local authority and trade unions. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will take steps to ensure that Labour-run local authorities that have the task of making decisions do so in the interests of users and not in the interests of the local authorities themselves and trade unions?
    Mr. Yeo: Extensive precautions have been taken to minimise the risk that any local authority, however doctrinaire or incompetent, can undermine the reforms. We are requiring 85 per cent. of the money being transferred from the Department of Social Security to be spent in the independent sector—on buying from voluntary and private organisations—to ensure that the local authority does not spend it on empire building. We will monitor changes as they take place and we are determined that the best safeguard that anyone can have against users' wishes being ignored is for more Conservative-controlled councils to be elected on 6 May.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: What action will the Minister take to promote the interests of those users of residential care who are to lose their £45 per week residential allowance as a direct result of Government policy? If such people go into hospital or go on holiday and are away from their home for more than six days they may lose their place in the
    748
    home. Will the Minister act to convince users and carers that 1 April is more than just an attempt to reduce the Government's income support expenditure? He can do so by listening to demands for advocacy arrangements, assessment appeals, reassessments and reviews. Is not the Government's total lack of real commitment to change quite obvious from the fact that they discourage the recording of unmet need, which is surely the first port of call for improving community care and genuine reforms?
    Mr. Yeo: I am not sure which of the hon. Gentleman's five questions displays the greatest ignorance of the changes that we are about to make. There is no question of any financial saving being achieved in the short term by the policies, as all the money that would have been spent by the Department of Social Security on the higher rates of income support has been transferred to local authorities. In addition, we have added a further £140 million to ensure that they can carry out the assessments. It will be for the local authorities to make the necessary contractual arrangements with residential homes to ensure that the position of people who enter hospital for short periods is protected. We have resourced the authorities to do the job and I have every confidence that the vast majority of Conservative councils will grasp their responsibilities enthusiastically and deliver a high standard of care which meets individual needs.
    There is no confusion about unmet need. Decisions are based on an objective assessment of an individual's need. It is a matter for the authority if, for the purposes of planning its services in the longer term, it wishes to keep some record of needs which it would be desirable to meet but which it is not necessary to meet immediately.
    Mr. Butterfill: Will my hon. Friend advise Opposition Members to visit Dorset, and Bournemouth in particular, where they can see in action an outstanding example of community care—an example that can serve for the whole of the rest of the nation? That has been achieved by a Conservative-controlled county council which is wholly free of debt, unlike councils controlled by the Labour party.
    Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is so persuasive that I have had a word with the Secretary of State and she has agreed to pay a visit to Bournemouth on Friday. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the financial position of Dorset county council. Across the country, expenditure on social services has risen by two thirds in real terms since 1979. In the past three years the standard spending assessment for personal social services has risen by one fifth in real terms. On top of all that, we are transferring a further £565 million to local authorities in England to deliver this new reform.

    Treatment (Delay)
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to ensure that no patients with urgent conditions are having their treatment delayed due to the early completion of contracts.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Emergency cases are treated immediately and urgent cases are treated as soon as possible according to clinical need. In a letter to the chairman of the Joint Consultants Committee on 23 February, I made it clear that, whatever the particular social circumstances, there

    749
    can be no question of patients requiring urgent investigation or treatment having it delayed because they come forward towards the end of the financial year. We have issued further guidance to the NHS on managing activity and change, and the JCC has supported that guidance.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Secretary of State find it satisfactory that hospitals scrabbling around for money to keep going until the end of the financial year get GP fund holders to give them patients while GPs who are not fund holders but have more seriously ill patients have to wait longer? Will she advise the Secretary of State for Scotland to learn from this fiasco in England and not to impose it on Scotland?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I find it extremely satisfactory that we have the fewest ever patients waiting more than one year. I find it extremely satisfactory that from 1 April no one will wait more than 18 months for a hip, knee or cataract operation. I find it exceedingly satisfactory that the trusts have gone ahead and dealt with more patients. In the first nine months of the year, 325,000 more patients were treated than in the year before. Certainly we need to match activity and resourcess. The agreement with the JCC on GP fund holders makes it clear that patients will be treated without disadvantage to other NHS patients.
    Mr. Lidington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at Stoke Mandeville hospital, which has had financial problems in the past year, staff have managed to cut waiting lists and waiting times and to increase the number of patients treated by more than 2,000? Is that not a tribute to the efforts of all the staff, and will not the service that they provide be improved still further when the £29 million capital spending planned for Stoke Mandeville comes into operation?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right, and I can confirm his figures. Stoke Mandeville has made excellent progress. As with other hospitals, and as it has ever been in the NHS, activity and resources must be managed through the year, but Stoke Mandeville, like so many other hospitals, is treating more patients to a higher standard and cutting waiting times. The staff are to be warmly congratulated. Once again, the NHS reforms have shown that they result in better and more patient care.
    Ms Lynne: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the fiasco of the past few months, with beds closing throughout the country and urgent cases not being treated, will not be repeated at the end of the next financial year?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I can inform the hon. Lady that we have established a working party with the profession, and I quote Stanley Simmons, chairman of the Conference of Medical Royal Colleges:
    "the Conference of Medical Royal Colleges is encouraged to work constructively with the Management Executive to address those issues that have emerged and to that end expect to make positive recommendations in the coming months".
    We want to be sure that work is under way between management and clinicians to ensure that activity is better balanced. I am sure that the hon. Lady would be the first to pay tribute to the fact that more patients are being treated and waiting times have been coming down. It is just a question of ensuring that the contracts are better adapted throughout the year.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Lancaster Acute Hospital Trust on achieving 2·5 per cent. above target and 25 per cent above target with day cases? Thanks to the Lancaster health authority putting in more money, no urgent or emergency patients are waiting and it is still increasing its patient load.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Once again, my hon. Friend has it exactly right. More money is going in; £100 million a day being spent on the NHS. What is important is not only the money going in, but the organisation and the output of the resources. There is no doubt that NHS trusts are delivering better, higher quality care. Patients are being treated and waiting times are coming right down.

    Dental Checks
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental checks were carried out on non-exempt patients in (a) 1991–92 and (b) 1988–89.
    The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): From the information available, it is not possible to differentiate between those dental examinations provided to exempt and non-exempt patients.
    The total number of dental examinations carried out in 1991–92 in England and Wales was 20·9 million, and in 1988–89 it was 22 million.
    Mr. Chisholm: What impact does the Minister expect the imposition of 80 per cent. dental charges and the lack of NHS dentists to have on the number of people coming forward for dental checks? What are the health and financial implications of people not seeking dental treatment because they are deterred by the 80 per cent. charge until they need emergency treatment?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will be encouraged to know, as I am, that in the six months during which the regrettable attitude taken by some dentists in the NHS has been progressing, the number of adult patients registered in England has increased by 600,000, contrary to the perception that many people have. We remain of the view—as I believe the Labour party does, although it will not say so—that those patients who are capable of making a contribution towards the cost of their dental treatment should do so.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: How many dentists are now being employed directly by family health services authorities?
    Dr. Mawhinney: As my hon. Friend rightly implies, the FHSAs have the ability to employ salaried dentists. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] The last time I saw the figure, which was about 10 days ago, it was something over 60. If the figure has moved significantly since then, I will write to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. McCartney: I thought that the Minister was coming to the Dispatch Box to apologise for the imposition of the 80 per cent. charges. During 1991–92, 1 million nursing mothers and pregnant women used dental services. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, a personal friend of the Minister of State, is recommending the withdrawal of free dental services for that group of women. Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that, after the Bloomfield report, those women will retain their right to free dental

    751
    treatment and that he will not impose on them the 80 per cent. charge, which in effect is an 80p in the pound health tax?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have already started to consult on the Bloomfield report, just as we promised that we would. If he would like to come to give me the views of the Labour party, I should be more than happy to hear him, as indeed I was when I consulted the Labour party on the Tomlinson report. We have not yet made any decisions; when we do, we will let the hon. Gentleman know.

    GP Fund Holders
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of general practitioner fund holders in the Wessex health region.
    Dr. Mawhinney: There are 32 fund holders in Wessex at present and a further 23 are preparing to join on 1 April.
    Mr. Hunter: Can my hon. Friend confirm that there will soon be 11 fund-holding practices in and around Basingstoke, serving 65 per cent. of the population? Is that not further evidence that the argument has been won and that doctors and patients increasingly realise that the health service is better when general practitioners become fund holders?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have no doubt that he has contributed to the thinking in Basingstoke and in the area which has resulted in that marvellous record of GP fund holders. In so doing, my hon. Friend will have acted in the best interests of his constituents, because there is no doubt that the patients of GP fund holders receive better services and appreciate those services more than used to be the case.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: Has the Minister received any representations from GP fund holders to the effect that they increasingly find themselves under pressure from patients who want to know where they will be referred, to choose their surgeon and to know—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his question to the Wessex health region. He has not yet used the word Wessex.
    Mr. Wardell: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for that advice.
    Has the Minister received any representations from Wessex GP fund holders to the effect that they are under increasing pressure from patients demanding certain pills and certain surgeons to carry out certain operations? What protection will the Minister offer to those GP fund holders when that pressure in Wessex arises?
    Dr. Mawhinney: Doctor magazine carried out an extensive survey of patients of GP fund holders, including those in Wessex, and found that 70 per cent. of them had experienced a decrease in waiting times, 60 per cent. had experienced improved services, including follow-up appointments, and more than 50 per cent. of fund holders were providing additional services, such as physiotherapy and consultant clinics in surgeries. Given those results and that reflection of patient satisfaction, and given that
    752
    extension of GP fund holder services in Wessex and around the country, it would be surprising if those patients were complaining.
    Mr. David Martin: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the Labour party's continued opposition to his excellent reform, experience in Portsmouth of fund holding is similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter)? Will the minimum size of practices eligible to become fund holders be reduced so that fund holding can be enjoyed by practices with lists of fewer than the present minimum of 7,500?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says about his part of the country. The size of qualifying fund-holding practices will be reduced on 1 April and we are looking for further ways to make it possible for practices with fewer patients to combine in various ways so that the benefits of fund holding can be made as widely available as possible.

    Benzodiazepines
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will establish an independent committee of inquiry into the effects of the benzodiazepine group of drugs.
    Mr. Yeo: I have no plans to do so. The Committee on Safety of Medicines is an independent advisory group which has reviewed the safety of benzodiazepines. To reduce the problem of dependence, it recommended restrictions on their use. The committee continues to monitor the situation.
    Mr. Griffiths: As problems existed more than 10 years ago, is it not a pity that the committee did not report much earlier? As the Legal Aid Board is likely to deprive more than 6,000 people of cases against companies such as Roche, would it not be a good thing and a matter of Christian charity for the Minister to undertake an inquiry so that people such as my constituent Mrs. Molly Jones, who has had her life shattered by the use of such drugs, can gain some compensation without incurring huge legal fees in pursuing companies such as Roche?
    Mr. Yeo: Questions about legal aid are for my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, who answers for the Lord Chancellor in the House. The number of benzodiazepine prescriptions dispensed has fallen by 40 per cent. since 1979, so I think that the change in prescribing practice does go back to the period to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Detailed guidance on prescribing is given in the British National Formulary, which is a major reference source for drugs and is issued free to all doctors. I think that it is clear that we have responded to the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
    Ms Primarolo: The Minister will acknowledge that the dangers of dependency on benzodiazepines are well known. The request for the inquiry is based on the understanding that the drug has been licensed for a long time and has caused immense agony and problems in the lives of many people, especially women.
    Will the Minister consider taking a number of steps further to control the prescribing of this drug? First, will

    753
    he request that GPs be required to hand-write the prescription script so that it is drawn to their attention? Many people are given repeat prescriptions when they should not be. Secondly, will he ensure that the time is limited to 10 days, which is the recommended period for the safety of these medicines? Thirdly, will the Government consider banning the capsules which are so dangerous and are so misused, particularly by young people, in the abuse of drugs?
    Mr. Yeo: The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has proposed that some benzodiazepines should be rescheduled, which would give a stricter regime and would involve the hand-writing of prescriptions. That will be considered. The question of the period over which these drugs should be used is also subject to guidance given to all doctors. It is now generally regarded as best practice to confine the period of use to a relatively short time. The guidance is not confined to the British National Formulary. In the mental illness key area handbook, which was published earlier this year following the identification of mental illness as a key area under the White Paper "The Health of the Nation", suggestions have been made that family health services authorities should discuss with general practitioners local targets for reducing benzodiazepine prescriptions.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts are due to start in the west midlands region in April; and if she will make a statement.
    Dr. Mawhinney: From 1 April, 15 units will become operational as national health service trusts in the West Midlands regional health authority. This will bring the total number of trusts in the region to 25.
    Mr. Luff: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I invite him to welcome the application from Worcester royal infirmary and my local ambulance service for trust status from April 1994. Does he agree that this will result in a significant improvement in the quality of health care for my constituents? Bearing in mind that trust hospitals in the West Midlands region have increased the number of patients treated by some 5 per cent. compared with a little over 3 per cent. for the region as a whole, does he agree that it is time that the Labour party applied the test set by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—that trusts should be judged by the number of patients they treat—and admitted that the Opposition got it wrong and we got it right?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in all the points that he makes, particularly the last one. I have no doubt that his constituents will benefit from the fact that Worcester royal infirmary has applied for fourth-wave trust status. I know that he will be pleased, as I was, to learn that the West Midlands regional health authority has agreed a capital scheme for his district general hospital in Worcester, that it will not be affected by the capital moratorium and that work on it will start soon.
    Mr. Burden: As the Government are now encouraging extra national health trusts in the west midlands, will the Minister comment on the assurances given by the former chair of West Midlands regional health authority—described by the Secretary of State as someone who has
    754
    made an outstanding contribution to the health service—who said that no further trusts in the Birmingham area would be supported until a major hospital rebuilding programme was nearing completion because trusts were incompatible with strategic planning? What has changed? Is it the strategic planning which has gone out of the window or is it the hospital rebuilding programme? Or is it just another broken Tory promise?
    Dr. Mawhinney: No, it is just another example of the incapability of the Labour party to put the patient first. In terms of the number of patients treated, waiting time figures and the quality of service offered to patients, all the evidence shows that trusts are delivering the quality of service that patients want. From this April, they will become the normal mode of delivering health care in this country. We know that the Opposition do not like that, but patients do.

    Treatments (Mersey Region)
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in the Mersey region in the last year for which figures are available and the previous year.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): The figures are 397,000 in 1990–91 and 425,000 in 1991–92: a rise of 7 per cent. over the year.
    Mr. Brandreth: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging information. Is he aware that the Mersey region has been the most successful region in the country at implementing the health reforms, with more trusts, more fund holders and lower waiting lists? Will he join me in congratulating the staff at the Countess of Chester hospital on the service that they deliver to patients and on the fact that they achieve trust status next week?
    Mr. Sackville: I will certainly join my hon. Friend in that. In the sea of municipal despair that characterised the major city of the region during much of the decade, Mersey regional health authority stood out like a beacon of hope and humanity. They are all to be congratulated on what has been achieved in the region.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister therefore delighted that the trust that was set up in Crewe, which will be forced into an arrangement with Macclesfield against the wishes of the local people, is in the process of sacking large numbers of nurses? Is that his idea of good health care? I assure him that it does not impress the patients.
    Mr. Sackville: I cannot see why the hon. Lady should object about the merger with Macclesfield. In any case, there is no way in which that should lead to a diminution in the employment of nurses.

    NHS Trusts
    Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress in establishing hospital trusts.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what, at the latest available date, was the total number of NHS trusts.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The number of fully operational national health service trusts is 156. This will

    755
    increase to 293 from 1 April 1993. It is clear that trusts are the management model of service provision for the future. With each successive wave, enthusiasm and support are increasing.
    Sir Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend recall the almost hysterical opposition of the Labour party to NHS trusts? Will she contrast that with the widespread welcome and growing enthusiasm for what is proving to be the most successful form of devolved management and local responsibility? Is not the concept so successful that very soon most hospitals will be managed in that way and very soon we will have the support even of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? It will not be long before the Liberal party claims that it thought of the idea first.
    Mrs. Bottomley: To use the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), "They got it wrong and we got it right." National health service trusts are here to stay. They are good for patients and for staff. It must be said that throughout the country NHS trusts are treating more patients to a better standard and are reducing waiting times. I will wait and see whether we will convince the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) at this stage.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that the first wave of hospital trusts cost the British taxpayer £1·17 billion just to set them up; that it cost a further £800 million for the second wave and another £1 billion for the third wave, making £3 billion in all which has been taken from taxpayers' pockets just to set the trusts up? The Government are now calling on pensioners to pay more VAT. If those trusts are so good, why do not Tory Members use them? Why do not the majority of Cabinet members use them? Is not it remarkable that the Government have double standards—trusts for people out there, but they will not touch them with a barge pole? That is why I will be voting to take them back into the national health service where they belong.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am very surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments. Having been to a great many NHS trust hospitals and used the services of those trusts, I do not know for whom he is speaking. As ever, he has turned down the opportunity to tell the House what is happening at his local hospital, which will become a trust on 1 April. Like all other members of the Labour party, he always takes the opportunity to denigrate the achievements of the national health service, rather than sing its praises. Let me tell my hon. Friends that the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire royal hospital treated an extra 2,700 patients this year. That hospital, which is to become a trust on 1 April, will have no patients waiting for 18 months and very few waiting for more than 12 months. The hon. Gentleman's constituents who use it benefit from an ever-higher standard of health care. When it becomes a trust, it will, like others, go from strength to strength.
    Dame Jill Knight: Has my right hon. Friend yet been able to persuade, cajole or charm the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) to say whether a Labour Government would abolish trusts? Does she think that the hon. Gentleman's reluctance to speak—
    Madam Speaker: Order. As the hon. Lady is aware, the Secretary of State has no responsibility for the attitude of
    756
    any other hon. Member. Her responsibility is for the policy of her Department. Will the hon. Lady please rephrase her question?
    Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend ensure the safety of hospital trusts, whoever may be in charge of them in the future? The citizens of Birmingham, where trusts are becoming very popular, are determined that we should hold to this policy, as it is undoubtedly the best means of serving patients.
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is almost a year since the general election, yet the Labour party still has a policy-free zone in respect of the health service and NHS trusts. Perhaps on 1 April, when a further 138 trusts are established, the Opposition will declare that they have been April fools and will see the light. I refer Labour Members to remarks of the previous Labour spokesman on health, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who, two years ago, challenged the Secretary of State for Health
    "to measure the success of those trusts that opted out by the simple test of whether they do more or less work on NHS patients."—[Official Report, 17 April 1991; Vol. 189, c. 457.]
    They have done more work. It is time for Labour Members to think about the present and the future and leave their antediluvian attitudes behind.
    Dr. Reid: Apart from devotion to the Conservative party, what are the criteria for appointment to the board of a hospital trust? I put this question because in my area of Lanarkshire there is slight confusion over the announcement that the latest member of the board of Bellshill maternity hospital is a part-time vet. What particular expertise and qualifications will a part-time veterinary surgeon bring to the maternity services of Lanarkshire?
    Mrs. Bottomley: We are greatly indebted to all the public-spirited men and women who have served as chairmen and non-executives. The NHS is a major employer—the largest employing organisation—and it needs good management skills. Board members come from a range of backgrounds. But I understand the difficulty of the Labour party. Whereas Conservative Members appreciate the service of those who bring skills from the private sector, the employment spokesman of the Labour party, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), has said of company directors:
    "We are envious of their wealth. These people are stinking, lousy, thieving, incompetent scum."
    If that is the Labour party's attitude to people who serve in the NHS, I well understand why the nation has no confidence in the party.

    Patient Treatments
    Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in the north-western region in the last year for which figures are available and in the previous year.
    Mr. Sackville: The figures are 711,000 in 1990–91 and 751,000 in 1991–92, a rise of 6 per cent. This is a remarkable achievement on which I congratulate all those responsible in the north-western region.
    Mr. Day: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the House that the number of patients treated in the north-west is greater than ever before? Will he also take

    757
    particular note of the fact that in my health authority we have seen the number of patients waiting for 18 months reduced by over three quarters in the past year? Will he, therefore, congratulate those who work in my health authority? Is not it time that the Labour party stopped running down the national health service? In his response, will my hon. Friend point out to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that many Conservative Members rely totally on the NHS for their health care and are proud to do so?
    Mr. Sackville: I certainly agree. There are many problems that we need to overcome in running the NHS as successfully as we do and 269 of them are sitting opposite us. We hear moaning and groaning and sniping and griping, but never any congratulations on the achievements of those who work in the national health service.
    Mr. Eastham: Is not it time for Ministers to take off the blinkers when quoting some of the figures that they have this afternoon? In Booth Hall children's hospital in my constituency, waiting lists increase monthly. Only last month I exchanged correspondence regarding a doctor who complained that although a child had been referred to the hospital in January 1992, the earliest time that could be promised for surgery was May 1993. Are we saying that this is a success story? If the Minister disagrees with me, let us jump on the train now and check these facts out today.
    Mr. Sackville: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that no one in the region is waiting two years for treatment. A falling number is waiting for one year and we hope to complete the guarantee of 18 months for all hip, knee and cataract opertions. If he will write to me, I will investigate the particular case that he mentioned.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While I entirely endorse all the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), does my hon. Friend accept that more of the patients in my Macclesfield health authority area are treated in the North-Western regional health authority than are dealt with in the Crewe health authority? Will my hon. Friend therefore oppose the merger of the Macclesfield health authority with the Crewe health authority, a merger which is strongly opposed by the local authorities concerned, a majority of the hon. Members concerned and the community health council? Is there democracy in the health service today or is there not?
    Mr. Sackville: Those health authorities that have merged into larger purchasers have found greater efficiencies from doing so and are in a better position to purchase for the needs of the local population.

    Hospitals (Charges)
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce charges for NHS hospital patients.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: There are no such plans.
    Mr. McAvoy: The Secretary of State must be well aware that her Government briefed the media earlier this month that they were considering the introduction of charges such as those mentioned in my question. What assurance can the Secretary of State give the House that NHS charges for hospital patients will not be introduced? Or
    758
    will that promise go the same way as the Prime Minister's promise not to introduce value added tax on domestic fuel?
    Mrs. Bottomley: That is rich coming from the Labour party, which never comes clean on anything. No one yet knows where the Labour party stands on prescription charges. No one knows where it stands on sight charges. I have made the position quite clear. When it comes to manifestos, we remember that the Labour party said in its 1974 manifesto that it would cut spending on the health service, cut nurses' pay and cut doctors' pay. We have made our commitment to the health service clear. More patients now benefit from free prescriptions. The health service will continue to remain available to all, regardless of ability to pay.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the House that the rumour put about by the Labour party that NHS trust hospitals meant that those hospitals would move out of the NHS and would have to have charges was totally false? During her visit to Dorset this Friday, will she pick on any one of the hospitals in that county to visit, because she will find that every single one is an NHS trust which has no charges whatsoever in it?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I look forward to my visit to Dorset. I can confirm my hon. Friend's remarks. The idea of national health service trusts opting out of the health service and charging for services is completely ridiculous. It is the case that in Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Sweden, and Portugal and New Zealand people are charged for hospital care. The British health service will remain available to all, regardless of means.
    Mr. Blunkett: As the much-vaunted Cabinet health committee did not meet and has not considered the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel bills and its impact on the housebound, the elderly and children, how can we possibly believe any of the words used by the Secretary of State for Health who, clearly, has no impact on, or power over, the decisions of her Cabinet colleagues? How can we believe a single pledge from the Tory party's manifesto or the promises given by Conservative Members, in view of what they have done to those most in need by the imposition of that tax on fuel bills?
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is positively bizarre that the hon. Gentleman has tried to steer the conversation away from health. Clearly, it is because Opposition Members have no health policy. We have been waiting almost a year for a health statement from the Labour party. I imagine that the delay is because the home policy committee of the Labour party, chaired by Tom Sawyer, has not yet consulted its trade union members on what the health policy might be.
    All that I know is that we have delivered and beaten our commitments on health. Waiting times are down and services have been developed and we will continue to do just that.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Inward Investment
    Ql. Mr. Wells: To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to lead an overseas visit by a group of business men to obtain overseas inward investment or export orders.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I hope to visit Japan in the autumn, accompanied by a delegation of senior British business men. My ministerial colleagues also take every opportunity to promote Britain and British business abroad. They are planning to lead at least 14 trade missions to 17 countries in the next year covering markets as diverse as Asia, Africa and the far east.
    Mr. Wells: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the signal honour paid to him in being invited to India to take the Republic Day parade, on his flexibility in reorganising his schedule at the last minute to pay a visit to Saudi Arabia with business men accompanying him, and on obtaining a £4 billion order and securing 21,000 jobs, many of them in Hertford and Bishop's Stortford. Does he agree that, with the Budget increases to export credit guarantees of £1·2 billion and the favourable exchange rate, there are many more opportunities for our exporters to increase jobs and opportunities?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The measures announced in the Budget will provide further export cover and cheaper export cover and that is on top of the changes previously made in the autumn statement. They will certainly help United Kingdom firms to win more business abroad and secure more jobs at home.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Is the Prime Minister aware that the non-European Community deficit rose in February to £1·3 billion? Does he realise that photo opportunities and the ongoing pretence will not solve the basic problem in the British economic system? When will he tackle the real issues?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means about photo opportunities. I should have thought that 21,000 jobs and many billions of pounds worth of trade were a good deal more than that.

    Engagements
    Mrs. Browning: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 March.
    The Prime Minister: 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.
    Mrs. Browning: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most unfair that every household in my constituency is having to pay nearly £9 extra on the council tax because Liberal Democrat-controlled Torbay council and Labour-controlled Plymouth city council have set artificially low collection rates this year of under 92 per cent? If those councils cannot collect the rates, why should payers in Conservative-controlled East Devon have to pick up the tab?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I can see no practical justification for the low collection rates set by Torbay and Plymouth. They are unfair to the council tax payers and they are unfair to council tax payers throughout Devon. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not need reminding that for a band C property, Labour councils will cost the council tax payer £100 extra. For 6 May, the answer is clear—vote Conservative.
    Mr. John Smith: Following the massive tax increases announced in the Budget for this year, next year and the year after, will the Prime Minister tell us whether there are any more tax increases in the pipeline?
    The Prime Minister: This, of course, is from the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had plans to increase tax by £35 billion in his shadow Budget. I made it absolutely clear last week in the House that we do not like raising taxes and we do so only when necessary. The Labour party raises taxes because it wishes to spend other people's money on their behalf. We do it only when necessary.
    Mr. John Smith: Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is he who has just raised taxes. Why on earth should anyone in this country believe what he says about future taxation when last week he broke clear pledges not to put VAT on gas and electricity and not to increase national insurance contributions? He made those pledges before the election. He broke them a year later.
    The Prime Minister: As I indicated to the right hon. and learned Gentleman a moment ago, we increased indirect taxes because we felt that we had to in the interests of the economy. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said,
    "in good times the Tories will hope to cut taxes."
    So we will and that is what the public expect of us. But perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can explain how he would honour his manifesto commitment to increase child benefit and pensions if he would not put up taxes and he would not increase borrowing. Either he cannot add up or he has broken every single manifesto promise that he set out. Which is it? Is he innumerate or without principles?
    Mr. John Smith: On the question of principles, does not the Prime Minister understand that this shameless Budget has put at issue two fundamental questions: first, the credibility of the Government and the Prime Minister himself, which is now in tatters; and, secondly, the deep unfairness of putting large increases on ordinary families to pay for his Government's mistakes? Does he not now realise that whatever he says about taxation in the future, no one will and no one should ever believe him?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's noble Friend Lord Desai has called for all zero-rate items to be subject to the full rate of value added tax—not just fuel, but transport, books, children's clothing and food. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman repudiate that policy expressed by his noble Friend—the Labour party's economic spokesman in another place?
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brandreth: In the light of Friday's debate on tourism, will my right hon. Friend join me in saluting the British tourist industry in general and the hoteliers of Chester in particular on taking full advantage of a competitive pound to bring good business to Britain and the best business to Chester? Of course, good news for Britain is very bad news for the monomaniacs of misery opposite.
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to congratulate the British tourist industry on something like 18 million visitors to the United Kingdom last year. I have no doubt that, with the present competitive exchange rate, that figure will be well exceeded this year by the excellent British tourist industry in all parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Jamieson: Will the Prime Minister join me in expressing our condolences to the parents and families of the four teenagers in my constituency who lost their lives yesterday in a tragic canoeing accident in Lyme bay? Will he ensure that the appropriate Government Department puts in place a full inquiry into how the tragedy took place and in particular why it took almost four hours for the emergency services to arrive on the scene?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly join my hon. Friend, as, I am sure, will every hon. Member in the House. Our hearts go out to the parents of all those who died in that tragic incident. I think that it would be wrong, at the moment, to speculate on the causes of the tragedy before the necessary inquiries have been completed. Local inquiries are under way already. The primary responsibility for safety in outdoor school activities lies with the local education authority, or the governing body in the case of grant-maintained schools. In this case, of course, it is Devon local education authority.
    I must emphasise that there is no evidence at this stage that the necessary precautions were ignored. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to consider any action necessary by his Department in the light of this tragic event.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will be aware that leading members of Sinn Fein have said that they find it very difficult to justify any atrocities as bad as the one at Enniskillen in 1987.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that what limits the power of the Provisional IRA is both hard security and what their supporters are willing to tolerate? Will my right hon. Friend join me and people throughout these islands, in Ireland as well as in the United Kingdom, in condemning the kind of action that can kill a three-year-old and substitute bombs and bullets for arguments and for votes? Will he call on all people to try to persuade those still directing the violence to end it now?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that decent families everywhere will have been sickened by that cold-blooded attack on innocent people going about peaceful business on a spring Saturday lunchtime. Even for the IRA, that attack plumbed the depths. To take the life of an innocent child in that fashion and to wreck other lives is absolutely unforgiveable. It was, quite literally, an evil act, made more evil in my judgment by messages deliberately designed to confuse those people who should have helped to prevent that incident from taking place. That behaviour has done one thing: it has provoked revulsion and determination that violence will not prevail.
    I can assure my hon. Friend that no effort will be spared, within the rule of law, to bring the people responsible to justice. If there were a shred of humanity in
    762
    the IRA they would hand over those killers for justice without delay. If they do not, as I fear they will not, I hope that they will know that we shall hound them for the rest of their days until we find them and punish them.
    Mr. Hume: I agree with the Prime Minister and my constituents, who know exactly what the people of Warrington have experienced, will join totally with what he has just said.
    Is the Prime Minister aware that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which is its public housing authority, has transformed public housing there over the past 20 years, in difficult circumstances, to the point where the Governments of the emergent democracies of eastern Europe are now coming to learn from them? Why have the Government begun the process of privatisation of that public authority and laying off the direct labour force, thus leaving unemployed people who are held in such high respect in our society? Given that his Government make so many efforts to reach agreement among the parties in Northern Ireland and that we are totally agreed on the subject, will the Prime Minister respond positively by keeping the housing executive and its direct labour force in existence?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's words about the disaster at Warrington. The whole House knows that he has had direct experience of these matters in the past and speaks with a special knowledge of the matter.
    So far as the housing executive is concerned, the proposals made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State are made precisely because he believes that responsibility can be better carried out in another fashion. It is for that reason and for none other that he has proposed those changes.
    Mr. Allason: My right hon. Friend will be aware that water rate payers in Torbay and in the rest of the south-west are facing increased charges of up to 16 per cent. in bills coming through their letter boxes this week. Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of this increase is due to a European directive? Will he also undertake to ensure that representations are made in Brussels to delay the implementation of the infrastructure investment that is being demanded of South West Water and is being put before the charge payers in the south-west?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend may be referring to the bathing water directive, which is, among other things, very important for the tourist industry. The essential reason for the very high bills in the south-west and in some other areas—and, as my hon. Friend will know, I am examining those at the moment—is the sheer scale of the investment in water and sewerage services which, frankly, was not made over the past 30 years in the public sector.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: The Prime Minister will have seen the disturbing scenes outside the Timex factory in my constituency yesterday. He will know that this has become a bitter dispute following the sacking by the management of 343 hourly paid employees. Those workers, many of

    763
    whom are women, have 20 or 30 years' service to the company. That dispute went through the Government's employment legislation to the letter. I have asked the Secretary of State for Scotland and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and I have asked the Secretary of State for Employment and the Leader of the House to intervene personally, given that those workers have lost their jobs following the Government's employment legislation. Will the Prime Minister now intervene and ask the company to go to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to settle this dispute now?
    The Prime Minister: I note from the reports that none of the people arrested in the scenes at Timex yesterday were workers from Timex. I believe that the ex-convener at Timex said that those dismissed
    "never called for a sit-down demonstration and…do not sponsor violence."
    It seems that rent-a-picket is back and I do not think that that is in the interest of the Timex workers. Workers who choose to go on strike have always faced the risk of being dismissed without the right to claim unfair dismissal. That was the case under legislation enacted by the last Labour Government.

Police Reform
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, I should like to make a statement on the police.
The present framework for the management of the police service in England and Wales is based on the Police Act 1964. This has enabled us to deliver by and large a first-class police service over the last 30 years—a police service of which we are justly proud. However, 30 years is a long time. Society has changed in its attitudes and in its expectations. Crime has increased in absolute terms and in terms of its sophistication. In order to strengthen the ability of our police forces to respond to today's demands, I have undertaken a review of the existing system. I should like to outline to the House in broad terms how I propose to improve the police service.
We all want the police to be able to provide the best possible service—no one more so than police officers themselves. We want the police to protect the public, to prevent crime, and to tackle crime effectively when it occurs. The police must respond to the needs of local communities and of the victims of crime and use to maximum effect the £6 billion which they spend every year. What we need are the conditions in which the men and women of the police service can give of their best.
That means: giving police authorities and police forces greater freedom to decide for themselves how best to spend their money; creating more powerful and businesslike police authorities which will give more leadership to the local police service and ensure that money is spent more effectively; creating a new police authority for the Metropolitan police in line with the new national pattern, thereby strengthening local accountability in the capital.
It also means setting key national objectives for police activity; complementing local objectives agreed by the police authority; measuring performance against these objectives and publishing the results so that the public know what their force has delivered and how well their police force is doing compared to others; reforming the funding arrangements to get the best out of the money spent on policing; and simplifying the procedures for forces to be amalgamated when the time is right.
I am sure the House will agree that the principle of operational independence must remain. No Home Secretary and no police authority must be able to direct a chief constable in the conduct of any investigation or in the handling of an operation. While maintaining that principle of operational independence, we need to make a fundamental shift in the relationship between the Home Office and local police forces—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Running commentaries are not necessary.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: He is forcing coppers to vote Labour.
Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Secretary Clarke.
Mr. Clarke: I do not believe that, if the hon. Gentleman listened, he would change his opinions on the subject in any way whatsoever, so he can carry on talking to himself if he wishes.
I have always believed that organisations run better when responsibility is devolved to local managers. The
766
current financial arrangements shackle police forces. Far too often, decisions that could and should be taken locally are referred upwards.
Chief constables will in future have greater freedom to manage their resources. In consultation with their local police authority, they will be able to decide on the right mix of manpower and equipment needed to meet local needs. They may need more constables on the beat, or more civilian staff to free police officers from administrative paperwork. They may need police cars or computers. In future, the choice will be theirs. That means that the current Home Office control on police manpower will cease, and so will all but the largest capital projects.
At the same time, in order to manage this new freedom, I propose to strengthen local police authorities and give them greater autonomy. They will have responsibility for the performance of their force, and I will hold them to account for the results. Their job will be to ensure that policing responds to local needs and concerns. I will expect police authorities to build on their existing statutory responsibility to consult local people in setting the local policing agenda.
Police authorities need to change to fulfil their new responsibilities. Police authorities should have many fewer members and be more businesslike bodies. There should be broader local representation in their membership, including local people with relevant management experience. I propose that half of the membership should be elected local councillors. The remaining half should be partly local magistrates and partly local people nominated by the Home Secretary on the basis of their knowledge and experience [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—Wait for it. The chairman of the police authority will be nominated by the Home Secretary from among the overall membership—[Interruption.]—and the current Home Secretary will be less obsessed by the political complexion of the appointees than hon. Members opposite.
I have also re-examined the role of the Home Secretary in relation to the Metropolitan police. I propose to establish for the first time a police authority for the Metropolitan police on the new national model separate from the Home Office and with essentially the same tasks as police authorities elsewhere.
Greater freedom to manage must go hand in hand with clearer means of calling police authorities and police forces to account. I propose to take a power to prescribe national objectives for the police service. I will also expect police authorities to set local performance targets. The results will be published, so that comparisons can be made between forces. This will build on the current drive within the police service for better quality of service.
The present funding arrangements for the police are unsatisfactory. They are cumbersome, without giving any effective control of overall expenditure. The present system, for example, encourages the increase of police rather than civilian manpower, and there are no incentives to ensure that the best use is made of resources.
I propose to continue with a joint funding arrangement, with central and local government meeting police authority costs broadly in the same proportions as they do now. All police authorities will in future be constituted as free-standing precepting bodies. The central Government contribution will be set at the level necessary to secure an effective police service. It will in future be cash-limited. The local contribution will be subject to the overall controls on local expenditure.

767
One of my principal objectives behind these structural changes is to encourage devolution of responsibility within police forces to local police units, which will be directly accountable to their local communities. Half the forces in the country, including the Metropolitan police, are already cutting out unnecessary headquarters and management tiers and giving more responsibility to local commanders. As the focus of policing is increasingly shifted from headquarters to local units, the role of the force headquarters will change. They should become coordinators and supporters of local activity, rather than the commanders of local policing.
As a result, we may no longer need 43 separate headquarters maintaining 43 parallel organisations. I have no fixed views about what the right number of forces should be, and I have no plans to use the powers in the Police Act 1964 to amalgamate forces, but I propose that the statutory procedures, which are unduly cumbersome, should be simplified to allow for amalgamation when the time is right.
The House will be aware of the inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir Patrick Sheehy, which is examining police rank structure, pay and conditions of service and is expected to report in May. I will also be issuing shortly a separate consultation document on radical changes to the disciplinary system. Shift systems and training are being overhauled throughout the service. Those and the other changes that I have announced today extend the principles of the citizens charter through the police service and will complement the wider reforms to police structure and organisation. Together, they will constitute the most important reform of the police service for 30 years.
Over the next few months, I will be developing my proposals in more detail. During that period, we will be happy to continue to listen to all views. I will then publish a White Paper and legislate when parliamentary time allows.
My aim, above all, will be to help the police service help us to build a safer and securer society. We must ask what difference we intend our reforms to make to the ordinary man in the street. The answer must be to make his street safer. I commend that objective and the means to achieve it to the House.
Mr. Tony Blair: First, there is no dispute that a change in policing is necessary: the issue is what type of change. I shall deal in turn with each principal matter that the Home Secretary raised.
I welcome the change in the method of calculating public funding, which is long overdue and which will replace a system that discouraged efficiency and was far too cumbersome and centralised. Will the changes in funding lead to a change in the resources needed to do the job? Can I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if anything, to go further on the changes, and to ensure that much greater local automony is given to police services to decide how they spend their money and what it is spent on? Does he agree that there is a need for greater flexibility and less bureaucracy not merely in financing, but also in the ability of police authorities and chief constables to introduce the changes within police forces which present regulations prevent them from doing?
There was a short paragraph in the Home Secretary's statement on amalgamations. Can we be clear exactly what he is proposing, since both the amalgamations and the composition of police authorities bear all the hallmarks of
768
the worst kind of Cabinet compromise? May I at least welcome what I assume to be his backing away from a headlong rush into bigger police forces, but can we be clear—I hope that he will answer this specifically—that the proposals for an enforced reduction in the number of forces from 43 to 25 or 23, which were widely leaked from his Department, will be permanently shelved and that there will be no compulsory amalgamations?
The Home Secretary said that he will retain the powers of amalgamation under the Police Act 1964. Am I right in saying that those powers include a power for him to order amalgamations of police forces if he wants to? Perhaps he will confirm that to the House. Since he has presumably thought about the subject during the past few months, will he tell us his intentions? Does he or does he not intend to amalgamate police forces? The House needs to be told.
Given that the Home Secretary is on record as saying that he believes that there are too many police forces, will he confirm that there is no evidence to suggest that bigger forces mean better service? Indeed, such evidence as there is suggests the opposite—that smaller forces provide as good a service and as high standards of operational efficiency as larger ones, and are closer to the local community.
We certainly welcome the creation of a police authority for London—a big change in policy. However, would it not be better to have a properly elected authority for London which is fully accountable to the people of London? If the Home Secretary and his colleagues are now admitting that a strategic authority for London is right for policing, what possible case can they have for refusing a strategic authority for London for all the services in our capital city?
Does the Home Secretary accept that the fact that he is to appoint the chairman of the police authority and at least a substantial number of its members will mean a significant shift in power from local people to the Home Office? No doubt the Home Secretary will say—as he always does—that local councillors are not well known as members of the police authority.
Let us look at what the Home Secretary proposes. Does he believe that the chairman or managing director of a company, who is perhaps already on a training and enterprise council, regional health authority and heaven knows what else, and who is having to cope with the recession, is more in tune with local feelings than local councillors, who live locally, have to experience the menace of crime locally and are elected by local people?
Who will appoint the new members of the authority? Not the local people, not the police authority, but the Home Secretary, sitting behind a desk in Whitehall. What sort of local accountability is that? Is it not high time that Government policy on policing ceased to be driven by an extreme, ill-judged and damaging prejudice against local government, which is a slur on Conservative and Labour councillors alike?
The proposals as a whole suggest the possibility of larger and more remote police forces, a Government-appointed chairman, Government appointees replacing local representatives. Are we not going too far down the road towards centralised policing that will be out of touch with, and out of the reach of, ordinary people? We need to travel in the opposite direction, with more policemen and women on the beat, more local policing and a greater partnership between the police and the local community.

769
Does not the Home Secretary understand that, at a time when crime is running out of control in many parts of Britain and burglary, theft, criminal damage and other crimes of violence make life hell for many ordinary people in our local communities, the public want the Government to concentrate their energy on those issues? The Home Secretary would gain greater support if he spent less time attacking the responsibilities of the police and police authorities, and more time discharging the responsibilities of government.
Mr. Clarke: I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) agrees that change is necessary in the police force. He has not yet advocated any change, but when he has had the chance to study what I have said, I think that he will find that there is more with which he can agree beyond that which I am glad to say he has already agreed to and welcomed.
I made the statement in advance of the White Paper that I have always proposed because of the debate currently running about the changes that I was supposed to be proposing. That debate runs far wide of what I am actually proposing. When he studies my proposals, the hon. Gentleman will see that I am certainly not suggesting the centralisation of the police service, any more than I would propose the centralisation of any other service.
I am the first Home Secretary to say that I propose to shed responsibility for the Metropolitan police. I propose to give more autonomy to local police authorities—a move welcomed by the hon. Gentleman, as it will be welcomed by the police service generally. I propose to give local police authorities much more freedom to use the resources that they are given. I also propose fundamentally to alter the relationship between the Home Office and the local authorities, but in quite a different—although important—way from that feared by the hon. Gentleman.
Instead of the Home Office being responsible for detailed day-to-day supervision of what every police authority does—almost the only dialogue that exists between the Home Office and counties at present is on issues such as whether or not I agree to let them have more police officers—I propose to give police authorities the money and the freedom to spend it and to set standards, and then hold those authorities to account. That is the fundamental change which I trust that the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will come to welcome.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about amalgamations. I make no secret of the fact that, as part of the process of developing neighbourhood policing, one element that we propose to use to speed up that process will be that the nature of the police headquarters will change. They will become smaller and more supportive; they will not be involved in the day-to-day managing of policing. People want the police in their neighbourhood to be run by a local police commander in a nearby headquarters.
That is why Paul Condon, the new commissioner that I have appointed to the Metropolitan police, almost immediately decided to move 700 people from headquarters out into the divisions doing the policing. When that change takes place, there will be pressure for amalgamations. The present statutory process is not good enough to achieve them, so I propose to simplify the process.
770
I have not studied the maps; I have no view on whether Wiltshire police should or should not amalgamate. The time has come, however, to turn to more important matters such as those on which I am concentrating in these reforms.
The Opposition only appear to come to life when we ask whether Labour councillors should dominate the membership of police authorities. I am going to set up a new police authority for London which will have, if we follow the national model, about half its members drawn from local government under a process that we have yet to consult on. If we decided to have an elected police authority for London, my guess is that the hon. Member for Sedgefield would be even more worried than I. The idea of his friends in Lambeth, Southwark and Camden serving on the police authority would keep him lying awake at night.
We are talking about setting up stronger police authorities, taking half their membership from local government and half appointed for the qualities that they can bring to the service—qualities that might not be contributed by those who happened to emerge from local authorities or from magistrates.
The result will be authorities that are more visible, that can take on more responsibility for their local services and that can be held to account by the Home Secretary.—[Interruption.] That is an improvement on the present. It is all very well Opposition Members baying their support for what they have. Most of their constituents do not know who their police authority is or what it does. A recent newspaper poll showed that nine out of 10 people think that the Home Secretary runs their local police service; only one in 10 know that it is supposed to be a local authority responsibility.
I think that the local councillors on the new authorities that I propose will find that they are in a more responsible position to contribute more to police work in their new role. I also think that this is an altogether more sensible structure to achieve what we all want, which is a better managed and directed police service, achieving higher standards in making our streets safe and combating crime. That is what the reforms will bring about.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The exchanges between the Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman have taken up rather more than 20 minutes. I shall now require hon. Members to carry out our procedures. That means not making statements but putting direct questions to the Secretary of State.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Since we now have more police with more powers, better pay, better equipment and better training, yet crime is rising and the number of arrests is falling, is it not obvious that the next stage must be some structural rearrangement to make the police force more efficient and effective and to give people better value for money? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that what our constituents really want is a more localised police force, with a local police chief who is identifiable and who can make decisions that are important to his locality? Is he aware that those constituents will welcome the proposals as a sensible step forward?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Police manpower is up by 30,000 compared with when we

771
came to power. We spend 81 per cent. more in real terms on the police than our predecessors did. We have a much better police service than we had when we took office. But plainly, our response to the pressures cannot simply be to argue about how many more men and how much more money. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend was right: Staffordshire will welcome the fact that its chief constable will no longer need my permission to recruit police officers. He will be free to make his own judgments about what he wants to spend from the resources he gets, and he will be more visibly accountable for the standards of performance he achieves.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I acknowledge that the unprecedented spiralling upwards of crime makes the continuation of the examination of the future structure, funding and objectives of the police natural and proper. However, does the Home Secretary accept that this is a peculiarly ill-digested approach to reform, dribbling out some half thought out proposals, allegedly strengthening local autonomy while actually increasing the power of the Secretary of State over appointments to police authorities, laying down national objectives and, in other words, taking into his own hands direct responsibility for the policing of the country, which hitherto has been shared around the country? Does he also accept that the local objectives of the police can be measured only if they are following a pattern proposed by the local authorities, and that proper comparisons between authorities will not be made any easier by the manner of his imposition of national objectives?
Mr. Clarke: I think that the hon. Gentleman is expressing fears about what he thought I was going to say, without having digested what I actually said. We are not dribbling anything out. By the summer, we shall have the report of Sir Patrick Sheehy and his team on the leadership, pay, terms and conditions of the police service. We shall have the White Paper that I propose on new structure, new financing, more autonomy and stronger police authorities, held more openly accountable for what they achieve. We shall have the new proposals on police discipline to complement what I have already done on dealing with the incapability procedures, as they are called, for police officers who simply do not come up to the job.
As soon as I can manage thereafter, we shall move on to legislation, in the light of the consultation on all that, aimed at trying to get a stronger police service. Faced with that, the hon. Gentleman's meanderings through the subject, exploring what changes might or might not be needed, did not match the urgency of the task, which is to tackle today's levels of crime by a stronger and more effective police service.
Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the key to his objectives, as announced today, is a stronger police system, leading to a better control and the reduction in crime that the public wish to see tackled? Does he further agree that the character and nature of the police authority has to model those objectives, and that the chief officer of police will have to remain operationally independent, as he or she has always been, and that the police system has never been part of the local government structure in the manner of an environmental health department?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with all those points, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the contribution that he makes to debates on the subject, now as at other stages. I know his opinions well, because I have consulted him closely throughout, and I know that he thinks that I am being nervous in the extent to which I have so far contemplated change. Nevertheless, I hope that I have his support for what I have announced, in that it is going in the right direction. He underlined some key principles on getting stronger accountability for the police service.
Mr. John McWilliam: I am certain that the Home Secretary will join me and the House in condemning the murder of the police sergeant in my constituency on Saturday night. In that context, will he tell the House how his proposals to introduce business men on to police authorities will get more policemen on the beat when they are needed, where they are needed and at the time they are needed? How will authorities be able to afford those policemen, given the financial constraints that he has announced and the existing tax capping of local authorities?
Mr. Clarke: I said that the authorities should be more businesslike, in that their job is to take decisions about priorities and spend the money effectively. It is by no means the case that I will appoint only business men. The approach that I shall adopt to such appointments will be to see who, by chance, emerges from the local authority side of the membership and who emerges from the magistrates' side of the membership, and then to decide what individual skills and abilities need to be appointed to make a strong, all right authority to complete the total. We shall then choose a chairman—a local councillor, a magistrate or one of my appointees. That is how we shall go about it.
I agree that the key question here, as it is about everything that happens in any headquarters, however it is administered, is what that means on the ground. It should mean that the headquarters listens more closely to local opinion, which will say that it wants more officers on the ground, a more visible presence, prompt replies to 999 calls, a good level of detection and success when investigating crime in the locality. We shall measure performance in all those sectors.
The police officer on the beat, in the exposed position described by the hon. Gentleman, will know more clearly what is expected of him, will know that the person directly in charge of him has far more responsibility for how things are organised, and will know that his performance will be measured according to his success in creating the good relationship with his locality and in delivering the kind of the results the people want.
Many policemen will find that more attractive than some of the 43 headquarters that we have at the moment, because it is a fair criticism that some police officers would make that we have a top-heavy structure dotted around the country in far too many places.
Mr. John Greenway: As a former policeman and the father of a policeman, I can tell my right hon. and learned Friend that this is the best news that the police have had for many a year. Does he agree that, when his proposals come into effect, they will expose those police authorities that are not up to the job, but police authorities

773
such as North Yorkshire, which do an excellent job, will warmly welcome the ability to spend their money more wisely and to deliver a more effective police service?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I share his opinion on the likely response, not least in North Yorkshire, which has shown itself to be a go-ahead force, where the chief constable has introduced many changes, and regards itself as continually trying to enhance the service to the population it serves. It has not shied away from change in order to do so, and I hope that it will find that my proposals go very much with the grain of what a force such as North Yorkshire has been doing.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement that he would tell the House "how I propose to improve" the police service must have sent shivers down the spine of the police service, coming as it did from a former Secretary of State for Health who said that he would improve the health service and left it demoralised and inefficient, and from a former Secretary of State for Education who said that he would improve the education service—
Hon. Members: He did.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have already cautioned the House that I am becoming a little intolerant in the way in which statements are put to Secretaries of State. I want questions, not long statements.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Absolutely, Madam Speaker.—and left the education service inefficient and demoralised? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how that fiddling and meddling interference with democratic structures and bringing in his own nominees will solve or prevent one more crime?
Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman belongs to that generation of the Labour movement which became so reactionary that it resisted any change of any kind to any public service. I am only glad that he never had the opportunity to try to improve the foreign policy of this country.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that greater autonomy for chief constables to spend resources as they think fit in consultation with the new stronger police authorities will be most welcome, and will make a considerable contribution towards the improvement of the police service? What does my right hon. and learned Friend have in mind with regard to the radical changes, as he describes them, in disciplinary procedures? Is he aware that such procedures are a matter of great concern to the police? Can he give the House an assurance that there will be no lowering of the standard of proof in cases which involve dismissal?
Mr. Clarke: I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his knowledge of the police service, is right when he says that greater autonomy will be widely welcomed. One of the things that chief constables complain to me about all the time is that, if they reorganise their headquarters and dispense with a post of chief superintendent, they can appoint only one constable in his place because of the
774
Home Office controls on overall numbers. That is an absurdity, which, with many others, will be swept away by my proposals.
Discipline is an important matter, which is why I announced today that I shall be publishing a consultation document specifically on that subject. Disciplinary procedures, particularly in the more serious complaints against police officers, are legalistic and take a great deal of time. Cases come to me years after the incident complained of, the police officers in question suffer the unbelievable stress of being suspended while their cases are considered, and the outcome is often so long after the event that it is regarded as unsatisfactory by the complainant and everybody else. Those important matters need to be approached by a less legalistic, convoluted and lengthy process, but obviously it must be fair, and it must be widely acceptable within the service.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Now that the Home Secretary has accepted the principle of a police authority for London, why does he not go a step further and allow the people of London to elect all the members of that authority through an elected authority for London as a whole? It cannot be right in a democratic society for half the members of a police authority to be appointed directly by the Home Secretary.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman and I both believe in democracy, but we do not see it in exactly the same way. The House is an elected House, but it does not manage anything except the Palace of Westminster—which, it could be argued, it does not manage very well. It is an elected body to which those who are responsible for various Departments are answerable and accountable. I do not believe that, in the case of local services, putting people in elected positions to run the management and be solely responsible for day-to-day decisions in the police service is the best way of proceeding.
I also think, without repeating what I said to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), that there would be peculiar difficulties in allowing some of the elected representatives of London loose on the police service. They have hardly been an all-fire success in running the services for which they are already responsible, in Lambeth, Southwark, Camden and elsewhere.
Sir Jim Spicer: The keynote of what my right hon. and learned Friend said was his comment that he wanted the police to be more powerful and businesslike—I think we would all applaud that—but being more powerful and businesslike does not necessarily mean being larger. A police force like the Dorset police force—which is small, extremely efficient, very powerful and already businesslike—would, I hope, escape his attention. On a slightly lighter note, could I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that he might consider instituting annual fitness as opposed to health checks for all members of police forces?
Mr. Clarke: As I have made clear, I have no views on whether the Dorest force is or is not the right size. I have not even begun to look at amalgamation. I think some amalgamations will be required, and I propose to simplify the procedure. I prefer to approach these things from the bottom up. The first thing to get right is the local command and the organisation and distribution of officers in a particular neighbourhood, with the person who is

775
clearly in charge given more autonomy. Above that there will be smaller headquarters, whose role will be to lead and support those on the ground in specialist ways and hold them to account for their performance. That will cause us to readdress the present imbalance in the distribution of police forces, which is largely historic. In some cases they match the counties; in others they do not. In some cases they have local government representatives on the police authority; in London they do not.
What will emerge is that we will have fewer headquarters eventually, but it is a second order question. The first things to get right are the structure, the standards we need to set, the way in which we are to hold people accountable, how to delegate responsibility further down the chain, how to get more resources and manpower deployed where it matters most, on the ground actually fighting crime. I think it is likely that thereafter people will come to me stressing the need for amalgamations to avoid duplicating headquarters functions in different existing forces.
Dr. Lynne Jones: May I tell the Home Secretary that his proposals for so-called businesslike police authorities, with Government-appointed chairs, will go down like a lead balloon in the west midlands, where we have seen similar leadership by Government-appointed business men? Sir James Ackers's leadership of the health authority led to the wasting of millions of pounds, was a complete shambles, showed a lack of concern about public opinion and has resulted in a lack of confidence in the west midlands in an authority appointed in that way.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how his proposals will help authorities such as those in the west midlands to be more vigilant over the practices operated by senior police officers which have led in the past to scandals such as those involving the serious crime squad? In my view it is exacerbated by an unelected component of the police authority—the magistrates—and has led to a lack of grip by police authority members over their affairs—
Madam Speaker: Order. I call the Secretary of State.
Mr. Clarke: First, I propose to appoint men and women to be chairmen of authorities. I do not propose to appoint anybody to be a chair. It is also a rather extraordinary theory, which I will listen to at greater length on a more suitable occasion, that it is the magistrate members of the west midlands police authority who are responsible for the difficulties that have occurred in relation to the serious crime squad in the west midlands under the existing structure.
Sir James Ackers did an extremely good job as chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority. He presided over the most dramatic capital programme throughout the region, which transformed the region's health services for the better in comparison to the work of the old regional health authority before he took over. It is churlish of the hon. Lady to describe his performance in the way she did.
Sir George Gardiner: In his search for a more rational and devolved policing structure, which I am sure most of us would totally support, is my right hon. and learned Friend prepared to consider submissions from people like many of my constituents who find themselves
776
on the fringe of the Metropolitan police area and would very much prefer to be policed by their own county constabulary?
Mr. Clarke: I am prepared to consider such submissions from my hon. Friend or anyone else. I have a completely open mind about that. I expect that, once we move towards setting up new police authorities, I will receive many representations from the home counties about precisely where the borders of those police authorities should run.
Mr. David Trimble: I noticed that the Home Secretary said that he will hold local police authorities accountable. Does that mean that he will follow the example of one of his right hon. Friends, who removed local councillors from a police authority because they dared to disagree with civil servants? Does the Home Secretary accept that there cannot be effective local accountability unless the local councillor representatives on the authority are appointed, and can be removed, by the local authority and are hence accountable to the people in the locality?
Mr. Clarke: Half the membership will come from local government. A particular problem in England and Wales is that we are currently embarking on a process of local government reorganisation. Alongside the process of police reform, which will essentially be governed by policing requirements, we will see a changing pattern of local government across the country. It is difficult to predict exactly who the local authority members will he and from where they will be drawn, but half of them will be elected local councillors.
However, for reasons that I have already given, I do not think we can have in any part of England completely elected local authorities which, at the same time, can enjoy all the autonomy that I am proposing. It is essential to have the right strength and authority to handle the freedom that authorities have to spend the resources as they think best. It is also essential that the Home Secretary of the day holds the authorities to account for national standards.
In turn, the Home Secretary is, of course, accountable to the House. I can always be questioned about policing methods. Given that I provide 90 per cent. of the money on behalf of central Government and that nine out of 10 people think that I run their local police service, it is time that I held those authorities to account for performance and was then held to account by this House.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that we must produce a country that is safe for children, women and the elderly? His statement offers quite good prospects for that. However, does he also agree that the criminal of today is much more mobile because of the motor car and that there is therefore a very good case to be made for regional police headquarters, although of course it is nice to have local accountability?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. We must bear it in mind that criminals do not always have the regard for local authority boundaries that some people wish they would have. Their organisation and equipment are also sometimes extremely sophisticated. We must therefore ensure that the police are that bit more sophisticated.

777
We are now organising large regional crime squads precisely to handle large scale organised crime. It is essential that we do that. It is also essential that the police are organised so that they can match up on the right scale to the threat that they face as a contribution to making the country safer, which, as my hon. Friend says, is undoubtedly our priority.
Mr. Stephen Byers: Does not the Home Secretary recognise that the new powers he intends to give to the holder of his office will be a dramatic extension of Whitehall control over a crucial local service? Is he not aware that his statement will be seen in many quarters as a damaging distraction from the real battle against the rise in crime? Does not he accept that, at a time when what we really need is an active partnership between local authorities, the local community and the police, his statement will be seen as a triumph of political dogma over reason?
Mr. Clarke: I understand that the hon. Gentleman's experience relates more to education than to policing. Thus, when he says that I am talking about a great extension of Whitehall power, he may not appreciate that I am solely the police authority for London, as all my predecessors have been. There is absolutely no local government contribution to the discharge of that responsibility.
The hon. Gentleman may also be unaware of the fact that, outside London, I determine exactly how many police officers may or may not be employed in every county and that, through my office, I exercise the most detailed control over the investment split between manpower and various types of equipment. All that I am proposing to forgo. With the greater devolution of responsibility, some attention must be paid to the strength of the police authorities that are being given more autonomy and to the way in which they are to be held to account for their performance.
Mr. Warren Hawksley: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his statement. As someone who was a member of a police authority for some years, I believe that this is a move in the right direction. When does my right hon. and learned Friend hope to produce the White Paper? Will it be possible to have a debate on it before the recess? Who does my right hon. and learned Friend think will initiate any amalgamations? I am very nervous about the suggestion that there should necessarily be large-scale amalgamations, and I am very relieved that my right hon. and learned Friend has not announced a low number of forces.
Mr. Clarke: I hope to produce the White Paper in June, by which time I hope the report of Sir Patrick Sheehy and his group will have been published. I understand that Sir Patrick is trying to achieve publication a little earlier. I hope that, when the White Paper is published, consultations concerning disciplinary procedures and so on will be well advanced. I understand that there may well be demands for a debate. As my hon. Friend will know, however, I am not responsible for the disposition of parliamentary time—I am extremely glad that I have no
778
such responsibility at the moment. However, I look forward as much as my hon. Friend to a debate at a convenient time.
We have still to have consultations about what I have described as the new, simplified amalgamation process. There must be some power to initiate discussions about amalgamations, apart from the question of locality. I remember quite well the last occasion, in the early 1960s, on which this question arose. At that time, nobody was in favour of amalgamation anywhere, and all proposed amalgamations were fought like mad. If one were to consult a map of the then police force areas of the United Kingdom, one would realise that nobody would dream of re-fighting many of the battles that were fought to keep small local forces.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the Home Secretary admit that his reason for bringing these proposals forward today has more to do with his position and the Tory Cabinet shuffle than with anything else? Can he give a guarantee that anyone he appoints will not be associated with freemasonry? How did Sir Patrick Sheehy get this job? He is only a tobacconist. What are his qualifications?
Mr. Clarke: Sir Patrick Sheeehy is altogether more experienced in management and in the running of large organisations than either the hon. Gentleman or myself. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not asked any question about the police—in particular, the Derbyshire police.
A key fact arising from the changes in funding is that, in future, police authorities will be free-standing bodies, so there will not be the virement to or from police funding, vis-a-vis other local services, that takes place at present. Thus, for example, in Derbyshire it will not be possible for what I hope will be the successor body to the Derbyshire county council to reduce spending on police—to spend less than the Government think it should spend—and to use the money to subsidise school meals and charge artificially low prices. This will result in a big improvement in the management of policing in Derbyshire, where improvement is very necessary.
Mr. James Pawsey: What effect does my right hon. and learned Friend think his statement will have on overall police numbers? Can he confirm that, in future, chief constables will have much greater freedom to appoint more officers and much greater freedom in the selection of equipment, such as the side-handled baton?
Mr. Clarke: The level of police manpower will be much more determined by the decision of chief constables themselves. As they receive increased funding, which undoubtedly they will, they will determine the distribution of expenditure between manpower and equipment. In some cases, that will lead to big increases in manpower but not necessarily in all. One reason why the only dialogue that takes place between most politicians locally and most Home Secretaries at the moment is about whether they can have more police officers is because the present system works on the basis that one can have more money for a police force only if the Home Secretary can be persuaded that more police officers are needed. If we just gave them the money, some chief constables would spend it on capital, kit and even new buildings, and not just on police

779
officers. Overall manpower will be determined in future by more local operational judgment of the relative importance of manpower vis-a-vis other expenditure.
We are testing new types of baton. While I am anxious to improve the protection of the police, I continue to be very sceptical about the side-handled baton, which is so visible and such an aggressive-looking weapon that it would be a significant step to start introducing it as part of the uniform of British police officers. It would not exactly be like arming them with firearms, but it would be a step away from the tradition of the unarmed police and the non-aggressive-looking figure that we have on the streets at the moment.
Mr. Barry Jones: In Wales, what consultations has the right hon. and learned Gentleman had with magistrates, councillors and police, bearing in mind the linguistic, geographical and cultural differences from England? Has he guaranteed today more police for Wales, bearing in mind the crime wave that is sweeping the Principality? The Secretary of State for Wales's appointments to hospital trusts generated a great deal of controversy. Will the Home Secretary bear in mind the need to be very even-handed? We do not want more Tory placemen in Wales.
Mr. Clarke: There will be a full process of consultation in Wales as elsewhere. I will certainly pay regard to the distinctive features of Wales in carrying out that consultation. I have already had meetings with south Walian leaders of the police service in respect of other matters causing controversy there, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will also be involved in the process.
As for appointments, one effect of moving police authorities a bit further away from being a committee of the local council will be, in my opinion, to depoliticise to some extent the day-to-day running of the service. Indeed, it is that which often causes the initial outbursts of rage among Opposition Members. I too have made appointments to hospital trusts. I have appointed quite a number of ex-Labour MPs in my time, and certainly quite a lot of Labour supporters
We have moved on from this rather ridiculous canard where Opposition Members can only wonder, when we mention appointments, whether they are of their political colour or ours. We have been in government for longer, and we are more responsible about these matters than our opponents plainly would be, if they had the chance.
Mr. James Paice: If my right hon. and learned Friend is, quite rightly, going to give far more responsibility to chief constables, should he not at the same time make it easier to get rid of those few who may prove to be not up to the job?
Mr. Clarke: That runs from top to bottom of the police service, as it unfortunately does in any other walk of life, which is why I have more or less finalised proposals, for the lower ranks, for changes to the incapability procedures, as people insist on calling them, which is a way of bringing to an end, in a civilised fashion, the service of someone who is no longer up to being a good officer.
At the top of the police service at the moment we have again long and convoluted procedures if ever one wished to remove somebody, and I will look at them alongside my consideration of the disciplinary procedures. I am sure
780
that Sir Patrick Sheehy is also considering representations made to him about putting very senior police officers on fixed-term contracts. I recently appointed a new Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis who raised not the slightest objection to being placed on a fixed-term contract.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Has the Home Secretary any plans to address the high incidence of freemasons in the police force? I see him smile, but it is so corrosive of public confidence and so deeply resented by honest police officers.
Mr. Clarke: I am not a freemason, and I know little about freemasonry. My general view is that it is entirely a matter for individuals whether they are freemasons or not, and I have absolutely no views about whether police officers should be freemasons, as long as nobody uses that membership or anything else improperly in the course of his or her duties.
Mr. John Butcher: If my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement today means that we may get back a Coventry and Warwickshire police force, it will be warmly welcomed by my constituents. My right hon. and learned Friend is under great pressure to do something about juvenile crime and about unpicking the defects of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. What will he see as his first priority in the limited legislative time available to him?
Mr. Clarke: I remember the controversy about the Coventry and Warwickshire police force many years ago. We may or may not see that reopened. I did not realise that those passions still ran high.
So far as legislative time is concerned, I have a large number of proposals which, in due course, will occupy some legislative time in the House. But that will be when time allows, and those matters are not within my control.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I give the Home Secretary half a cheer for introducing a new police authority for London, and remind him of how he used to get his truncheon in a twist when Labour Members suggested that he should no longer be the police authority for London?
When he considers the new police authority for London, will the Home Secretary take into acount London's unique policing role, having to pay for protection of diplomatic services, the royal family, Parliament and so on? In his new proposals for the police authority, will the City of London police authority be assumed into the new authority?
Mr. Clarke: First, I do not recall ever getting passionate in defence of my role as the policy authority for London. I announced today that I have concluded that my office and I should not continue to be the police authority for London. It would be better to have a clearly distinct police authority of the sort which I have described.
While I envisage an authority on the national model, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that more consideration needs to be given as part of the consultation to what I might call the national and distinctive functions of the capital's police force, such as diplomatic protection, which are not shared elsewhere.

781
I have forgotten the hon. Gentleman's final point. [HON. MEMBERS: "The City of London."] I have no views on amalgamations at any stage.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the chairman of Leicestershire police authority is both an elected Conservative county councillor and a successful business man and, as a result, has probably saved the force a lot of money and made it more effective? Is he also aware that, as a Leicestershire Member, I must deal with different police authorities but that the response I get from the smaller Leicestershire authority about constituents' problems is better than that of the larger west midlands authority? Will he take that into consideration?
Finally, is not the most significant part of the statement the determination to improve the control and management structure which runs down through the ranks? If that is implemented, it will not be necessary to amalgamate the police forces because, with improved communications—
Hon. Members: Come on.
Madam Speaker: Yes, come along, quickly.
Mr. Tredinnick:—it will do the trick.
Mr. Clarke: I accept that quite a few local authority elected councillors have considerable business and other skills. Quite a few magistrates have business and other skills. On each individual police authority, the specific mix which emerges is sometimes a matter of chance. There are some police authorities where there is simply not a strong enough or wide enough spread of membership emerging in that way and, for that, appointments can fill in the gap.
I take on board my hon. Friend's view on the performance of police authorities and the desirable size of them. Whether or not the Leicestershire police force combines with the police force in Nottinghamshire, for example, is a matter on which I have absolutely no views. There might be resistance to it on both sides of the border.
I look forward to seeing a comparison between those extremely similar forces on such matters as the response to 999 calls, clear-up rates, number of police officers per 1,000 population deployed on the ground, number of complaints successfully sustained and so on, because the two police forces are roughly comparable. It would be a great advantage to all of us, in holding our police service up to the mark, to see how Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and, dare I add, Derbyshire compare in all those respects so far as their performance is concerned.
Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Home Secretary not see that the problem with the Leicestershire police force and, I am sure, many other police forces which do an excellent job is that they are overworked and underfunded, and that what matters is that they should have the resources to do their job? Does he accept that a force which is undermanned and under-resourced cannot possibly hope to meet the crime wave, whether under the present system or under the one which he proposes, and that we need money and men and women on the beat?
Mr. Clarke: I hope that we will move the whole debate on public services on from that—I carefully persuade myself that we are slowly beginning to do that. Of course, if we ask anybody in any walk of life about their job, they
782
will tell us that they are underpaid and overworked. It has long been a tradition in the United Kingdom that, whenever anybody seeks an improvement in public services, they get back a litany of complaints about underfunding and undermanning.
We have poured manpower and funding into the police service. The police service in Leicestershire is not underfunded or undermanned. It is a perfectly decent police service. We are looking at ways of enhancing its performance, the use of its resources, the value for money we get and keeping it up to ever higher targets.
Mr. Michael Ancram: While I welcome the bulk of my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals, does he accept that there is concern that in his mind fewer somehow means bigger and bigger somehow means better? Does he accept that smaller forces such as Wiltshire provide better value for money per officer and a better clear-up rate than many of their larger counterparts? Will he assure the House that he will allow his performance and objective exercise to proceed before he considers amalgamations, so that he does not throw out valuable babies such as Wiltshire with the bath water?
Mr. Clarke: I am glad that my hon. Friend, in seeking to defend the present size of the Wiltshire force, is content to look to its performance. It is obvious that the case for change in a police force which can demonstrate that it is achieving high standards by national standards will not be strong. The force will be able to make the best possible case for its retention. I believe that, for the day-to-day management of the police service, small-scale, very local delivery is best.
The local commander in the sub-division, or whatever the local force calls it, should have much more autonomy over everything from setting his budget to how he deploys his officers. He or she should remain in post for longer than usual at present, get to know the local community and take personal responsibility for delivering policing in that neighbourhood. Apart from that, however big the overall force is, people will ask many questions about the size of the county or multi-county headquarters, all the people who work in it, and whether we need 43 of them scattered across the country.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Home Secretary's statement about resourcing astonishes me. Will he give me some assurance about the future of the north Wales police? They have been undermanned by 70 constables for five, six and seven years, despite repeated requests from several hon. Members from north Wales. Under the new proposal, will we have yet more gross underfunding and another Government cop-out?
Mr. Clarke: I have already said that funding in the police service has increased in real terms by 81 per cent. since the Government have been in power. Spending on the police service for the coming year has increased by much more than on other local authority responsibilities. We should not continue a political debate in which all that anyone can think to say about the police service locally is that it is underfunded or undermanned.
I am getting rid of the Home Secretary control, whereby I and my office have to determine how many police officers north Wales is allowed to have. We have an absurd exchange each year, in which the police authority asks for a lot more police officers. It knows perfectly well

783
that it will not get them. I always turn it down. The political debate is reduced to nonsense about how undermanned the police force is. In future, we shall give the money to whatever police force delivers the service in north Wales, and leave it to the stronger police authority and the chief constable to decide whether to spend it on men, equipment, cars, buildings or whatever.
Mr. David Nicholson: I very much welcome the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend is looking for those administrative arrangements that will best help the day-to-day pursuit and prosecution—I emphasise prosecution—of crime. I also welcome what he said about local police being accountable to local communities. But is he aware that in Avon and Somerset we will be looking at his proposals with considerable interest, because that is an unhappy relationship? Only this last week, the Avon councillors have vetoed a sensible proposal by Somerset for increasing police resources.
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that we should concentrate on how best the police prosecute their business, in every sense of that word, locally. Already, a much more active debate about the effectiveness of policing in parts of the country is taking place than for a long time. Many more comparisons are made of detection rates, arrest rates and so on than anyone ever thought of making until the recent past.
I shall not intrude into the disputes between Avon and Somerset. I know that it is sometimes an uncomfortable relationship. Somerset believes that it is subsidising Avon, and Avon believes that too much is drawn out to Somerset. I hope that the proposal that only half the members of a police authority should be elected local politicians and that the others should be appointed for other qualities will help to improve the internal tensions inside that structure.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Home Secretary enter into serious discussions with lawyers about the procedures which lead to police squandering time hanging around court? I am told that up to 20 per cent. of police time is spent hanging around court, often needlessly, and police are uncalled when they could be doing other things. How does that fit in with any serious performance relation?
Mr. Clarke: The short answer is yes. Obviously that is not directly within the subject today, but is very relevant to it. It affects police performance. I have frequently had conversations with my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on matters of this kind. I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman that, at the moment, the amount of time spent abortively at court by police, prison officers, solicitors, witnesses and victims is excessive, and we must find some way of cutting it down.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We are now going to move on.

Points of Order
4.35 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether I could draw your attention to Question 120 on the Order Paper for today. This is a question by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) to the Secretary of State for the Environment in connection with the proposed east Thames corridor development. I have been to the Library as recently as five minutes ago, and there was no copy of that reply there, although I understand that members of the press either have the full substantive reply or, certainly, have received a press notice which I have in front of me now, saying that the Secretary of State for the Environment will be announcing "the Government's approach" to the proposals for the east Thames corridor at a press conference at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning at the Department of the Environment.
The point I wish to raise with you, Madam Speaker, is that it seems on the face of it, to say the least, that people outside Parliament are going to be briefed about the Government's proposals for the east Thames corridor before this place is briefed, and that, unusually, a parliamentary reply is not available for hon. Members to see in the Library. Other parliamentary replies which are on today's Order Paper are in the Library.
The press have been told about a press conference tomorrow, and I think that they have probably got a substantive reply. This House is being abused and bypassed by the Secretary of State for the Environment on a major issue affecting hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people along the east Thames corridor in which my constituency is included.
Can I have your help, Madam Speaker? Is this a matter of privilege? Can you get us—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have got the point, thank you very much. Let me assure the House that, if the text of the answer to a parliamentary question has already been supplied to the press, it should also be available to Members of this House. I hope that those who are on the Front Bench at the moment will take note of that and see that it is made immediately available. [Interruption.] Order. I have not finished yet. Hon. Members should not get so excited. As hon. Members know, I would deprecate a Minister making an announcement to the media before making it to the House, but I have also to say to the hon. Gentleman that whether a Minister comes to the Dispatch Box or answers a written Question, is entirely a matter for the Minister, and has nothing whatever to do with the Chair.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I doubt if there can be anything further to that point. I have answered it very thoroughly.
Mr. Banks rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with it very thoroughly. I have dealt with the written Question which should be available to Members immediately. I have dealt with the matter of deprecating statements made outside, and I have made the point that whether a Minister comes

785
to the Dispatch Box or answers a written Question is entirely a matter for that Minister. There can be no further point of order.
Mr. Banks: There was.
Madam Speaker: There was, but now there is not—is that right?
Mr. Banks: You have covered virtually all the points, Madam Speaker, but the Order Paper shows that Question 120 is not the only one that falls into that category. One can only say that there appears there, at the end of Questions, what one can only charitably call the brown nose gang, who are fairly regularly there and are always prepared to put down questions at the behest of Ministers, the night before answer. Is that not something that ought to be referred to the Procedure Committee?
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Member wants to do that, he is entitled to, but I have made the position clear to the House, and I hate to go on repeating myself. Hon. Members often repeat themselves, but it is not for the Speaker of this House to go on repeating herself. But just so that it is made very clear, I should say that it is up to the Minister whether an answer is by a written statement or he comes to the Dispatch Box. That has nothing whatever to do with the Chair. That is the end of it: there can be no further point of order on that matter.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you take a further point?
Madam Speaker: No, I am afraid I cannot. We are now going to move on. There cannot be another point of order. We are going to move on.
Mr. Corbyn rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I have dealt very thoroughly with that matter.

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

Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Land Registry Trading Fund Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  LAND REGISTRATION (COSTS)
  That the draft Land Registration (Determination of Costs) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  CHILD SUPPORT
  That the draft Child Suport Appeals (Jurisdiction of Courts) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  ELECTION EXPENSES (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  That the draft Local Elections (Variations of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Question agreed to.

Children's Playing Space
4.40 pm
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to secure the provision of adequate playing space in new residential developments; and for connected purposes.
I have an interest to declare, not just as a parent but as chairman of the National Playing Fields Association, which is the national trust of recreational space, a charity founded in the 1920s by a group of farsighted men and women who recognised the simple truth that every child deserves a place to play.
This is an issue that unites hon. Members on all sides of the House and always has. Three quarters of a century ago, the former Prime Minister and Member for Caernarvon Boroughs, David Lloyd George, declared:
"The right to play is a child's first claim on the community. Play is nature's training for life. No community can infringe that right without doing deep and enduring harm to the bodies and minds of its citizens."
Informal play is not something trivial; it is not an optional extra. Play is fundamental. Play is essential for a child to develop physically, mentally, emotionally and socially. It is a means of learning to live, not just a way of passing time. That is why every child needs a place to play safely, to allow the body and the mind to develop to the full.
As a society, we cannot have it both ways: we cannot on the one hand deplore young people at worst turning to drugs or under-age drinking, hooliganism or vandalism, or at best sitting listlessly for hours in front of a flickering television screen and on the other deny those same young people the opportunities, the leadership, the space, to grow and develop in the way that we want them to.
Every child deserves a place to play. That is why my Bill will require planners, local authorities and developers to give proper priority in all new housing areas to the provision of adequate playing space. No one nowadays can build houses without making realistic provision for car parking, yet one can build a whole estate without having to provide anywhere for children to play. Do we really care more about our cars than about our kids?
Children need somewhere safe to play and somewhere near to home to play. All the research shows that children, particularly younger children, will not visit the local playground if it is too far from their own back door, and responsible parents are rightly concerned about letting their children stray too far from home. That is why my Bill calls for a tiered system of play provision to provide appropriate facilities for different play needs.
Small, secure sites of no more than 100 sq m—I have called them local areas for play, or LAPs; people who
788
enjoy acronyms will take that on board—would have to be provided on every new estate in sufficient numbers to ensure that the nearest LAP was not more than 100 m from any home. Larger sites, including play equipment—I call these local equipped areas for play, or LEAPs—would be required within 400 m of any home.
To those who ask, "It's a nice idea, but is it realistic?" I can reply that already one developer, Wimpey Homes, and a handful of local authorities have taken the concept on board and are adopting the proposals, without loss of housing space and at comparatively little cost.
The cost is indeed trivial when set in its proper context. Each year, we spend millions and millions of pounds on building superb new roads, but next to nothing on providing places for children to play. To say that this is a life-and-death issue is not to exaggerate. Every year, some 20,000 children are injured and some 300 children are killed on our roads, many of them because they are playing in streets that are not safe for them. This is a life-and-death issue; it is also a quality of life issue.
I fear that we are today robbing children of childhood. We live in a world where children spend three full working days every week watching television; where an increasing number of families do not sit down to eat together; where the proliferation of television sets in every household sometimes means that they do not even view together; where the crude, the ugly and the violent are paraded as commonplace; where popular papers print pages of material that a generation ago would have featured only in adult magazines. In my constituency this weekend, I visited an estate where there are six 14-year-old girls who are already mothers.
We must restore innocence to the young. We must give children back their childhood. We must recognise that every child, however tough the exterior, however sophisticated the veneer, deserves and needs a place to play in freedom and in safety. That is the issue that my Bill seeks to address.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gyles Brandreth, Mrs. Angela Knight, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Alan Howarth, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mrs. Angela Browning, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Keith Hill, Mr. Raymond Robertson and Ms Glenda Jackson.

Children's Playing Space
  CHILDREN'S PLAYING SPACE
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth accordingly presented a Bill to secure the provison of adequate playing space in new residential developments; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time, and printed. [Bill No.168.]
Orders of the Day

  Agriculture Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.46 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Our farmers and our food industry want to be able to compete effectively in the European Community and elsewhere in the world. The Bill will help them to do so by removing present disadvantages and bringing the industry up to date.
  When the milk marketing scheme was introduced 60 years ago, its very characteristics as a monopoly were hailed as the salvation of producers. Times have changed, however, and the scheme is now the farmer's gaoler not his saviour.
  What was essentially a commodity market for whole milk, butter and Cheddar cheese is now a sophisticated consumer market. Who would have thought 60 years ago that nearly half the liquid milk sold would be skimmed or semi-skimmed? In just over a decade, consumption of these types of milk has gone from 1 per cent. of the England and Wales liquid market to 44 per cent. Who would have thought, too, that butter consumption would have fallen away dramatically, while consumption of cream, yoghurt and fromage frais was rising steeply? Indeed, who in this country would even have heard of fromage frais in 1933?
  There have been other changes, too. Our home market now reaches over much of western Europe, which means that, if United Kingdom-based processors are to compete, they must supply what the consumer wants, or others will do so instead. Farmers know better than anyone that we cannot produce as much milk as we should like, or even as much as we can use. Therefore, restricted by quota, we simply have to put our milk to the most productive use. We cannot go on exporting bulk commodity products and getting low prices for them, and importing huge quantities of high-value processed products, giving those who export from other countries the benefit of our market, while we do not get the proper benefit of theirs. It is ridiculous that these low-value exports should have had a priority call on the nation's milk supply, but that is part and parcel of the present system.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Minister is absolutely right. The creamery in my constituency could produce four times as much cheese as it does if it had the milk. Does he accept that, whereas in the 1930s undoubtedly the state monopoly of the Milk Marketing Board worked wonders and saved the industry, there would be real dangers if we now replaced it with a private monopoly without safeguards? Can he give an assurance that, with regard to such things as national milk records and milk testing, there will not be a monopoly in the hands of Milk Marque; there will be an even-handed approach to all companies and an even pricing regime; the assets of the milk marketing boards will not be automatically transferred; and particularly that the confidential
  790
  information that they have will not remain within Milk Marque, giving it an advantage in the marketplace over other companies?
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right in his assessment of the change and of the need to make sure that, after the change, there are not unsuitable monopolistic preferences for one organisation rather than another. When the milk marketing boards produce and present their proposals, I shall look at them very carefully, and it will certainly not be my intention to give an unfair advantage to any organisation, although I shall want to ensure that there is proper continuity between the present and the future. I cannot rule on propositions that I have not yet received, but the hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to realise that I would have no intention of putting individual producers in a position in which they were unable to make a fair and reasonable decision for themselves.
  As the hon. Member for Caernafon (Mr. Wigley) has said, the real question is not whether the scheme should go, but how it has lasted so long. It was excellent to begin with, but it is increasingly out of touch with reality. That is not simply the Government's assessment; the boards have long recognised that the scheme was falling apart at the seams in the face of changing markets, legal challenges and commercial pressures. Nevertheless, those 60 years of history meant that it was not easy for the boards to propose the ending of the scheme and that deserves recognition and praise.
  We now have proposals for change from all five milk marketing boards. The Bill seeks to build on their initiative by enabling them to submit formal reorganisation schemes for Ministers' approval. That approach reflects the Government's desire not to sweep aside what producers have built up over the years, but to give their boards a major say in the future shape of the industry.
  It has been my view all along that there is a balance to be struck between the veritable fact that these boards have had the support and encouragement of producers for many years—they have done many good things; it would not be right for us to ignore their experience or not to listen to what they have to say—and the fact that there are very real problems in the market at the moment, so we cannot, of necessity, agree in advance to accept everything that the boards suggest. There has to be a balance, and the hon. Member for Caernarfon was perfectly right in trying to reach towards such a balance; that is what we are seeking.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Many of us represent rural constituencies which are extremely difficult to pronounce, as the Minister knows only too well. My constituency is Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.
  The Minister says that he does not accept everything that is put forward, but the Scottish milk marketing board put forward a scheme for a vertically integrated co-operative supported by the NFU and the producers. I was given to understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who is sitting next to the Minister, also supported it. Yet because it was referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the Government said that it could not go ahead, and the whole thing was rejected. That was

  791
  taking no account of what the producers think. Why have the Government taken such a dictatorial attitude in Scotland?
  Mr. Gummer: I do not want to start a note of dissent, and I want to stress what a mild-mannered person I am on these issues. It is all right for the hon. Gentleman to say what he did, but I thought that he supported the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and wanted there to be an arrangement whereby the consumer was protected. It was not the Government who rejected the scheme; the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's recommendation suggested that what the board proposed was not conducive to consumers' interests. That is not for me to gainsay. Since the statement was made, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Scotland has in no way suggested that we should override the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Had he or I done so and told the House that we did not agree with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on this issue, hon. Members on both sides of the House would have objected.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I should move on, as I think I have been clear on the issue, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Foulkes: I shall not argue that there should be another Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry, but did not the Government refer the scheme to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because they did not want it to go ahead? Were they not under pressure from Robert Wiseman in Scotland, which wants to undermine the scheme? No doubt that company has some influence in Scottish Conservative circles and is trying to undermine the scheme that the NFU suggested, which is supported by the vast majority if not all the milk producers.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is not right. The board went to the Office of Fair Trading which referred the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The hon. Gentleman should not see conspiracy where there is public accountability of a sort that has always had bipartisan support. I suggest that we accept that the proposals by the marketing boards ought to form the basis of the way in which we proceed, but that does not mean that every detail of the boards' present proposals will necessarily be approved.
  There are important considerations to be taken into account as laid down in the Bill. There is the allocation of boards' assets, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, and the prospect for the development of competition, the interests of consumers and producers and whether the proposed trading practices of successor bodies take account of the interests of milk purchasers.
  The boards' proposals must be considered on their merits when they are formally submitted to Ministers. For that reason, I am not able to tell the House whether I find any particular element of the England and Wales boards' proposals acceptable. The Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland will find themselves in the same position in relation to their boards' proposals and many elements of the present scheme mean that that is inevitable because of the quasi-judicial position that Ministers have in the administration of a scheme which will remain in force until it is replaced.
  Mr. John Marshall: Has my right hon. Friend seen that it was pointed out in The Grocer of 20 March 1993 that Milk Marque had asked processors to say by 15 April this year how much milk they would want in the year 1994–95? Does he not realise that within Milk Marque there are those who have been monopolists and wish to remain monopolists, and who are rather indifferent to the interests of the industry and the consumer?
  Mr. Gummer: I have seen the point that my hon. Friend raises. I hope that he has seen the press release by the milk marketing boards correcting the interpretation of what they have done and making it quite clear that they have no intention of acting in a way that would be contrary to the consumers' interests. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will make sure that they continue in those terms and that the boards have recognised that that must be made absolutely clear.
  My hon. Friend has raised an important point and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will read carefully what the milk marketing boards have said, so that there is no mistake about what was meant by what they said and how they mean to proceed. I assure hon. Gentlemen that I shall make sure that there is no such mistake.
  I am, however, confident that we shall achieve an orderly change to the more competitive marketing structure within which producers and processors alike will be able to take advantage of normal commercial freedom.
  For the first time in 60 years, producers will be free to sell to whomever they want, and processors will be free to buy direct from producers or other groups. I welcome the fact that a number of competing organisations seem likely to be set up. Both Northern Foods and Nestlé announced important initiatives in this respect. It is in everyone's interests for a truly competitive market to develop, not only in Britain, and to enable those competitive bodies to sell throughout the European Community.
  I do not mind at all if people in Britain buy dairy products produced in the rest of the Community, as long as we are selling at least as much in the rest of the Community. This is not a "buy British" campaign; it is a desire to see that the French have the opportunity to buy fine British products, just as we have the opportunity to buy what the French produce. We must put ourselves in a position to be able to do so effectively.
  The ending of the milk marketing schemes will amount to a major deregulation measure, replacing bureaucratic control with freedom of action, and will liberate much creative potential, which is suppressed at the moment, and help our processors and producers to challenge foreign competitors to provide what the consumer wants.
  Two years ago, the present change in attitude would have been unthinkable. At that time, the majority of producers were full of apprehension about the idea of change. Now the debate is not about whether change should take place, but about the form that it should take. Many producers are actively considering the new opportunities that are about to open up for them and the Labour party has changed its view on the matter, in response to that changed attitude. There is a growing consensus on the subject.
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: At several meetings with the Scottish Dairy Trade Federation and farmers' organisations, I have heard great concern

  793
  expressed about what will happen to the boards' assets on their dissolution. Can the Minister give some information or a sign of what he intends to do with their assets?
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that concern, but I cannot make a decision until I see the proposals of the English and Welsh boards and until my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows the views of the Scottish boards. We shall then seek to make a decision that properly reflects the interests of the various parties. We have already made a statement in England and Wales about the future of Dairy Crest's assets, which will be entirely separated from the milk marketing boards for England and Wales. A decision will have to wait until we know the boards' proposals, as they will propose different things. As that is the way in which the law is set out, it is right for us to follow that course. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall carefully consider the proposals and the concerns of producers, who make up the boards and have an interest in how their assets are dealt with.
  Although there has been a great change in attitude on milk, the situation is different with potatoes. I appreciate that producers and others have had less time to think things through and to accept the idea of ending the potato marketing scheme.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I shall not give way yet, as I have some comments to make which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to hear.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Before the Minister goes on to the subject of potatoes, could he tell us whether he has ruled out any arbitration procedure on price in the deregulated milk market?
  Mr. Gummer: In advance of the boards' proposals, I would not like to say that I have ruled out anything of that sort, but I see no role at the moment for further statutory interference in the way in which the market will operate. I shall certainly not be dogmatic, as I am not a dogmatic person, but I would not want to suggest to anyone that I have that high on my list of priorities, and I do not think that I should be led down that route, although the hon. Gentleman may be able to change my mind.
  On potatoes, I appreciate that there has been less time to think things through and to accept the idea of ending the potato marketing scheme, but I think that the House will agree that, in a single market, where there is no possibility of restricting imports, it would be ridiculous for our growers to be shackled by a quota system while everyone else in Europe could grow what they liked, where they liked and for as much as they liked.
  I can suggest only one example to the House. Just suppose that my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I returned to the House from a meeting in Brussels saying that we had triumped and reached an agreement on vining peas, whereby every country in Europe could grow as many vining peas as it liked, except the United Kingdom, where production would be restricted. I do not think the House would regard that as a triumph. Hon. Members would say that the agreement discriminated against the United Kingdom. They would say that it would not be long before pea processors found that they had better
  794
  move their processing factories from the United Kingdom, where production was restricted, to somewhere that it was not.
  Frankly, I have not been fighting against discrimination for two and a half years—after those proposals of Mr. MacSharry—to reintroduce it and to cause this country self-inflicted damage, and that would not be an acceptable way to meet the needs of the potato industry.
  Mr. Alex Salmond rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I shall be happy to give way, but, before the hon. Gentleman gets too uptight, I just want the House to recognise that one could replace the word "potatoes" with any other agricultural or non-agricultural product. Producers in this country have to compete in a single market and one cannot prevent imports, so it would be difficult to suggest that it would be beneficial to them to reduce their ability to compete, and it does not make sense.
  Mr. Salmond: Has not the Minister almost conceded that the vehemence of the attack by him and the Minister of State on the potato marketing scheme is not widely shared in Scotland? In fact, many of us believe that it is not even shared in the Scottish Office. Are we going to hear the viewpoint of the Scottish Office, or is the Scottish Office Minister going to sit there with his face a picture of misery while the Minister once again rides roughshod over Scottish interests?
  Mr. Gummer: As this is the United Kingdom, I hope to apply myself to the loss of market share for the Scottish seed potato industry, which is a matter of great concern to the United Kingdom as a whole, as it is an important part of the potato industry and an important export earner.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will listen carefully, because I am not speaking merely on behalf of England and Wales but for the entire United Kingdom. Ministers representing the United Kingdom, including Scottish Office Ministers, are committed to a healthy potato industry throughout the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is a member of that great European party, the Scottish National party. Is he proposing that the single market—on which the Scottish nationalists are so keen and which they are supporting throughout Scotland and to everyone else who would hear them—will work better if one country suggests that its producers should be uniquely shackled to a system that does not affect any other country? I have rarely heard such an argument for nationalism before. It is nationalism without any advantage to the nationalists.
  Mr. John Home Robertson rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman for one moment, as I want to read my next paragraph, which might help him.
  I wish to examine carefully the proposals put forward by those who do not like my suggestion. In the single market, we need to enable our producers to compete on level terms with their continental counterparts.
  Mr. Home Robertson: What about a level playing field?
  Mr. Gummer: I shall come back to that in a moment, as there was a ten-minute Bill on the subject this afternoon.
  During the past 10 years, imports of processed products, which are the growth area of the market, and of

  795
  seed potatoes, which are particularly important to Scottish growers, have been growing. We need to reverse that trend, and I am sure that our growers can do so if they are freed from the shackles of the quota system.
  Several claims have been made about the existing scheme which need to be countered, and I wish to list them before the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) intervenes and doubtless produces an extra claim.
  The first claim is that the high consumption of potatoes in Great Britain is somehow linked to the existence of the Potato Marketing Board. The argument may seem obviously ridiculous, but I hear it regularly as I travel around the country to listen to people arguing the case. Our potato consumption is due to our historic dietary choice, and it is higher in the Republic of Ireland, which has no Potato Marketing Board. I do not think that, if we got rid of the board, or changed its functions, the people of Britain would cease to eat potatoes. That argument is bureaucratic and I think that most Conservative Members would find it unacceptable.
  The second claim is that our high degree of self-sufficiency in fresh potatoes is somehow due to the board; that is just not true. That self-sufficiency is due to the fact that our producers have the advantage that it costs up to £35 per tonne to bring potatoes across the channel and, therefore, our competitors clearly start at a disadvantage with what might be inelegantly called dirty potatoes. The problem arises with the processed product, because as the value of a product rises compared to transport costs, the home producers' advantage falls. Therefore, it is not surprising that we have a high proportion of the fresh potato market, but import many processed potatoes. Surely that shows that, wherever the added value is sufficient to counteract the transport costs, our producers do less well. The effect is caused by transport costs, not the operation of the board.
  The third and most persistent worry of those who wish to retain the status quo is that removal of the quota system will lead to instability in the market. The evidence does not suggest that our quota system leads to greater stability here. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for East Lothian does not agree. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I started off by believing that the system created stability. I had always believed that to be the case, because I had never checked the figures. I thought that I should do so.
  If we compare the year-on-year prices changes in the United Kingdom with those in the other main producer states—France, Germany and the Netherlands—we see an interesting pattern. Between 1979–91, our prices were more volatile than all the others in no fewer than three years. They were more volatile than at least one of the other countries in five years, and the least Volatile in only four years. That is hardly a convincing case for the retention of a board—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: What about prices and contracts?
  Mr. Gummer: I know that the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of potatoes is immense, but I shall come to the issue of contracts and prices in a moment. I am now dealing with the volatility of prices, which is a matter of considerable interest. The board always raises that issue when it argues that consumers are protected because we
  796
  have a system under which our prices are much less volatile. They are not. The board apparatus has not done anything to make prices in this country less volatile than those of our major competitors.
  The fourth argument is that, without the board, prices would fall dramatically. The price of potatoes for processing will have to be governed by competition, whatever we do. No board will make it possible for Britain to have higher prices for potatoes than the Dutch, Danes, Belgians, Germans or French. A single market is all about competition; if other people can produce something cheaper than we do, we cannot protect ourselves in a single market by running a bureaucratic scheme. Some people might like to do so, but we do not have to propose that suggestion—the Scottish nationalists certainly cannot do so, as they are in favour of the single market and are as enthusiastic about it as I am. I am pleased about that—it is the only thing that I can find in favour of the Scottish National party.
  We must accept that the price of potatoes for processing will be fixed by the competition, not by any board. That means that the price of dirty potatoes will continue to be protected by the channel, but not the price of processed potatoes. Perhaps we should consider carefully the proposals that I understand the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has been working on. I put it like that because his proposals in Committee, when we discussed the potato scheme, were in skeleton form. The hon. Gentleman's proposals have also been discussed around the country as he has travelled around to try to discover whether he can make them work. I have tried hard to put together such a scheme, which is designed to distinguish between dirty potatoes and processed potatoes, with the board controlling one category but not the other.
  I am looking forward to seeing how the hon. Gentleman has changed the scheme since it was first revealed. The difficulty of dividing processed and non-processed potatoes is that there is generally no difference between them. Some potatoes that are grown for processing turn out to be unsuitable for processing, so people sell them in different forms. I do not know how we would deal with potatoes for export under such a scheme. Are we to colour the potatoes, with green ones for those controlled by the board and blue ones for those that are not? Doubtless a bureaucratic mechanism can be contrived whereby we can continue to have a board that does not do anything about a situation that needs nothing done to it as the function is already served by the channel.
  I realise that the Labour party is keen for the Government to get in on the act, and that it is not easy to leave the channel to its own devices. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Workington brings forward his proposals, we will listen carefully to see whether they can be used. However, I suspect that the Labour party—although it would like to gain support among those who are still unconvinced of the need to change the board—knows in its heart of hearts that the board's quota arrangements no longer fulfil a useful purpose. Therefore, we need to move towards a freer system.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Surely the people involved in the potato market—be they producers or consumers—are better judges of what is best for that market than the Minister is, as a politician. The Minister has repeatedly

  797
  said that the scheme is "shackling" potato producers in Britain. Is he suggesting that the producers, who want to maintain the scheme, are masochists?
  Mr. Gummer: I should have thought that the best judges were the people buying the product. They have made it clear that future investment will be where the potatoes are available and the product should be as available in this country as it is in Holland. We do not even need to ask the processors about that, as we automatically know the answer.
  Even if you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, think hard and long, can you produce a single product that you could say would be protected in a single market by the fact that one part of that market had to restrict the production of the product and, at the same time, expect the consumer to buy the product where it is least available? The idea goes against every rule of economics.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: My right hon. Friend keeps arguing as though no one in continental Europe wants to restrict their product and the other 11 countries are unanimous in wanting a free market. He knows that that is not the case, and many of the European countries want a heavier potato regime than we have.
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right about Portugal, which has a heavier regime than we do. But we do not generally compete with Portugal for potato sales. No country in the Community has ever suggested that we should spread the British system throughout the whole of the Community. Most countries in the Community are clear that they want the lightest possible potato regime and the greatest competition.
  I know my hon. Friend's views on other matters, and it seems odd that he should suggest that we should continue with such a proposition in a single market. He would be right to say that it would be worth while to argue about whether we should have a controlled or a non-controlled system if all the other 11 countries—or a significant proportion of them—wanted a system such as we have here. As someone who believes in a freer market, I think that, even in those circumstances, it would be better to have a less-controlled system. I cannot find anyone in the Community who is at all interested in having a system in which everyone is controlled.
  There are those who would like Britain to continue with her system as long as they do not have to have it as well—that is one of the problems. Some people have suggested to me that we should agree to have our system. They say that, although the Commission may not like it, the rest of the countries will sign up to such a system—of course, they will. If I were a competitor, I would immediately sign up to an agreement that restricted my major competitor to a quota system.
  Dr. Gavin Strang: I think that the Minister might at least acknowledge that the Conservative party is deeply divided on the issue. Is he aware that an amendment to the draft European Community potato regime was carried in the Agriculture Committee this afternoon? That amendment was moved by the Conservative Member of the European Parliament for
  798
  Lancashire, Central. The amendment explicitly provides for the maintenance of the national organisations. It stated:
  "At its request, a Member State may be authorized to grant an organization established or maintained for the purpose of stabilizing the market in potatoes in the whole part of the territory of that Member State."
  It goes on to refer to the right to estabish production quotas for, and to levy contributions from, potato producers. It provides for a future for the Potato Marketing Board—and it was successfully moved by a Conservative Member of the European Parliament.
  Mr. Gummer: Well, he is wrong—utterly wrong. The proposal would do grave damage to the British potato industry.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: How about that?
  Mr. Gummer: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman always finds every member of his party worthy of support. I have often sat here when he has been squirming while the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) outlined his alternative economic policies. Although the Conservative Member of the European Parliament in this case is a man of excellent ability and remarkable standing on all other issues, on this one I beg to differ with him.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that over the past decade there has been an increase of 300,000 tonnes in the imports of processed potatoes to this country, at a cost to the balance of payments of £125 million—a considerable cost to employment in the food processing industry?
  Mr. Gummer: I can certainly confirm that. That is why, if we left the potato system as it is, we would find ourselves with a steadily decreasing part of the section of the industry which is growing, but holding on to our dominance in a section of production which is bound to decrease.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Has not my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) hit the nail on the head? If a major part of the 550,000 tonnes of exported produce were repatriated to this country, it would enable our growers to grow 30,000 more acres of potatoes.
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right, but we can do that only if the processors understand that there will be a continuous supply and that they will not be hindered in ways that they would not encounter elsewhere. McDonald's uses 80,000 tonnes of potatoes in this country already. It would be extremely good if, as it expanded throughout Europe—it expects to open nearly 1,000 restaurants in Europe in the coming year—at least some of that expansion came from British-produced potato chips.
  Mr. Home Robertson: And why not?
  Mr. Gummer: If the company has the chance to process and produce in countries where there are no restrictions on acreage instead of in a country in which there are such restrictions, it will go to the countries where there are no restrictions. If the hon. Gentleman cannot see the obvious economic sense of that statement, I can understand why he is a socialist. Any fool can see that that will apply if production is restricted in a single market. The hon. Gentleman is a socialist and a farmer. He is also a

  799
  landowner, I understand—although that is perhaps more difficult to understand. Perhaps I have discovered the answer, however: he is economically wrong. He may be socially and culturally right, but he is economically left.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I am flattered to be described as a socialist, but cannot the Minister grasp the fact that, if there is a wonderful increase in potato sales, I have no doubt that the marketing board would cheerfully increase the quota and the basic acreage. That would overcome the problem.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has a wonderful new economic theory, which is that the only way supply can expand to meet demand is to put in place a board that would decide when demand is going to increase so that it can tell the producers when they can increase the supply. That theory has been tried in the Soviet Union and elsewhere for a long time, and it does not work. It is the market that operates in these cases, not bureaucratic groups of people who think they know best.
  Ms Jean Corston rose—
  Mr. Home Robertson: She is a socialist, too.
  Ms Corston: Indeed. Is the Minister aware of the possible consequences of the sort of uncontrolled market which he says he favours? I cite the case of New Brunswick, where the potato industry has been virtually destroyed by companies such as McCain, which dictate the sort of potatoes that must be grown, and that means in practice the mighty chip and the crisp? Meanwhile, the Secretary of State for Health encourages people, in "The Health of the Nation", to eat potatoes of a quite different sort. Is the Minister saying that our potato market must be structured so that only the potato processors get what they want?
  Mr. Gummer: I think that the House is beginning to discover what the alternative is. It is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health shall lay down the kind of potato which it is good for people to eat, whether they like it or not. Then she shall lay down the way in which those potatoes shall be cooked and processed. No doubt socialist councils will send inspectors out into people's homes to discover whether they are cooking potatoes in the requisite vegetable oil and to see that they are not using animal fats. They might also check on the number of chips fried per person per week, to see whether it is below the national maximum stipulated. No doubt there will be special derogations for those who work in heavy industry and who therefore can deal with more animal fat than can those of us in sedentary occupations.
  The hon. Lady is on to the same thing that Opposition Members always want—telling other people what is good for them.[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Workington is worried about the people behind him—I would be, too. He has never been outflanked on the left before. The people of Workington had better get ready for reselection. They must look for someone who is more red-blooded—perhaps a woman who will be unreconstructed in her desire to tell the people of Britain how to eat their potatoes.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: My right hon. Friend is being characteristically extremely amusing, witty and clever, but when all the clever economics have been voiced, the fact remains that there are many thousands of potato
  800
  producers in this country, most of whom have always voted Conservative. As the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, he needs to take their views seriously. No amount of witticism will impress them. All the producers in my constituency believe that their livelihoods will be put at risk if there is unlimited capacity throughout the EC to grow potatoes. Potato producers on the continent of Europe think the same. It is only the Ministers whom my right hon. Friend meets at Councils in Brussels who do not hold that view.
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is perfectly right to raise that serious issue. I am trying to distinguish between the obvious nonsense that the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) introduced to the discussion and the serious issue that he raises. Many people who produce potatoes—there are many in my constituency, just as there are in my hon. Friend's—are concerned that if the board disappears there will be an uncontrolled market in which they will find it difficult to compete. I understand that.
  I must tell my hon. Friend as forcefully as I can that he is not right to say that the other countries of Europe want a controlled system like ours. Some farmers might like that, but in the end it is Ministers who decide what is best for the industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Big brother."] Not at all. All the French potato producers in the world may think one thing, but if they cannot convince their Minister, in the end he will vote as he thinks right—
  Sir Peter Tapsell: They have just voted him out.
  Mr. Gummer: So they voted out the one person whom they might have persuaded to agree with this proposal. They have got rid of a socialist—on second thoughts, a fellow traveler—who has been thrown out all the more forcibly for that. He got a bit closer to the hon. Member for Bristol, East in his proposals. However, the French have now voted in a Government who will find it difficult to believe that the future of France lies in adopting the British potato regime. That is one thing that I do not think the new French Government will wish to do.
  If there were an alternative that was supportable by the rest of Europe, my hon. Friend's argument would at least be worth continuing. I doubt, however, that I would be on the same side as him because I am not sure that the House would want ever further complications in the CAP. My hon. Friend is often one of those who point to the absurdities of having an over-regulated CAP system in other sectors. Therefore, I ask him to apply to the potato industry many of the strictures that, from time to time, he has perfectly reasonably raised about the rest of the CAP. It would not be sensible for the Government and the country to extend into another sector the very part of the CAP that, in every debate, both sides of the House object to because it is over-complicated, over-bureaucratised and over-expensive, and ends up with the taxpayer and the consumer paying even more.
  Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I ought to continue, or there will not be time for others to speak. I had a short speech to make, but it has been interrupted on many occasions.
  It is an irony that we have among our processors some of the best and most efficient companies in the world. What a terrible thing it would be if their investment were increasingly to go outside the United Kingdom. We must

  801
  beware of falling into the situation of the dairy industry, where the high added-value products come increasingly from abroad, and we are left with the commodity end of the business. I am not prepared to be seen as the Minister who was so unable to confront short-term fears that he allowed an industry to destroy itself.
  The House will wish to know that there will be a number of additional arrangements to be made to make the transition as smooth as possible. First, we shall not be seeking to reverse the amendments made in another place. There will merely be some tidying up of the wording. Secondly, part IV accomplishes what the Government announced in 1988—the ending of the potato guarantee. Unlike the enabling provisions of part II, ending the guarantee is a decision that has already been taken, and it will be carried out as soon as possible after Royal Assent. It is a decision already accepted by the industry and not, as far as I am aware, contentious. The third detailed point is that, as I have already pointed out, the Bill will enable the non-regulatory functions of the Potato Marketing Board to be carried out by a successor body.
  I hope that the House recognises that we have to make some such change in any case, because if the European Community were to agree to a lightweight regime—the signs are, as I have tried to explain to my hon. Friends, that that will be the case—it would mean that the system would fall. It would not be able to continue. I do not want that to be the result. I want to have a system that will allow a satisfactory transition from one regime to the other. I hope that the industry will then face up to the question whether it wants a continuation of the board, which would deal, as it can, with the marketing and promotion of potatoes in generic terms and research. That would be done if a development council were the successor body to the board. If Ministers saw substantial support for that idea in the industry, they would be able to make the necessary order to allow the Potato Marketing Board to continue as a development council.
  That would also enable the board to have levy-raising powers but, as there are some doubts about those powers, clause 52 improves the position by making it possible for a levy to be collected via an intermediary. That would also be helpful should the milk marketing arrangements be followed by a desire for the industry to have a development council. I am concerned that there should be no philosophical bar to the ability of the industry to decide that it wanted corporately to do some of those things for itself.
  Part 3 deals with marketing grants.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I will give way, but it must be for the last time.
  Mr. Gill: Could my right hon. Friend obtain clarification of the reference on line 4 of page 13 to
  "section 53(4) of this Act",
  given that on page 27 there is no clause 53(4)? I do not expect him to know the answer, but it would be helpful if he could obtain it.
  Mr. Gummer: I am always pleased to give way to my hon. Friend and never more so than I am now. I shall seek an answer, and I regret it if there has been a mistake.
  In the detailed consideration that the Government have given to the marketing of both milk and potatoes, we have shown our concern to improve our ability to compete and to give our producers and manufacturers a better opportunity to win a larger share of the market for added-value products. In the same spirit, we introduced our marketing grants in April last year, following the seminar called by the Prime Minister in November 1991, which concluded that there was a need for farmers to develop professionally run marketing enterprises on a competitive scale.
  For example, the opportunities presented by our supermarkets can be fully seized only by businesses big enough to negotiate satisfactory terms and to deliver the required quantity and quality consistently. There are some signs that, in other countries in the Community, the organisation of agricultural businesses and food processing is such that they can compete more effectively to sell into this country than we can into theirs. That is one reason why the marketing grant is so important.
  Unfortunately, the existing grant scheme has its limitations, particularly in our ability to involve the businesses downstream of the producers, which are crucial to the success of the industry. Part III will enable us to introduce something more satisfactory. I have no doubt that groups of milk and potato producers will be among those applying for grant.
  In part IV, there are a number of other items that the House will want me to refer to. The first is the wool guarantee. The Government announced, more than four years ago, their decision to end the wool guarantee. Clause 48 implements that decision. The guarantee was introduced in the 1950s with the reasonable aim of stabilising sheep farmers' returns from wool. Conditions are now different. Developments on the international wool market, where huge price changes can result from decisions taken in China, Russia, Australia and New Zealand, mean that the guarantee can no longer operate effectively when it is used entirely as a stabilisation measure. The sheep farmer now relies essentially on the return that he gets from the market, enhanced by the direct payments on breeding animals in the shape of annual ewe premiums and hill livestock compensatory allowances—payments which, for 1992, will total around £495 million.
  In the light of the substantial support to the sector, continued Government intervention is unnecessary and simply cannot be justified. The marketing arrangements for clip wool, including the statutory monopoly on purchase, will be retained. The scheme has been administered effectively by the British wool marketing board, which will have an opportunity to build further on its achievements after the guarantee has ended.
  I hope that the House will recognise that we have tried to look at each of these and get the best answers for Britain—not to apply to it some predetermined philosophical position. That is why we have insisted on keeping the scheme, because it is the one way in which we can deal, in an international market, with similar schemes that represent other people in other countries.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Unbelievable.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must accept that what one believes is the believable, and that is entirely believable. We shall listen to his speech at the end of the evening and see how one can go beyond the bounds of belief rapidly and never return.
  A further belated recognition of changed realities is the abolition of the annual review of agriculture. It is a relic of the days when farm prices were fixed in consultation between the Government and the farmers' unions. Since we have joined the Community, the focus has switched to the CAP, and in that context our close contacts with the farmers' unions and other bodies will continue. The Government will also continue to publish an annual report on agriculture, as the Bill provides. I am sure that the House will agree that that is a sensible measure to bring the legislation up to date.
  Of the Bill's remaining provisions, those relating to Northern Ireland will be found in clause 57, which lists those parts of the Bill that will apply directly to the Province. They include the termination of the wool guarantee. Clause 55 deals with the procedure for extending various other provisions to the north of Ireland. In that respect, I can confirm that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to introduce an Order in Council to apply the provisions of part I so as to end the Northern Ireland milk marketing scheme.
  It is the Government's purpose to do all that they can to enhance the conditions in which our food and farming industries can compete. We have identified a clear need to encourage groups of farmers and others to work together to improve the marketing of food and agricultural produce. As with the milk marketing boards, we have come to the clear conclusion that the statutory monopoly should give way to a better method of marketing milk and milk products.
  Increasingly, the same conclusion comes to anyone who looks at the place of the Potato Marketing Board within the new European single market. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is mounting support for the proposals that the Government have put forward this evening.
  Our aim is to help the industry do its job better, to liberate it from the shackles of the past and to realise its potential. At a time when there is so much talk of restrictions and quotas, this is a move to set the industry free. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.40 pm
  Dr. Gavin Strang: There can be no doubt about the importance of the Bill to agriculture, but it is also important to the food industry and to consumers, of whom there are millions in Britain.
  The Bill will make fundamental changes to the way in which milk is marketed in Britain. For most people, milk and milk products, such as butter, cheese and yoghurt, are an important part of their diet. Annual household expenditure on milk and milk products is about £6 billion. About one seventh of what the average family spends on food goes on milk or milk products.
  Consumers are entitled to ask whether the Bill will improve the quality of those foods. They are entitled to ask whether it will enable milk and its processed products to be marketed at lower prices. The answer to both those questions is an unequivocal no. The milk marketed in Britain is of the highest quality in Europe, and nothing in the Bill aims to improve that. The milk marketing boards
  804
  deserve a great deal of the credit for the hygienic quality of our milk. It is to be hoped that the new arrangements will allow those standards to be maintained in the future.
  The abolition of the milk marketing boards and the pricing arrangements which operated with them will not reduce the price of milk—far from it. There is a real danger that, as a result of the new arrangements, there will be an unjustified increase in the price of milk for consumers.
  The House does not often have the opportunity to debate agriculture and the food industries. Total annual consumption of food and drink in Britain is now in excess of £90 billion, £45 billion of which is accounted for by household food expenditure and the remainder by drink and meals out. About one eighth of household expenditure is accounted for by expenditure on food. For people on low incomes, the proportion of their income that goes on food is much higher. Food is not just another product; it is a basic essential, like shelter, water and fuel.
  Agriculture is important because it is a provider of the raw materials for our food industries. Hundreds of thousands of jobs in those industries are dependent on agriculture, and millions of pounds of investment each year. Agriculture is also important as the core of the rural economy in most parts of Britain. It is not just the jobs of the farmers and farm workers that are important but all the other jobs which are created by the inputs into agriculture and the expenditure created in those rural communities. That is why it is vital that the Government should provide adequate support for our agriculture industry.
  It has to be said, and it gives me no pleasure to do so, that times have been hard for the agriculture industry in recent years. We have seen a fall in investment. The Government's own publication, "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1992", published only last week, states:
  "The total stock of capital"—
  referring to investment in the industry—
  "has gradually declined over a number of years and is slightly below its 1981–83 level."
  That is the measure of the extent to which the agriculture industry has been depressed for the past five or six years. It is a measure of the extent to which there has been under-investment in the industry.
  There are some signs that things will improve in the future, primarily because of the devaluation of the pound, for which the Government can hardly claim credit, since they tried up to the last minute to avert it. Let us hope that that devaluation—black Wednesday, sometimes called golden Wednesday in the agricultural industry—and the subsequent alterations to the green rates, will lead not only to higher incomes for farmers and farm workers but to increased investment and an improvement in the overall jobs and standards of our agriculture industry.
  Part II, dealing with milk marketing, is the most important part of the Bill. It is undoubtedly the case that the milk industry is vital to Britain. I have referred to its importance to consumers. The annual value of milk at the farm gate is about £2·8 billion. We have the best quality milk in the EC. Only Denmark has milk of comparable quality.
  The milk marketing boards have provided a guaranteed outlet for British dairy farmers, no matter how remote their farms. They have also played a major part in maintaining a substantial doorstep delivery service in Britain. It is true that the amount of milk sold through the shops and supermarkets has increased, but the doorstep

  805
  delivery service is at a level much higher than in any other European country. That is of benefit to Britain and something that we should seek to encourage and maintain. The milk marketing boards deserve credit for that.
  There has been a suggestion recently in some quarters that the milk marketing boards have not achieved the most for the producers, that the price obtained by the producers in Britain through the boards has been less than in some other EC countries. I reject that as a criticism of the boards. I have never accepted that the purpose of the milk marketing boards was to maximise revenue. The milk marketing boards existed to strike a balance between the interests of the producers, the processing companies and the consumers. The pricing arrangements were designed to do that. They are based on a negotiation between the Dairy Trade Federation and the milk marketing boards.
  The milk marketing boards have an excellent record in Britain on milk testing, on-farm milk recording, artificial insemination and all the other schemes developed and maintained by the boards which have brought substantial benefits to the British milk industry.
  The milk marketing boards were established by legislation enacted in 1931 and 1933. Since then, there has been a bipartisan policy with all-party support for the milk marketing boards. There have been changes in social and economic conditions and the functions and role of the milk marketing boards have been adapted to meet them. In the 1970s, the milk marketing boards were threatened by the EC. The then Labour Government, of which I was a member, decided as a priority to secure amendments to the appropriate EC regulations to enable the milk marketing boards and their counterparts in Northern Ireland and Scotland to continue. In that, we were supported by the Conservative Opposition.
  I am pleased to see in his place the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), a former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Speaking for the Opposition in a debate on agriculture in the House on 21 March 1978, he said:
  "As to the future of the Milk Marketing Boards, the Conservative Party has consistently expressed its support for all our marketing boards, but we recognise that certain parts of the milk boards' activities might have to be altered. However, we believe that it is absolutely vital—we fully support the Government in their efforts—to preserve the basic functions of the milk boards and of the structure of milk marketing in this country. We think, above all, that it is right that the milk boards should preserve their powers to be the sole first buyers of milk and to have the right to pool prices.
  To put in another way what the Minister said, it is no coincidence that the United Kingdom is almost the only country in Europe to have such a statutory organisation, while at the same time it is the only one to have such a large market for liquid milk sold on the doorstep… However, I cannot think of any other issue on which the whole House would be unanimous in opposition but that of failing to get a satisfactory solution to the position of our milk boards."—[Official Report, 21 March 1978; Vol. 946, c. 1358–59.]
  We found that solution. I was privileged to be a junior Agriculture Minister in that Labour Government, and I remember sitting in the Council of Agriculture Ministers arguing for hours in an attempt to secure the changes in regulation which would enable our milk marketing boards to continue. We secured those changes, with the support of the whole House.
  Since then, there have been some changes in the market place. In particular, we have witnessed the growth in low
  806
  fat milks. Although the Minister did not refer to that directly in his speech, he alluded to one of the problems which developed during the 1980s—the failure of the scheme to provide properly for the production of low fat milks. The Government were told of that problem as long ago as 1986.
  In 1984, the milk industry adopted a system of non-binding arbitration. The first arbiter was the late John Silkin, under whom I had the privilege of serving when he was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In 1986, he produced the first non-binding report relating to milk marketing arrangements, stating:
  "The question of low fat milk and other products now outside the Scheme and on-farm manufacture will in my view assume a much greater importance as time goes by to an extent where unless care is taken they may begin to threaten the existence of the Scheme itself. It is my opinion that it is to the interest of both the MMB and the DTF that a common course of action should be resolved between them. I would not regard the solution to this question as lying within the competence of this Opinion but I believe that an inquiry ought to be undertaken among all those concerned… It is my recommendation that MAFF should undertake an internal inquiry into the problem, which, as I stated…unless care is taken, might begin to threaten the existence of the Scheme itself".
  Of course, Ministers did not respond to that. Although they received regular representations from the Dairy Trade Federation, no action was taken. It is hard to resist the conclusion that the Government were happy to preside over the undermining of the scheme, because they wanted it to be challenged: for dogmatic reasons, they wanted to bring about circumstances in which it would be easy for them to wind up the boards, as they are doing today.
  As there is a substantial Conservative majority in the House, it is possible that the Bill will be given a Second Reading. As a constructive Opposition, we shall concentrate on the arrangements with which the Government—or, indeed, the milk marketing boards—wish to replace the existing system. Our first and fundamental criticism of the Government relates to their adication of responsibility for introducing satisfactory arrangements. Surely no food industry is more important to the country than the milk industry. It is highly efficient and a great national asset. In making such a historic change, the Government have an obligation to endure that it develops satisfactorily.
  Mr. Gill: Who does the hon. Gentleman believe knows more about the milk industry—both production and processing—than the industry itself? Why should politicians decide such matters? I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.
  Dr. Strang: We live in a democracy, and the way in which things happen is decided by Government and by Parliament. Of course, before introducing any replacement scheme, the Government should consult not only the milk marketing board and other boards but the Dairy Trade Federation, the consumer organisations and all interested parties. That is not in dispute. None the less, it is entirely inappropriate for the milk boards to introduce the new scheme. Although that scheme should be based very much on the views of the boards, open and public consultation should have taken place. Given the importance of the industry, the Government should have accepted their responsibility to present alternative arrangements, which should then have been dealt with by affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament.
  Mr. Gummer: Would the hon. Gentleman apply the same argument to, for example, the car industry? Does he suggest that the Government should present proposals about the way in which that industry should conduct itself, or is it better for those in the business of manufacturing cars to run that business as they think best? Is it not rather curious to suggest that the milk industry does not know its own business? I thought that the hon. Gentleman believed that ours was the best milk in the European Community. Surely the producers of the best milk in the Community can decide how best to produce it.
  Dr. Strang: If there were a national car marketing board with the statutory right to buy every car manufactured in the country, and if the Government were about to wind up that monopoly, I would indeed suggest that they introduce satisfactory arrangements to free the market and eliminate the monopoly.
  I am not sure whether the Minister attended this morning's meeting at which Ministers examined the future of the coal industry, but I believe that there may well be a parallel not with the car industry, but with the highly regulated energy industry. When the Government sought to deregulate that industry, they tried to pretend that it was a genuinely free market; in fact, it was a market dominated by major companies and major vested interests. We are likely to see a milk market dominated by the successor to the milk marketing board—Milk Marque—which may involve 80 or 90 per cent. of producers. The Government should face up to their responsibilities. They should have had the courage to consult the industry, and to present their own proposals to free the market, if that is what they wish to do.
  The European Commission has already told the milk marketing boards and the Government what they can and cannot do. The Commission has said—understandably, and I do not think that any hon. Member would necessarily dispute its view—that it would not be acceptable for the milk marketing boards and Dairy Crest, their processing arm, to be allowed to continue as a single body in a voluntary market. Such a body would be huge, not only in terms of the milk market in England and Wales but in terms of the European Community market. The Commission decided that the milk marketing boards and Dairy Crest should be separated.
  At that point, the Government could have made a decision. They could have considered whether there was a case for integrated milk co-operatives, allowing the processing arm to be associated with the producers. They could have decided to set up a number of integrated producer co-operatives. I am not saying that that is the best solution; I am merely saying that it is very unsatisfactory that the Government never even considered it.
  The Northern Ireland milk marketing board buys more milk than its Scottish counterpart. Surely there is a case for protecting the Northern Ireland board, which is fundamentally important to Northern Ireland's agriculture, and for helping to ensure that its processing facilities—which need help and investment—can be maintained. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) pointed out, the position in Scotland is ridiculous.
  I refer to a report: it is not about the Scottish milk market, or about whether the processing arm of the Scottish board should remain with the board—it concerns
  808
  only whether the Scottish board could acquire a dairy from the Co-operative Wholesale Society in Glasgow. Anyone reading the report may be surprised by its conclusion. I must say that I was surprised. I thought that it made a very good case, on the ground that there is a real United Kingdom milk market—not only in processed products such as butter and cheese, but in the milk that flows across the border between Scotland and England. I was amazed that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission concluded that that merger should not take place. It is unacceptable that, as a result of that report, we are being told that the processing side of the Scottish milk marketing board must be split from the producer organisation.
  The European Commission does not believe that the industry in Northern Ireland and Scotland is big enough to have a distorting effect on the market for milk in Europe. Having decided to get rid of the milk marketing boards and the statutory scheme—a decision with which we disagree—it is wholly unsatisfactory that the Government did not sit down, consult the interested parties and produce arrangements that were in the best interests of the industry, the processing companies and the consumers.
  I must remind the House that the arrangements are not necessarily permanent. Mr. Leon Brittan sent a letter to the Minister in October 1992 in which he commented on the scheme put forward by the milk marketing boards to replace the statutory arrangements in England and Wales. He wrote:
  "Against this background, and on the basis of the information made available to me, I believe that there are no grounds for action under Articles 85 and 86 with regard to the proposed new co-operative for an initial period of two years".
  It cannot be satisfactory for the milk marketing boards to set in place arrangements which are authorised by the Commission for only two years. As the Minister is aware, as soon as the legislation is in place, the Director General of Fair Trading will be entitled to investigate the arrangements for the marketing of wholesale milk in this country. He will be entitled to refer the arrangements to the MMC within two years. It is unsatisfactory for us to go down a road to so much uncertainty.
  Much concern has been expressed about the future of the assets of the milk marketing boards, other than the processing arm, Dairy Crest, which will be floated off as a separate company. I am referring to the milk testing arrangements, the national milk records and to Genus which includes the artificial insemination service and the advisory services which have served the industry so well.
  It is absolutely fundamental that every producer, regardless of whether he becomes a member of Milk Marque, should have equal access to those services. Those services have been built up by all milk producers, past and present. It would be unfair if the successor to the milk marketing boards were able to take over those services and operate them in a way which discriminated against non-members of Milk Marque. The alternative would be to transfer those activities to another body. I am not suggesting that, but perhaps that point should be considered in Committee. It is crucial that those facilities should be available to all milk producers.
  Quota management is another important issue which must be addressed. As a result of the boards, we have a very efficient system of quota management. The big difference between today's milk industry and the industry of 10 years ago is that we have quotas. I accept that there

  809
  is alarmist talk about the effect of the changes because we have milk quotas. If a very powerful producer co-operative is established against a background of quotas, and there is an under-supply of milk in this country, that body might be able to ratchet the price of milk to unjustified levels. I can assure the Minister that the Labour party will be outraged if the price of milk for consumers is raised unnecessarily as a result of the arrangements.
  The Minister described the milk boards as the milk producers' gaoler in this country. I do not know how the Minister can use that description. Only a few years ago, the boards had the overwhelming support not just of the consumers organisations and the Dairy Trade Federation, but also of the milk producers who control the boards. It is nonsense to claim that the boards are the producers' gaoler.
  It is equally nonsense to claim that the Potato Marketing Board has shackled our potato producers. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said, it is amazing that the potato producers are determined to retain those shackles. The legislation in respect of potatoes is enabling. Many potato producers and, I suspect, the Potato Marketing Board, received a shock when they discovered that the Government were not simply planning to get rid of the Potato Marketing Board on the basis of EC legislation, but had decided, on the basis of their own independent judgment of what was best for the British potato industry, that the Potato Marketing Board should go.
  We do not accept that. We agree with the Minister that the last thing we want is an EC regime for potatoes which includes intervention buying. Open-ended state buying is the bane of the common agricultural policy. We absolutely agree that there should be no question of the Government agreeing to a new potato regime which would allow intervention buying whereby the taxpayer buys potatoes when the market is over-supplied.
  However, I do not accept the Minister's arguments. I do not accept that it is automatically a mistake for the producers in this country to choose to manage their market against the background of free trade in potatoes in Europe. There is already a free market in potatoes in the Community. As the Minister has said, the board has accepted that the last vestige of state support for the potato industry—in respect of the contribution that the Treasury is willing to make to part of the Potato Marketing Board's support buying programme—should be removed.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I am enormously puzzled by what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He said that he would oppose a new potato regime in Europe which involved intervention buying. So far as I am aware, the Labour party has always supported the powers that the Potato Marketing Board currently has, and which it has had since the war, to support the market through acreage quotas and intervention buying. Why has the hon. Gentleman suddenly become the first Labour spokesman in my lifetime to speak against intervention buying for the potato sector?
  Dr. Strang: I am happy to respond to that point. It is one thing to have a support buying programme financed
  810
  by a levy on producers. When the Government remove the guarantee, it will be wholly financed by the levy on the industry. We believe that that is correct and appropriate.
  As the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) will acknowledge, we have always opposed intervention buying in terms of the CAP. He would probably agree that the old deficiency payments system based on guaranteed prices served this country better than intervention buying. We need only consider the beef market and the hundreds of millions of pounds that are spent buying beef, storing it, freezing it and taking it out at some point in the future. I could refer to other excesses of the CAP, all of which relate to intervention buying.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am still rather confused. Is it Labour party policy that the taxpayer should subsidise a potato buying-up scheme?
  Dr. Strang: It is not our policy. We go along with any Government proposals to remove taxpayer support from the potato industry. However, the Potato Marketing Board should stay in place, and the production target area and quotas should be continued, as should all the other work that the board does. That is what the producers want. Against the background of a light EC regime, such a course should be possible.
  We shall consider the Minister's arguments very carefully. We shall give close consideration to the reasons for the increased imports of chilled and frozen chips. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that it is in this area that the increase has arisen. One company accounts for 60 per cent. of production in this field. That company has excess capacity in the Netherlands, and there has been penetration of the German market, which does not have quotas, just as there has been penetration of the British market. We shall consider all the arguments objectively. The last thing the Opposition want is constraint of opportunity to invest in processing and thus to create wealth and jobs.
  However, we are not persuaded by what we have heard. We agree with the Potato Marketing Board and with potato producers that the board should be allowed to continue. Developments this afternoon in the European Parliament show that there are Conservatives who agree with us and that that Parliament's Agriculture Committee is of the same opinion. It may well be that the Commission can be persuaded to add its support, and then it will be up to the Agriculture Ministers in the Council of Ministers.
  I should like to deal now with the removal of the wool guarantee—a decision with which we do not agree. Our judgment is that it is particularly unfortunate that the state-guaranteed price for wool is to be removed. Many hon. Members know that the wool market grew enormously in the 1980s. But then China and Russia withdrew from the market, and there was a huge increase in wool production in New Zealand and, in particular, Australia, where intervention buying was operated. Massive quantities of wool are now held in intervention stores in Italy, and these overhang the market. When prices start to rise, this wool is released, and prices come down. The collapse of the house-building programme in this country has also resulted in a reduction of the demand for wool. Thus, this is the very worst time for removal of the guarantee, which will damage our hill farming industry.

  811
  We are concerned that the price a farmer will receive for a clip from a hardy breed will be so low as to make it hardly worth his while. That will not be in the interests of his flock or of the country. There is a very real danger that this change will result in considerable damage to the sheep industry. I hope that it is not too late for the Government to think again and to consider a compromise arrangement whereby there could be some element of continued state support, even if only for a few weeks, to enable the Wool Marketing Board to continue to provide a realistic guarantee. I agree in general with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the board, which has an excellent record with the collection of wool from producers. The board has the support of buyers also.
  Clause 44 relates to grants for group marketing. We support the provision. I had hoped that the Minister would announce the provision of some extra money, but in view of the state into which the Government have got the public finances of this country, it is not surprising that there is no such provision.
  Finally, I refer to a minor but historic provision tucked away in schedule 5. The right hon. Gentleman himself referred to the repeal of that part of the Agriculture Act 1947 which made provision for an annual review of agriculture. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will remember the importance of the annual review. The negotiations between the farming unions and the Government preceded the setting of national support prices. After we joined the European Community, this became less and less significant, and it is not now practicable to think in terms of an annual national review.
  However, the review was indeed a valuable exercise. The agricultural support policies encompassed in the 1947 Act and in the legislation of the 1950s served this country well, enabling people to buy food at world prices. Farmers and farm workers were provided with an effective system of support, and the taxpayer was given value for money.
  How different the situation is today. Now, in this country and in the rest of the EC, food is sold at prices well above world levels—indeed, well above levels in the United States. Thousands of millions of pounds are spent on the most inefficient agricultural support system imaginable. Huge mountains of food are bought up, and sometimes commodities are dumped on world markets, to the disadvantage of developing countries, while the common agricultural policy fails to achieve even an adequate means of supporting farmers and the rural economy generally.
  The Bill does not address any of the real issues facing the agriculture industry. At best, it fails to confront all the important issues facing agricultural producers and consumers; at worst, it creates arrangements which will be unstable and may in the long term damage consumers and producers. We believe that the milk marketing boards should be adapted, not abolished. We believe that those boards, the Potato Marketing Board and the wool guarantee could still play an important and valuable role in our agriculture industry. For those reasons, the Opposition will vote against the Bill.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Jopling: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) has a good deal of knowledge of agriculture but he got himself into an awful muddle. His apparent opposition to support buying—he said that he would not support a future potato regime
  812
  that involved such buying—goes wholly against the history of the Labour party in government since the war. Throughout its years in office, the Labour party promoted a support-buying regime for the Potato Marketing Board. Labour Members may say that that system was inherited, but I remind the hon. Gentleman, whose memory seems to be very short, that one of the first actions of Fred Peart, when he became Minister of Agriculture in 1964, was to introduce legislation to deal with the marketing of home-grown cereals.
  Indeed, my maiden speech was delivered during a debate on the Cereals Marketing Act 1965, which set up the home-grown cereals authority, with its reserve support-buying capacity. That mechanism, which was introduced by the then Labour government, was never used, but it was available. The price of cereals never dropped to the level at which the scheme would have kicked into operation. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East really must do his homework and must remember what his party stood for in the past.
  I want to begin the substance of my speech by making two points. First, I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me for intervening in a debate on agriculture. As he knows, it is almost six years since I was in his seat. During that time I have had many private conversations with him and with his predecessor, both of whom served with me the Ministry. Over the years, I have very rarely intervened in public. Indeed, I take the view—perhaps rather old-fashioned—that anyone who has had the privilege and honour of holding senior office displays the grossest and most appalling bad manners by breathing down the necks of his successors, especially if they are old colleagues, as soon as they take over. These jobs are difficult enough at the best of times. I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me for intervening after six years. Parts of this Bill are extremely important to my constituents, and I feel that I must make certain comments.
  I also want at the beginning to declare my interest—something that I have often done to the House—as a farmer and, in particular, as a grower of potatoes for the processing industry. I just say to the hon. Lady the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) that her intervention, if I may say so, totally misunderstands the modern cult of agricultural marketing, whereby one finds out what the processor and the public want and then produces for that market. If the processor says that the potatoes to be grown should be Record, one grows that particular variety at his insistence, because one is growing for one's customer. That is the way in which agricultural marketing should go in the future.
  All my life I have been an enthusiast for managed agricultural markets, by statute if necessary. Farmers are notoriously impossible to organise collectively into marketing their own produce to their own best advantage. The commendable individualism of the farming community is very often a real drawback when it comes to sensible marketing. All my life, therefore, I have supported the milk marketing boards, the Potato Marketing Board and the wool marketing scheme. I was extremely flattered that the Member for Edinburgh, East should have read out so much of what I said so many years ago. In my heart, I still totally subscribe to what I said at that time, and I am not ashamed of saying it.
  When I was responsible for these matters, the schemes of the various boards were often attacked, sometimes by the European Commission and sometimes by some of my

  813
  Cabinet colleagues. It is a matter of some pride to me that, in the four years that I was responsible for these matters, there were very few changes in the marketing boards. I recognise, however, that changes must now be made, and I thought that the hon Member for Edinburgh, East was perhaps not as fair as he might have been in recognising that changes need to be made. There have been challenges from the Community and from the courts, and the Government, quite understandably, must make these changes. It is about the nature of the changes that I want to speak.
  I have a good deal of nostalgia for the schemes which are now to be changed, and I have always subscribed to the view that the devil you know is nearly always better than the devil you don't. The big question is how these essential changes can be made while leaving farmers with adequate marketing arrangements so as to give them a fair chance collectively of getting the best price for their produce.
  As an example of this, we should recall that the first milk marketing board was set up in the early 1930s, and it became the saviour of thousands of farmers. In the dales and valleys of the north of England, in the west country and in Wales, many small farmers were being driven relentlessly out of business because of their weak, fragmented marketing position.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Sixpence a gallon.
  Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend who has such experience of these matters reminds us of the paltry sums paid for milk in those days.
  Today it is appropriate that somebody should pay tribute to the milk marketing boards, because they have done a fine job in spite of some difficulties. I have often thought that the boards could have done considerably better but for what I have always regarded as almost a fatal flaw in their constitution, which made it, in practice, impossible to have adequately skilled business leadership at the head of the boards. If I could have made one change in the constitution of the boards, that would have been it.
  However, given the difficulties that successive boards have had, they have done a fine job, of which we can all be proud. My anxiety tonight is that some of these changes could well return dairy farmers to those bad old days. To an extent—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was right—that cannot happen, given the quota. The quota will make it much more difficult for the various purchasing organisations to hold farmers to ransom and to drive the price down and down, and the existence of milk quotas and the absence of surplus milk production should mean that that is unlikely to happen.
  I should very much like to have seen one co-operative, covering England and Wales, to succeed the milk marketing boards, and I welcome the launch of Milk Marque, which I wish every possible success. I am particularly pleased that it has made it clear that it will not discriminate against milk producers on the grounds of size of operation and milk collection or the location of the farm.
  Already, other potential buyers have appeared on the scene and, as one who believes in competition, I wish them well, but I hope that the price is not driven down by predatory buyers, as happened between the wars. I urge
  814
  my right hon. Friend never to forget what happened before the Milk Marketing Board was set up, and always to be prepared to act again if the industry suffers seriously as a result of these changes.
  The potato regime is a wholly different set-up. As I said in that speech I made when we were in opposition in the 1970s, the milk marketing board is a very heavy regime, as the sole first buyer of milk, whereas the potato board merely has a reserve right to support-buy. The potato scheme has worked extremely well over the years and, as a potato grower, I am much disappointed that there is a danger of the potato marketing scheme disappearing. There is a free market, which is at times fiercely competitive.
  I realise the problems of getting full supplies for the processing industry in this country, and I hope, as a potato grower for processing, that we can in future supply a bigger part of it. I pay tribute to the processors, who have done a great deal to get contracts which are satisfactory to growers. My own son is on the negotiating committee of one of these arrangements. They have been very much in the interests of farmers, producers, processors and the consumer.
  Under the potato scheme as it exists, producers and consumers are protected by the quota acreage regime, which has worked well over the years. The Minister has told us that none of the other Ministers in the Council is particularly enamoured of the British scheme. That is a pity, if I may say so, and I urge my right hon. Friend to try just once more to see if he can persuade them of the merits of the British scheme.
  I am glad that the Potato Marketing Board supports the Bill. In a letter to me, it wrote:
  "The PMB broadly supports the Bill, since it permits a successor body' for limited purposes, if the Potato Marketing Scheme (PMS) were to be revoked."
  The Minister said that he believes that the potato marketing scheme must be revoked. I was surprised to hear him being as critical of the scheme as he was in his speech. I hope that I can say this to him in a friendly way. I was surprised that he talked that way, in view of the fact that the scheme was reviewed only in 1989 and the producers decided to take up one of the options proposed by the Government at that time.
  I was sorry to hear the Minister be somewhat dismissive of the way in which the Potato Marketing Board has been arranging its affairs. I hope that he will not seek to change the Government's defeat in another place. In his speech, he said that the Government would not do that, and that is welcome. It is right that, if the potato marketing scheme must be revoked, the Minister, his successor or whoever, will have to come to the House for a separate decision of the House to revoke the scheme. That is right.
  Mr. Gummer: Can I put my right hon. Friend's mind at rest? I want it to be clear in this debate that I am not sheltering behind some decision of the European Community or suggesting that all the fault lies with Brussels. That would be the wrong thing to do. That meant that I had to share with the House my concerns about the future for potato producers in a single market, where it is manifest that we will have an increasing number of imports from outside the United Kingdom. Therefore, I sought to emphasise that side.
  I should not like any hon. Member to think that I underestimate the important job done by the Potato Marketing Board in changing itself to be more able to meet

  815
  the present circumstances. I thought that it was right that the House should not be bamboozled by some suggestion that all the fault lay with Europe and that we all had to do it that way. That would be to hide my fear for the future, on which I felt I should stand honourably when it came to discussing the issue for the benefit of the House.
  Mr. Jopling: My right hon. Friend has been characteristically honest and straightforward with the House, and I am glad that he has been able to endorse what he said. Indeed, I said earlier that I recognised the difficulty of British potato producers satisfying the full demands of the processing industry. I was pleased to hear that at least two of the major processors in the United Kingdom have invested in new plant and factories. That is certainly good news. When the successor body is set up, I hope that the Minister and the growers together will be able to find a way in which the growers can fulfil a larger share of the processing market.
  I should like to talk about the wool guarantee, which is of tremendous interest and importance to my constituency. I do not need to remind my right hon. Friend of the uncertainties and anxieties in the upland areas at present. He will remember the difficulties we all had when various changes were made to the regime shortly before Christmas. Mercifully and happily, most of those difficulties have been substantially resolved by the Minister being able to use other methods fully to compensate upland sheep farmers.
  I simply remind the Minister that wool holds an important, if sometimes rather emotional, place in the minds of upland sheep farmers. If it is the Minister's desire to abolish the guarantee scheme, which has worked well over the years, he should be prepared to use even more sympathetically and realistically the other devices which he has to protect that vital, hard-working group of farmers who do so much to make upland Britain the glory that it is.
  The Minister referred to the various devices he has—the hill sheep subsidies, the annual ewe premium and the other premiums through the environmentally sensitive areas scheme, all of which can help dramatically with regard to upland farmers. Therefore, the end of the wool guarantee is not fatal. As the Minister said, that matter will be all right, provided the other arrangements are used.
  The Bill causes me some considerable anxieties, which I hope are unfounded. I hope that the Minister can steer farmers into marketing their produce in new ways, which will not seriously disadvantage them. We all understand that changes have to happen. Clearly, those changes need to be made now. Agriculture—probably above all industries in the United Kingdom since the war—has demonstrated its adaptability and inventiveness. Given the new challenges, I have no doubt that it will respond once more.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: The House has just listened to a thoughtful, knowledgeable and, I believe, genuinely worried speech from an experienced Member. The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) has had wide experience as an Agriculture Minister. His speech was delivered with all the loyalty that one would expect from a former Government
  816
  Chief Whip. Nevertheless, I sincerely hope that those on the Government Front Bench were listening to what he had to say, because it was worth listening to.
  I must preface my comments by declaring an interest. There are no tatties growing on my farm, but the wool from a flock of more than 700 sheep rightly goes to the British Wool Marketing Board. My second interest is that of the 250 farmers in my constituency of East Lothian, including a substantial number of potato producers and sheep farmers. Sadly, nowadays there are few dairies—it is an east coast constituency.
  In common with all hon. Members, my overriding interest is that of the 68,000 consumers of East Lothian whom I represent in the House. The interests of those consumers is well served by the marketing boards which are run in partnership with farming producers. I fear that this Bill could undermine those interests. No one in my constituency has expressed support for the Bill, but a significant number of constituents have expressed genuine fears that the abolition of the marketing boards and the statutory powers provided for in the Bill could be detrimental to the interests of consumers and jeopardise hard-pressed farming businesses in my part of Scotland.
  I shall say a few words about milk marketing boards. I understand the genuine difficulties in the milk sector, where the expansion of the commercial activities of milk marketing boards into retailing and processing has created a situation in which independent traders find themselves competing in the retail marketplace with boards which have a statutory monopoly in the wholesale market. That situation can be especially insidious in areas where quota restrictions have created a shortage of milk. I accept that that point must be addressed, but I cannot accept that it is a justification for scrapping the statutory scheme altogether. The scheme has worked extremely well since its inception, and it seems characteristically reckless for the Minister to sweep it away and scrap it altogether.
  There may be a fair debate about the detailed operation of the milk marketing boards, but there is no such controversy about either the wool guarantee or the Potato Marketing Board. The threat to destroy those arrangements seems to be undisguised doctrinaire vandalism on the part of the Government. We have seen that before, and we are seeing it again today.
  I wish to concentrate on potatoes, but I begin with a few words about the wool guarantee and the statutory powers of the British Wool Marketing Board, which the Minister did not mention in his introductory speech. The Confederation of British Wool Textiles pointed out that this could not be a worse time to remove the guarantee. It warned that removal of the guarantee could lead to dumping and the disruption of the supply of wool to British industry at a time when the industry needs all the help that it can get.
  From my limited experience of a hill farm, I know that one is lucky to get 2·5 kg of wool in the fleece of a hill ewe. With the present guarantee price, one gets 90p per kilo, which comes to £2·25 for the fleece of the ewe. Without that guarantee, the net income could drop to 45p per kilo, which is £1·12 for the fleece of a ewe. The sum could easily be as little as £1, or even less.
  I therefore agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) that, as it can cost 50p or more to have a sheep clipped, it is not difficult to foresee circumstances in which it would not be worth while to clip sheep in view of the calculations that I have described. So,

  817
  apart from disrupting the market and depriving our textiles industry of British wool, the proposal could have significant animal welfare implications. I am not aware of anyone who supports the proposal, so why on earth are the Government proceeding with it?
  The same criticism can be levelled at the Government's proposals for the Potato Marketing Board. The Government conducted a major review of the potato marketing scheme back in 1989, and rightly reached the conclusion that the basic powers of the Potato Marketing Board, including the vital power to control the area planted, should be left intact. As a result of that review, the board now represents all the interests—not only producers, but processors, consumers and independent representatives. It works efficiently. In the future, the scheme will not cost the taxpayer a penny, so one may well ask why the Government seek to interfere with it.
  The only new factor is the possibility of a minimalist proposal for a European Community potato regime, but that is not a genuine justification for the legislation. The potato marketing scheme does not restrict trade in potatoes across the European Community. I suggest that it is a red herring for the Minister of Agriculture or anyone else to suggest that the present system interferes with free trade.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): Perhaps I may clarify the position. The legislation provides for a successor body in the event of the Potato Marketing Board being wound up. If we did not include that provision in the Bill, the only choice would be to continue with the full scheme or wind up the scheme entirely and distribute the assets to the subscribers to the existing Potato Marketing Board. The Bill takes the middle course, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) talked about, of providing for the successor body to carry forward the best of the Potato Marketing Board's activities. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not against that.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Indeed not. My concern is that the power is being established to wind up the scheme in the first place. Fair enough, in Committee we must look at ways of making the best of bad job, but my fundamental objection is to the abolition of the board and, in particular, the abolition of the statutory power to control acreage. That is an important power.
  I submit that there should be no problem in maintaining our internal scheme for regulating potato production under the principle of subsidiarity which we have debated on the wretched Maastricht Bill. Spain and France also have national support schemes, which cost considerably more than ours cost, at present. As I have said, in future our support scheme would not cost anything under the provisions that the Potato Marketing Board has talked about.
  We are dealing with an inherently fragile industry. The potato market is potentially highly volatile.
  Mr. John Marshall: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the only area of potato consumption which is growing is processed potatoes? Does he further accept that there
  818
  has been a significant growth in the import of processed potatoes simply because potato processors can buy potatoes £20 per tonne cheaper in Holland than in Britain?
  Mr. Home Robertson: I understand that the processing market is increasing. There is nothing to stop the Potato Marketing Board taking advantage of that—as I am sure it will, if it is allowed to continue.
  I return to my fundamental point—that we are dealing with a fragile industry which should not be messed about for purely doctrinaire reasons. If planting in the United Kingdom increased beyond the current quota of 155,000 hectares, there would almost certainly be a glut of potatoes on the market. The market would be flooded. Fair enough, consumers would have the short-term benefit of very cheap potatoes for perhaps a year, until the inevitable shortage followed as producers were forced out of business. I fear that that would be particularly the case in the more remote areas of the country, especially Scotland, which are further from the processors to which the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) referred, and from other parts of the mass market.
  Conversely, if planting fell below the quota which has been carefully calculated by the Potato Marketing Board, there would be a shortage of potatoes and market prices would rise inexorably, contrary to the interests of consumers, processors and everyone else. It is precisely to avoid such dangerous fluctuations in a capital and labour-intensive industry that the potato marketing scheme was established in the first place. I say again that it would be reckless to scrap it now.
  Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman will know that, in the present circumstances, the Potato Marketing Board is paying £10 per tonne for potatoes. In other words, the price is at rock bottom, even with the scheme in existence. It may well be the case that next year fewer potatoes will be planted, as indeed there have been fewer potato producers year on year simply as a result of the market conditions within the scheme. So the hon. Gentleman should not draw too much of a comparison between conditions inside and outside the scheme.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I gently remind the Minister that the position is even worse in the free market paradise that he is so happy about on the other side of the English channel. The Potato Marketing Board has achieved a great deal in the way of stability. Certainly there are difficulties just now, but the position would be far worse without the safeguards that the board can provide.
  The House will have gathered that I am not particularly impressed by the representations of the Potato Processors Association. There are just 33 processors. Crisping, freezing and dehydrating processes now constitute 37 per cent. of the consumer market. There may be only 33 potato processors, but they have a highly lucrative share of the market. I went downstairs earlier today and bought myself a 30 g packet of crisps. It cost 20p. According to my basic arithmetic, that comes to £6,666·66 a tonne. Compare that with what my local Co-op charges for potatoes—85p for a 51b bag. That comes to £380 a tonne, which is still a great deal more than the £10 a tonne which the Minister said was paid by the board to producers just now.
  The profit margin of rogues who want to destroy the potato marketing scheme are put into fair perspective by the figures that I have given. They want an even bigger

  819
  profit margin for their 37 per cent. of the market, at the risk of creating chaos in the fresh potato market which, let us not forget, is still 63 per cent. of the trade. I suggest that the processors should be seen in much the same light as the monopolistic supermarket chains. They can have an anti-competitive role and can be a bottleneck in the market, controlled by a handful of powerful companies which all too often operate against the interests of both consumers and producers.
  Who are the voracious chippers and freezers who have so much influence with the Conservative Government? I understand that fully 60 per cent. of the British chip market has been cornered by a single company—McCain. I long to know how it and the 32 other members of the Potato Processors Association—a tiny group of people—have influenced the Government to undermine the interests of every housewife in the nation, not to mention every potato producer. I think it stinks. It seems to me that it is either a case of mad Minister disease or, more likely, corrupt politician disease. How much has McCain or other members of the Potato Processors Association contributed directly or indirectly to Conservative party funds? That is a subject which ought to be addressed. It is a question being put to me by potato producers in my constituency.
  The potato marketing scheme is serving the interests of consumers well. It is regulating the industry. It is improving the quality and the marketing of potatoes and it will not cost the taxpayer anything at all. It would be sheer madness to destroy that scheme. To talk about "shackling the market", as the Minister did earlier, does not make sense, but sadly it is not unheard of for the Tory majority in this House—
  Mr. Curry: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Home Robertson: No, I am just concluding and I want to let other people take part.
  It is not unheard of for the Tory majority in this House to vote for sheer madness, and I fear that they are going to do it again tonight.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: The speech of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) started pleasantly enough, and was thoughtful and provoking, but then he appeared to go completely off the rails. His constituency covers the whole range of farming. I could not help feeling a little envious, because he was able to speak on potatoes, milk and wool. My constituency is a flat fenland area, and I shall restrict my remarks to the part of the Bill relating to potatoes.
  Potato growing has gone through significant changes in the last decade, involving massive investment, particularly in things like cropping and husbandry, in modern refrigerated storage, in grading, packaging and marketing for the retail sector for the consumer and for the processor. Potatoes are a vital crop in arable areas such as north-east Cambridgeshire, particularly with the CAP reforms which are looming on the horizon, and also with the GATT negotiations attacking agricultural prices and the generally anticipated lower incomes from historically staple crops such as wheat, sugar beet and oil seed.
  The Potato Marketing Board and the scheme have served producers and consumers extremely well. They are not perfect, but they have responded to pressures to reform in the past and are willing to do so again. It would
  820
  seem quite unreasonable to revoke them under this Bill without giving them the opportunity to meet the new requirements of a modern EC marketplace.
  The PMS has adapted to these changing conditions by expanding target areas to accommodate the growth sectors in the industry—notably, the export market, processing and pre-packing. As I have said, many growers have invested heavily in potato storage and specialised equipment, because this is a highly capital-intensive sector. They will feel badly let down if the Government scrap the PMS and give them a period of uncertainty. That is the last thing they need at this time of heavy investment.
  The potato clauses—22 to 43—seem to have been stimulated by EC proposals to introduce a potato regime which the Council of Agriculture Ministers hopes to approve some time later this year. It is meant to be a light regime, probably intended to guard against increased imports from eastern Europe but it does not give the Commission power to intervene in the potato market and makes no mention at all of national support schemes.
  If these are the main ingredients of the proposals, many people, including my potato growers and farmers, may question whether it is worth having any EC regime at all, since it will do so little. Is there a hidden agenda, I wonder, to prevent a shift into potatoes by arable farmers who may become dissatisfied, after a few years, with set-aside? After all, the EC's record is strong on quotas. How can we discount the introduction of quotas in future if these proposals lead to chronic over-production?
  The EC Council regulation says:
  "appropriate measures should therefore be taken to ensure stability of the market and a fair income for the producers concerned".
  Those are laudable aims, but it is highly questionable whether the proposals will achieve this.
  According to the explanatory memorandum, it is
  "proposed that a common organisation for potatoes be established, based on the following principles: The common market organisation should not interfere with the market forces".
  It defines this as:
  "Only a potato market whose principal regulative is the play of supply and demand will make sure that production takes place in the most efficient way and that consumers do not have to pay unduly high prices."
  I ask, what is the evidence for any market distortion within the EC? After all, potatoes are freely traded. A free market already exists beyond the farm gate. In this country alone, 14,000 growers compete with each other to sell their products. Purchasing power of the supermarket chains and processors in the market place is extremely powerful. There are no restrictions on imports from other EC countries, so United Kingdom farmgate prices and quality have to remain competitive with the price and quality of imports.
  The Minister mentioned the natural barrier of the channel, and transport costs of about £30 a tonne. There is no question but that there is a free market and that EC producers already have a massive hurdle to clear with the costs of transport across the channel.
  The second principle is
  "The market position of potato growers should be improved."
  We would all say aye to that. It says:
  "Farmers growing potatoes should be given an incentive to market their produce through a producer group."
  We are now on to setting up co-operatives and it goes on later to talk about 1·5 million ecu in grant aid to enable

  821
  this to happen. Nobody will say no to that either, but that does not, in any shape or form, strike against the modus operandi of the potato marketing scheme.
  The third principle—this is perhaps the rub—is:
  "There should be a common approach in trade with third countries. Imports from third countries, under normal circumstances, should not be subject to any other restriction than the Common Customs Tariff. However, if there is a significant rise in imports which could endanger the Community market then import licences may be requested. These licences serve the purpose of observing the market more closely."
  Does this not have a definite ring of intervention, to control supply and hence to control price? How ironic it would be if we were to replace our own successful system for price stability with one from Brussels.
  Frankly, the proposals seem designed to accommodate the complaints voiced by the processors. It has been argued that processors are having to import, particularly from Holland, because United Kingdom prices are too high, but the evidence is to the contrary. In four out of the five years since 1987–88, the Great Britain average spot price for potatoes was well below that of Dutch potatoes. I have a table showing that, in 1988–89, our spot price was something like £44·93 per tonne, while in the Netherlands it was £54·79, and so it goes on.
  Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend might be interested in a sentence from an answer I had from our hon. Friend the Minister of State this afternoon:
  "In the Netherlands potatoes are currently £27 to £32 per tonne compared to £25 to £50 per tonne (depending on variety) in Great Britain."
  It goes on to explain that that is more than doubling the level of processed imports in the past decade. Surely the figures are not as he says they are?
  Mr. Moss: As the Minister of State stated, or as I stated? I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend means.
  Mr. Marshall: As he stated.
  Mr. Moss: As I stated? The evidence is there for all to see. I shall be happy to supply it to my hon. Friend later.
  Dutch exports are greatest to Germany, which consistently has lower prices than the Netherlands. Does that not prove that Dutch export penetration is not related to the raw potato price or to the existence of a potato marketing scheme here? Dutch success in penetrating markets is more a reflection of the overall structure and performance of the Dutch processing sector compared to that of their competitors, rather than a reflection of the price of raw potato imports.
  In the current year, there has been substantial over-production in this country, and in the Netherlands, France and Belgium; hence the low prices that we are seeing. The average price from August last year to January this year in the United Kingdom was around £40 per tonne, compared with average prices in the Netherlands of £30 per tonne, France £32 and Belgium £20. Although the United Kingdom prices at this level are still well below production costs, they were held above disaster levels by the action of the PMS—first, the stabilisation effects of the quota and, secondly, grower-funded floor price intervention.
  Looking at this evidence, it is very difficult to disagree with my potato growers that the potato marketing scheme
  822
  works and has prevented them from suffering the catastrophic prices of their Belgian counterparts. No wonder many EC potato producers are looking enviously at our PMS system and secretly wishing for something similar.
  However, I have some sympathy with the processors. I recently visited a processing factory in my constituency, known as Garden Isle Foods. They complained to me more about the security of supplies of potatoes of the right quality and in the right quantity than about the price they have to pay. They need a guaranteed supply of these potatoes to ensure proper and efficient planning of their industrial throughput. They told me that, on one occasion last year, they were unable to buy forward at any price from any merchant. The story that came down the line from the co-operatives was they had not been empowered by their directors to sell potatoes on a rising market. There is plenty of scope here for the PMS and the growers to get their act together to make sure that the processors do not come forward with unnecessary complaints.
  From my discussions with my potato growers and with the processors, who are a very important part of the industrial scene in my constituency, I do not think that the two sides are a million miles apart. There needs to be better co-operation between them, and better co-ordination, and certainly increased investment by the producers and the merchants, particularly in areas such as grading and storage.
  Size is of vital importance to processors. Grading is still a farm-based activity, and is often too unreliable to meet the requirements of the modern specifications of the fast food industry. Producers need to consider the market requirements in a more professional manner. It is no longer good enough to expect processors to take surplus production of the wrong types of potatoes which have been rejected as unacceptable by the supermarkets and the packers.
  The potato industry, in all its parts, is working reasonably well. It is certainly profitable, given production figures over a reasonable number of years, and it works without subsidy. I have not heard any overwhelmingly persuasive arguments that this replacement by a lightweight EC regime will bring any real competitive advantages.
  The Bill as it stands is certainly acceptable, but I caution the Minister against the exercise of his powers under clause 22, particularly if, as he has said, he is not responding to proposed EC regulatory changes.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for detaining the House, but earlier today, when Madam Deputy Speaker was in the Chair, I brought to her attention on a point of order the fact that the Secretary of State for the Environment proposed to hold a press conference at 10 o'clock tomorrow on the future of the east Thames corridor, and that documents were not yet available in the House of Commons Library. I drew attention to the fact that policy statements were to be made to the press before they were reported to the House.
  In the past half hour, there has become available in the Library a question and reply, which I have furnished to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, which indicate that the Government's approach to the matter—that is, the east Thames corridor development—will be published tomorrow at 10 am. That coincides with the press conference of

  823
  the Secretary of State for the Environment, also at 10 am, on a major development issue affecting millions of people in south-east England.
  Is it not possible for Government Front-Benchers to arrange for a Minister to come here at 10 o'clock tonight and make the statement to which the House is entitled on this major issue, before it is reported to the press? It seems to me to be very important that this matter is reported and a statement made to the House, so that hon. Members on all sides can question the Minister on this development.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder if you could take this up with Madam Speaker. On 17 February this year, Madam Speaker made a comment about a similar set of circumstances that had been drawn to her attention. The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) raised a point with her about hon. Members releasing to the press the content of a speech intended to be made during a debate in the Chamber and allowing it to be published as if it had been made, although it was never made in the Chamber. Madam Speaker said:
  "If what the hon. Gentleman says is correct—I have no reason to believe otherwise—I hope that the practice will cease forthwith. I caution the House that any speech which is not published in Hansard, although it may be published elsewhere, is not a parliamentary proceeding and is therefore not privileged. All hon. Members should be made aware of that."—[Official Report, 17 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 322.]
  That deals, of course, with the question of absolute privilege with regard to any action for libel, but the principle is the same. Madam Speaker was deprecating information being given outside as though it had been given here in the House. Certainly, with the response to a parliamentary question, the impression is given that it is a parliamentary occasion, whereas clearly the information is being given in a press conference. It really is contempt by the Government, who have been in office far too long, for the House since their accountability is primarily to the House, not to the media.
  Mr. John Marshall: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that the Secretary of State for the Environment is due here at 2.30 tomorrow afternoon to answer questions for one hour?
  Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order Madam Deputy Speaker. I realise that you are not in a position to require Ministers to make statements, but in the past, as has been said in the House, Madam Speaker has deprecated this practice of making significant statements in that way. This is not an incident; it is a very important statement. It really shows profound disrespect to the House that we are not to have a statement from the responsible Minister tomorrow, before the press gets hold of the information.
  I wonder whether, since there happens to be an Environment Minister on the Front Bench, he might seek to catch your eye so that he can explain whether we are to have an opportunity to investigate this matter tomorrow with the Minister.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): As this matter was raised with Madam Speaker earlier today, I think it best that I report to her what has been said. She will in due course, no doubt, make her views known, if she so wishes. I cannot, obviously, bind her by anything I might say. Members will be aware, of course, that it is not
  824
  for the Chair to require Ministers to come to the House and make statements—a point that one hon. Member has already made.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: No. I have already dealt with the matter sufficiently. Mr. Paul Tyler.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I have no direct interest in farming, but I have a very considerable interest in the future of the rural economy, the rural environment and rural employment opportunities, and this Bill is very relevant to them.
  Many farmers today, faced with the complexity, confusion and constant flux which surround their industry, must have some sympathy for the view of Gaius Petronius in the year 66 AD. I am sure that the Minister knows it well, as I believe that he studied either classics or theology and it is very relevant to both. Gaius Petronius said:
  "We trained hard—but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form into teams, we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation."
  The House and the Government have indulged in that all too often.
  This Bill is obviously a very important opportunity. Indeed, it may be the last best chance for the farming industry. If it is approached in the right way, it could be a springboard for real opportunity, but if it is to create a new straitjacket for restriction it will doom the industry not to better marketing opportunities but to worse ones. That is why we Liberal Democrats come to the debate in a spirit of reasoned amendment rather than outright opposition.
  One of the most unpleasant and unfortunate implications of the proposals before us is that because it is so difficult to plan ahead in this industry in the very uncertain world of agricultural marketing the Minister has had to take to himself a number of enabling powers for implementation at a later date. We understand the problem, and let us not fool ourselves that it is easy to get around it, but the House is entitled to know the circumstances in which the enabling powers will be exercised; that is the crux of the issue. If it is to be in the context of an increasing discrepancy between farm gate prices and the prices that the consumer pays, and of nothing being done to reduce that discrepancy, the Bill will be counter-productive.
  In the past 10 years, retail food prices have risen by 52 per cent., but the retail price index has risen by 70 per cent., which means that in the past decade food prices have actually fallen in real terms. As any farmer knows, in the same period farm gate prices have increased by only 18 per cent., so farmers have contributed greatly to United Kingdom consumers' standard of living by helping to reduce the real cost of food.
  Farm gate prices actually fell in the years 1985, 1988 and 1991, but in no year in the past decade have retail prices fallen. In the decade 1982 to 1992 the producer price of milk, the central feature of the Bill, has increased by

  825
  45·5 per cent., but over the same period the shop price has increased by more than 70 per cent., so the margin has increased rather than reduced.
  The farm gate prices for lamb—which are relevant to the income from wool—have decreased, but the shopper has not seen a similar reduction, as the retail price has increased by 26·5 per cent. or more than a third. Against that background, concerns have been expressed in all parts of the House about the impact of the Bill on the viability and vitality of the agriculture industry. In the past decade there has been low or even no growth in real farm incomes in most sectors. Last week's Ministry figures showed that:
  "In real terms cash flow has remained virtually unchanged".
  Throughout the decade there have been considerable and continuous supermarket price rises. Despite the recession, food retailing has been one of the most successful and profitable sectors of the economy. It has also been one of the most generous contributors to Conservative party election funds.
  The effect of the Bill on individual sectors will clearly be the litmus test for many farmers and for the consumer, and I turn to the three sectors principally covered by the Bill. The hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell), the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) all raised serious concerns about potatoes. It is clear that there is no imperative from Brussels for the scrapping of the board or the scheme. The Minister has been clear, open and honest about that, but there seems to be some doubt in the minds of some of his hon. Friends, because every so often up pops the ogre of Brussels as the rationale for change.
  The Minister, as President of the Council of Agriculture Ministers in the latter six months of last year a very important person, was in an extremely important position to drive forward the Community's own regime. The problem now is not so much the merits of the present scheme versus the new scheme as the fact that we are being asked to buy what could be decribed as a potato in a poke. We do not know what regime will operate. It it possible that in the long term it could be very satisfactory, but there is an old saying, "If it works, don't fix it." Until we see a real improvement in the type of regime that is developed, it is open to many people to express scepticism about the nature of the transition, its speed and its timing.
  We heard sensible cautionary words from a number of Conservative Members about the nature of the successor body, which is not specified at this time. We welcome the fact that Ministers have agreed to maintain—in substance, they say—the good work of our noble Friends in another place, but many of us will be concerned to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny is guaranteed and will not be watered down.
  At the end of the day, there seem to be remarkably few people in any part of the industry—producers, consumers, retailers or wholesalers—apart from the processors, who want to make the proposed change. As a number of hon. Members on all sides of the House have said, there seem to be some major question marks about the way in which the potato scheme is being driven forward. We need reassurance.
  We all know that in areas such as my constituency in the south-west, and the constituency of the right hon.
  826
  Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, wool now represents only a small part of the overall income of sheep and hill farmers, but taking away the guaranteed price will halve what is already a very low price. The average price paid to farmers at the moment is 117p per kilo, which will drop to about 60p per kilo when the world market price is introduced. There are still 98,000 wool producers in Britain, many of them clinging on in a difficult situation, eking out a minimal existence. Farming in the hills and the least-favoured areas continues to be one of the most vulnerable sectors of the farming industry. To lose the security of that small part of their income at this stage would be extremely unfortunate.
  As the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said with characteristic understatement, there was some concern and anxiety from those parts of the country about the hill livestock compensatory allowances, but it was a great deal more than that. There was real anger from those areas because they felt that their interests were not being understood and that the position they came from, which was a steady deterioration in their income, although it was increasing somewhat in the current year, was not widely recognised within the Ministry.
  We know that the proposal is not new and has been widely forecast, but for the Government at this time to take powers in the Bill to destroy what is left of the guaranteed wool market when it is at its weakest, without anything to take its place, seems to give precisely the wrong signals to the most vulnerable sector in the farming community. I remind the Minister that, according to his Department's figures published last week, there have been only modest rises in the incomes of hill livestock farmers, while in Scotland they have continued to fall for the second year running. As a minimum, the sector is entitled to ask that revocation be delayed for two years to allow the market to recover.
  It is rumoured that the Government are planning to circumvent the whole process of parliamentary scrutiny and to use a statutory instrument to lower wool guaranteed prices to zero prior to the passage of the Bill. It is not for us to insist that the timing of the Bill should be brought forward—that is up to the Minister—but we could legitimately ask for a delay until that specific issue has been debated properly. It seems unlikely that the Bill will be enacted before the end of April, so surely the guarantee should continue for a full clip year and avoid disruption and unfair treatment to sheep farmers.
  On the main issue in the Bill—milk—it is of critical importance that a "very heavy regime", to use the words of one hon. Member, should be replaced with an equally effective regime, if all the advances in the sector are not to be put at risk. If the Bill provides an effective co-operative organisation for the dairy sector, with real muscle in the marketplace—comparable with the co-operatives which work so well for producers in most other member states of the Community—it could be the springboard for the improvement that I referred to at the outset.
  We accept that the vertical integration of the English and Welsh boards into a single co-operative would create a body which had the potential to be too monopolistic. In principle, the proposals of the milk marketing boards for Milk Marque are therefore along the right lines. We do not believe that Dairy Crest can be incorporated within that organisation and agree that it should be floated, but there is a problem with timing. If the Diary Crest flotation is delayed beyond the vesting day for Milk Marque, the

  827
  market could be distorted during the transitional period. We must have safeguards to ensure that that does not happen, and that there is no conflict of interest. Too long a transitional period could be damaging and could fatally compromise the new system.
  Scotland is very different. The latest figures from the Ministry show that dairy farming incomes in Scotland continue to fall, in contrast with other areas. With the three boards, the proportional and actual scale of operations are somewhat different. Despite earlier exchanges, I believe that there is a good case for the Minister to seek the co-operation of his colleague the President of the Board of Trade, who has just set a precedent by overturning an Office of Fair Trading recommendation on Owners Abroad, to reconsider the reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the provision that the Scottish milk marketing boards should not be allowed to engage in any production. It must be obvious that the milk production set-up in Scotland must be different from that in England and Wales, not merely for historic reasons but because of the state of that sector of the industry north of the border. I hope that the Minister will also be able to reassure us that the Government will allow the constitution of a separate Scottish development council for milk.
  The last thing we want is for the new milk co-operatives to be so constrained from the outset that they are not able to work for the full benefit of their members, to enable them to survive and to compete in the single market. Since January, the economic context of the industry has completely changed and it must surely be only a matter of time before some of the enterprising producer cooperatives in other member states target our market. After all, many cases of them have generous backing from investment by their Governments.
  It is extremely important to us that the Minister, with other Ministers in the Community, should consider the problems of quota allocations now. It is a high priority, which should be resolved before completion of the change to the new marketing system. Either more quota should be allocated to member states such as the United Kingdom, whose home market suffers from a major deficit—we are importing liquid milk now into this country—or we should allow quota to be traded across member state boundaries, which might prove preferable. If our dairy industry is as efficient and productive as it has shown itself to be in the recent past—which I believe to be the case—that could only work to our advantage, and we should consider it urgently.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman's second suggestion is Government policy. We are in favour of trading quotas across borders. That is one way in which one can make the quota system more flexible and sensible and make it react properly to the market. The sadness is that we are unique. That is a European view, and as good Europeans we ought to do that to attempt to ensure that milk production takes place in those countries most suited to it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will help us by ensuring that members of his fellow parties in Europe start to support that policy, as until now they have been implacably opposed to it.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention—and all power to his elbow during the negotiations. It is a great pity that more advance was not
  828
  made in that direction when he was in the driving seat in the Council of Ministers. Surely with the change in our milk marketing we can start to press for such an initiative.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps the policy that we have adopted—which, as I understand it, is the free movement of unrestricted quotas—has been the problem with our European partners. If the Government were to take the view that there should be some control and restriction on the amount of quota which could move across boundaries, our European partners might be more amenable to the suggestion.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. No doubt he will develop that theme later in the debate, and it may be better for me to leave it to him to do so.
  Quota management is an important issue. I think that it is fair to say that the sector was orginally sceptical of the value of the introduction of quotas, but the system is now working reasonably well and therefore any major change in quota management will inevitably cause concern for the reasons that I have advanced. For that reason—in Committee, or by whatever means appropriate—I hope that the Minister will be able to guide us on the current thinking on quota management before the Bill reaches the statute book. Little guidance is given in the Bill or in any statements made by Ministers during its passage in the other place or today to guide us on how it will operate, and clearly there are different views of the extent to which Milk Marque, as the successor body but one which does not represent 100 per cent. of producers, should be involved in the exercise.
  We want a producer co-operative, but not as a fallback position: we want a potential ground breaker which will establish itself as a strong marketing co-operative to match those in other member states. From our experience of agriculture in other member states, we know how effective producer co-operatives are. They are prepared to use their marketing muscle in the market place and to prevent the sort of domination of buying power which results in this country from a small number of processors and supermarkets. A co-operative with the ability to compete in the world of the giants—the supermarket chains and food processors—would be a benefit to producers arid consumers. By cutting back on the bargaining power of the middle men there is no reason why retail food prices should not fall.
  Speaking with all the authority of a former Minister, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to the individualistic tendencies of farming communities, and there are no more individualistic farmers than those in my area of Cornwall. This is the time for us to stimulate, encourage and cajole, by every means possible, to ensure that they work together in co-operation.
  In the long term, the Milk Marque pioneer should be able to expand into other commodities. Why should it not expand into potatoes, wool or eggs, where we desperately need producer co-operatives to give more muscle to producers vis-a-vis those who buy from them? By that means, we could develop a multi-product group to market the best of British produce, and it would certainly command more confidence and respect than the inadequately funded Food from Britain organisation.
  The Minister referred to liberating creative potential, and there are opportunities to do that. In the case of both

  829
  potatoes and wool, however, the Bill seems to be too early, too drastic, and lacking in realistic provisions to enable a transition to a well-managed market. On milk, the Bill is still too sketchy and the sector is understandably concerned about what may happen. The Bill retains a distinctive whiff of Thatcherite philosophy, offering little prospect of real competition to the dominance of the supermarkets, and putting too much potential power into the hands of the Minister. It will need radical revision in Committee.
  This is not the Bill for which we hoped and expected. If we are presented with a real Bill which achieves the sort of objectives about which hon. Members have been talking today, we can all support it. I hope that the House or the Standing Committee will be able to improve the Bill, but I have no more confidence in the Government's policies at present than, I believe, agriculture has.
  7.30 pm
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: My interest in manufacturing and industrial issues, as well as, of course, consumer matters is well known, and leads me to contribute to today's debate in two ways—first, in relation to wool, as chairman of the all-party wool textile group and, secondly, in relation to milk, as someone who has been closely involved with the industry for many years. I declare an interest as my husband is employed by one of Britain's largest dairy companies, with which I am in regular contact on a range of issues. I am happy to leave the future of the potato board to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), who made an interesting speech on that subject.
  At first glance, the Bill, as it relates to wool, milk and potatoes, seems straightforward with no controversial issues—but nothing could be further from the truth. The bill is a privatisation Bill to remove Government involvement from the market for those commodities. I fully support privatisation as it gives a new boost to industry, but if we privatise, we must do so properly—something which the Bill does not appear to do.
  One aspect of the Bill will have a serious effect on the wool industry and wool producers, which will, in turn, affect our textile industry—the measure to terminate the guaranteed wool price from 1 May this year. As has been said, that guaranteed wool price will disappear before the Bill has completed its passage through the House. The main purpose of the guaranteed price has been to give stability to wool producers, which it has done for 40 years. The cost to the Government has been small, and the stability continued until the world collapse in wool prices in 1990.
  The stability created by the guaranteed price has allowed the British wool clip to improve in quality and image, and turn itself into an internationally recognised fibre. There are licensees all over the world, and there is representation in Japan, which is now one of the biggest consumers of British wool. The existence of the guaranteed price has helped to develop an efficient structure for the collection, distribution and promotion of British wool. That structure is the envy of many European countries and it was the basis of the system now operating in South Africa.
  830
  The guaranteed price has served producers in the less-favoured and remote areas of this country particularly well. More than half of British wool is exported, either in greasy, scoured or top form. Much of the processing takes place in Yorkshire, and Scotland and the borders. The stability created by the guaranteed price has ensured a constant supply of wool into the wool industry which, at present, is increasing its exports, both in terms of value and quantity. The guaranteed price has helped to secure employment in those areas. That has been a particularly important factor as the textile industry has declined over the years.
  The existence of the guaranteed price has been of great value in preserving the environment and countryside. The British Wool Marketing Board, the Confederation of British Wool Textiles and the National Farmers Union have repeatedly asked the Government to maintain the guaranteed price until 1995 to allow time for the industry to recover from the unprecedented difficulties resulting from the international wool crisis of 1990–91.
  There is still a big discrepancy between supply and demand, and the reduction in world stockpiles could take two or three more years. If the guaranteed wool price is removed this year, as proposed, producer returns will fall by almost half, which will compound the hardship recently experienced by sheep farmers. There could not be a worse time to remove the guaranteed price as, due to the international stock piles, world prices are at their lowest level in real terms.
  At today's market prices, many grades or breeds of wool have no commercial value. They could disappear and be lost from the market when prices recover. Like the milk cheque, the wool cheque is important to farmers, even though it does not amount to much. It is an important source of income to producers, particularly those in hill and remote areas.
  The sheep industry has been depressed and uncertain for some years. The loss of the guaranteed price will compound the problems. As many sheep farmers say, their incomes are being reduced. I understand that a farmer in Bedfordshire—an area that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will know well—receives less for a whole lamb complete with fleece than I pay for one leg in the butchers. That discrepancy shows that there is something wrong in the market.
  Production will be lost to third world countries, which will affect textile manufacturing output, and employment in areas that are already suffering due to competition from cheap overseas labour. Exports will be lost and there will be an increase in imported wool. Both factors will affect the balance of payments. There may even be a switch back to synthetic fibres, which could cause environmental problems. Shearing and dipping will be discouraged—we have already heard about the cost of shearing sheep—which will have an effect on the general welfare of the national flock. Environmental problems could be caused as sheep shed their wool all over the countryside. We all know the importance of maintaining the countryside, but it could suffer.
  The importance of sheep farming should not be understated. The quality and image of the clip will suffer, and the present system of collection, distribution and promotion could be undermined. We all know that promotion is important—both the British Wool Marketing Board at its headquarters at Clayton, Bradford, and the Confederation of British Wool Textiles

  831
  must both be complimented on their work in that sector. If the British Wool Marketing Board carries large stockpiles of wool into a post-guarantee period, producers will have to bear the cost of holding stocks inherited from the guaranteed price regime.
  I shall call on the Minister—when he returns to his seat—to reconsider the issue and, at the very least, to extend the scheme until May 1995 when we hope that the wool market will be in better shape. Wool producers need the Minister's help, and they need it now. Perhaps as the Minister is busy in discussions, he will read Hansard tomorrow to see what I am saying.
  When we see how milk is treated in the Bill, its true nature comes to light. It is an enabling Bill which leaves the action to the Minister. It is a sort of Arthur Daley Bill which suggests, "Trust me, guv'nor." I am not sure that many of us would buy a used car from Arthur Daley, and I leave my colleagues to gather the inference from my words.
  Surprisingly, the Bill requires only the milk marketing boards to come up with schemes to reorganise the industry—the Minister then has to agree to those schemes. The Minister has no obligation to publish the schemes or consult anyone else in the industry. That does not constitute democracy, but provides a potential abuse of power.
  I hear that there is already a mood within the milk marketing boards merely to change the letterhead, repaint the trucks, get rid of a few troublesome milk producers and carry on as before. That is patently unsatisfactory. The Minister should be obliged to consult the milk purchasers, retailers and consumer organisations. We are all consumers. Perhaps not all my colleagues do the weekly shopping, but their partners, wives, sons and daughters may do so—we are all consumers and all ultimately pay the prices. Such groups should be consulted by the Minister before he gives his approval to a reorganisation scheme. I am sure that, if the Minister were advising me on the reorganisation of my now infamous mythical whelk stall, he would at least take into account—I hope—the views of my customers. I suggest that he does the same in this case.
  I should like to spend a moment discussing the competition aspects of the Bill. It is here that the issue of privatisation comes into play. The milk marketing board in England and Wales has already proposed that it should be converted to a milk brokerage, Milk Marque, aiming to control 80 per cent. of milk from farms. Its equivalent in Scotland proposes to operate an integrated milk brokerage and dairy business, with more than 50 per cent. of the market in Scotland. Clearly, we have competition on our hands, and it could be an issue from the very first vesting day.
  It reminds me of the problems that we have had with privatisation in the energy market. We have privatised gas and we are allowing a monopoly to continue, restricted only by an efficient and tough regulator—and even he suggests change. In the electricity industry, there is an inefficient regulator who has been unable to prevent the industry from falling into disorder. If I were to use any more such examples, I am sure that the Chair would quickly rule me out of order, but we have adequate supplies of energy in this country, and a great deal of milk, so we should not have to import either.
  I am advised that Milk Marque, the potential monopoly, has already announced the non-negotiated
  832
  price at which it will supply dairies as from 1994. I understand the proposed price is 20 per cent. higher than current prices. I cannot see the British housewife wanting to pay 20 per cent. more for milk just because the Government are allowing a monopoly to develop. I trust that the consumer organisations will pick up this point and discuss it forcefully with the Minister.
  Not only will Milk Marque attempt to set prices that bear no relation to the market; it also reserves the right to ration supplies, presumably to impose its own prices. That strikes me as a potential abuse of a monopoly position, and we do not want references to the Office of Fair Trading or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission early in the new scheme. I sincerely hope that it will not encourage British dairies to import raw material supplies from northern France, as we do with French electricity, or British farmers will be very cross. I know that the chairman of Northern Foods has already described the massive investment that that company will make in plant in this country once he knows what the Minister's views and actions will be. I would certainly not want him to go away with the idea that it would be much better if he invested money in jobs in northern France rather than here.
  We want our industry here. I want British electricity in our power system and British milk on my cornflakes. I expect the Minister to ensure that I and future generations will have it.
  The Bill must deal with the competition aspect. We cannot just leave it to the Minister to sort out the industry as best he can. Limits must be placed on the size and form of any milk marketing board successor established as a result of the Bill. The Bill must also set limits on the size of any future milk brokerage. We cannot rely on a regulator with the title of Ofmilk. That would do nothing to encourage our British industry. In any case, our regulators are only partly successful, and there is no reason to suppose that they would do any better in this industry.
  We have made a botch of some of our privatisations, and we must not make a botch of milk reorganisation. Most people need milk every day of their lives and like it delivered to their doorsteps, so the legislation needs to be framed to promote competition and prevent the need for intervention by the OFT or the EC Commission.
  I understand that certain services are of significance to British dairy farmers and the dairy industry. They have already been mentioned, but I shall mention them again so as to leave the Minister in no doubt about the concern felt. The services are artificial insemination, milk testing and milk recording. These services are currently provided by the milk marketing boards. I understand that Milk Marque has assumed that they and their assets would be vested in the new organisation.
  That would be unsatisfactory. Some milk producers will not be trading with Milk Marque. They will sell to other organisations or direct to dairies—but they will need the benefit of those services. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, those producers will be reluctant to use the services if they remain within Milk Marqueߞand who could blame them?
  Moreover, the same farmers have a claim on the assets used by all those services, in the form of farms, offices, laboratories and means of transport. Milk producers have contributed to their cost for many years, so they should remain freely available for use by all milk producers. The services are critical to British dairy farming and should

  833
  therefore be moved to independent control—to the Agricultural Development Advisory Service, to a commercial organisation or even to a non-profit-making trust.
  The milk producers who do not trade with Milk Marque also have a claim on other MMB assets—the land and property at Thames Ditton, at regional offices and at depots and farms around the country. The property belongs to all milk producers; they have all paid for it over the years they have been members of the scheme. It would be most unfair if the benefit of these properties fell into the lap of a single milk brokerage.
  Mr. William Ross: The hon. Lady will be aware that many people have stopped producing milk. How can they get their share of all this back?
  Mrs. Peacock: The hon. Gentleman, who has been in the House longer than I have, knows how to tackle the Minister on that question. It was a good point, but I cannot answer it. I hope that the Minister will. I suggest that the Bill be amended to require the sale of these properties and the distribution of the proceeds to all producers. If Milk Marque requires them for future activities, they could be leased back.
  I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to what I and my colleagues have to say, because the Bill is flawed. That is why I may oppose it if it stays in its present form. I was quite surprised that it emerged from the other place without major amendment. We have only partly heard what Opposition Members think of it, but I suggest that change is needed. The producers want change, and the wool and dairy industries recognise that change is inevitable. So I am prepared to vote for the Bill on Second Reading if I have the Minister's assurance that these points will be dealt with in Committee. When the Bill returns to the House it must then stand or fall on its merits, and I trust that it will be significantly amended.
  7.47 pm
  Ms Jean Corston: Three themes run through the Bill—themes to which we have become accustomed in the past 14 years. One is the accretion of ministerial power. Another is a preliminary failure to consult. The third is the consequent creation of a monopoly. Legislation on education, health and local government has exhibited a growing concentration of power in Ministers' hands. The idea seems to be that it is easier to confer power on a Minister than to mess about with democratic or statutory bodies. It is also handy because it enables Ministers to evade parliamentary scrutiny by means of delegated legislation. The upshot is that Minister, take decisions that used to be taken by people with more expertise and experience.
  The explanatory memorandum tells us that clause 3 and schedule 1 give Ministers powers. Clause 4 enables Ministers, clause 5 enables Ministers, clause 6 empowers Ministers, clause 7 gives Ministers power, clause 9 enables Ministers, clause 13 confers powers on Ministers, clause 16 empowers Ministers, as does clause 20. Clause 22 enables Ministers. Clauses 24 to 27 and schedule 3 set out Ministers' functions. Clause 44 empowers Ministers. The Bill is a perfect illustration of practices that we have got used to, but which have not worked.
  834
  My second theme is the failure to consult and I address my comments specifically to the milk industry. While Bristol, East is not well-known as an agricultural constituency, my constituents eat food and drink milk and there is a large dairy, which is a major employer. In particular, there has been a failure to consult interested parties, other than the successor body, about the milk regime. That is a major flaw.
  There should have been a specific provision for consultation with all the parties affected. For example, there should have been consultation over reorganisation schemes for the board and before the winding up of the residuary body, and over the conditions under which the development council will operate. Those are all major failures to consult people who have expertise in the industry.
  The Government say that they believe in competition, but, so far, their privatisation policies have created only monopolies. What has that to do with a free market, even if it was a good idea? We have seen it with gas, electricity, water and British Telecom. The new body, Milk Marque, is, as I understand the Bill, to be a private co-operative. There is concern in my constituency over how that will operate, because the Government have said that competition legislation will protect milk producers from any abuse by Milk Marque of its dominant position in the market. However, as co-operatives enjoy exemption, particularly on price restrictions, under the Restrictive Trade Practices Acts, it is important to make further legislative provision to prevent abuse. I hope that that matter is addressed in Committee.
  Mr. Curry: The milk marketing boards are exempt from the operation of the monopolies and mergers regulations, so the Director General of Fair Trading cannot be referred to. When Milk Marque comes into existence, that immunity will be removed and it will be subject to the full rigour of the Office of Fair Trading and possible reference.
  Ms Corston: There is all the difference in the world between a statutory body, for which there is a possibility of parliamentary scrutiny and of input from the general public, and a private, horizontally integrated co-operative, which is what we are talking about.
  The Dairy Trade Federation, no less, has expressed concern that Milk Marque proposes to increase the price of milk by 20 per cent., a fact to which the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) referred. On 9 March, the Dairy Trade Federation asked for
  "independent supervision of this dominant monopoly".
  As I read it, there is nothing in the Bill to provide proper transitional arrangements on price, sales, a disputes procedure and continuity of supply, all of which are important. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken already of the dispersal of the milk marketing boards' assets. That should not confer an unfair advantage on, or improperly influence, farmers to join the successor body rather than supply milk direct to a company.
  Other hon. Members have already spoken about the important national assets held by the boards and I make no apology for referring to them again. They include, among other things, the national milk record centre, the Genus farm service—that is vital for ensuring a healthy stock and for research into genetics, artificial insemination and other matters—the central testing laboratories, and the milk collection vehicles. The statutory arrangements

  835
  are the best, but if there is to be a change, it is vital to ensure that there is no discrimination against bodies or companies other than Milk Marque in the use of these national assets. It would be more appropriate if there were a transfer of those functions and services to an independent national body.
  It is vital that the flotation of Dairy Crest takes place as soon as possible, because it should be treated by Milk Marque in the same way as any other customer for its milk. That would only be fair to other competitors, if competition is, as it is supposed to be, at the heart of the Bill. There should be either safeguards to ensure effective scrutiny of the milk marketing board-Dairy Crest relationship or a separation of Dairy Crest and Milk Marque.
  Mr. Curry: Let me make it clear that Dairy Crest cannot be owned by Milk Marque in the interim period after the end of the scheme, or by the residuary body of the milk marketing boards. Therefore, if Dairy Crest could not be floated in advance, it would be necessary to propose a means to deal with the short-term problem of ownershipߞperhaps through a trust arrangement. It would not be acceptable for Milk Marque, by accident or design, effectively to control Dairy Crest, even for the transitional period, and alternative arrangements would have to be made.
  Ms Corston: Although I am grateful for the Minister's explanation, it would have been helpful if that had been made clear at an earlier stage, rather than only now.
  At the heart of the Bill, and anything that the House considers, there should be basic tenet. To quote a former Foreign Secretary, Lord Healey, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The milk marketing board has worked well and the Government should have fought for it in the way that Governments have supported it and fought for it in the past. European Community legislation did not oblige us to wind it up.
  The Labour Members are not the only people opposed to the new regime. I understand that there is concern in Ambridge. Phil Archer has said how worried he is about the winding up of the milk marketing board, which he described as a trusted friend. He spoke about the uncertainty of a new regime and how opposed he was to it.
  Mr. Paul Marland: What about Eddie Grundy?
  Ms Corston: Watch this space.
  All producers can sell their milk to, and have confidence in, the milk marketing board. Anything put in its place should provide the same opportunities and give the same confidence. The proposals threaten the livelihood of farmers and those in the dairy industry. There is already a great deal of concentration of power in that industry. Some 79 per cent. of the United Kingdom dairy products market is in the hands of multiple retailers, and four of the largest monopolies have no less than 75 per cent. of that market.
  It is vital that we protect the milk industry in the interests of those who work in it, and of the consumers of milk and milk products. Members of Parliament have the primary duty of protecting the interests of our constituents, who are consumers. Other organisations have professional bodies to represent them, but we are here to make sure that whatever we do through legislation
  836
  On food is in the interests of consumers. Judged by that criterion, the Bill signally fails. That is why the Labour party would be right to vote against it and try to get it amended in Committee.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. As the wind-up speeches will commence at 9.15 pm, I appeal to hon. Members to make relatively brief speeches so that more can be called.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. William Hague: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to take part in the debate, and I shall heed your request for speeches to be relatively brief.
  This is a debate of great interest to my constituents. I have enjoyed listening to the speeches made so far, most notably that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), with which I concur in many respects, not only because of its content but because of the measured way in which my right hon. Friend criticised some aspects of the Bill, striking a more appropriate note than that struck by one or two Opposition Members who attributed the Government policies on the Potato Marketing Board to potato processors' donations to Conservative party funds.
  To make such an accusation in the very month that the Duke of Westminster has resigned from the Conservative party because his views were apparently ignored on the Housing and Urban Development Bill, and against a Government who proceeded with their reforms of competition in the brewing industry against the most vociferous complaints of many of the party's principal contributors is extraordinary. If the Conservative party evolves its policies in order to please its contributors, it does so in a way that can only be described as bizarre.
  I welcome many of the provisions in the Bill, particularly those relating to group marketing grants. Marketing is important for British agriculture. Improved marketing of our products is essential. We have one of the most efficient agriculture industries in the world, but, compared with the marketing of products from other countries at international food exhibitions, our industry often falls down at the crucial marketing stage. I hope that the group marketing grants will be the spark for many new ideas and projects. They will not revolutionise the industry, but they will begin to show the way and address one of the great weaknesses of our industry.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to say a little more about which organisations have expressed interest in those grants so far, what level of interest there has been, what he can do to encourage co-operatives, as well as other ad hoc groups of producers, and how the measures will proceed. The measures are obviously welcome, permitting recovery procedures in the event of the breach of the scheme conditions, enabling grants to relate to the whole of Britain, and so on.
  I also give a broad welcome to the provisions relating to the milk marketing boards and the revocation of the milk marketing scheme. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I think that the milk marketing boards did a good and useful job for a long time, but it is right to revoke the scheme now. If we did riot do so, it would probably collapse under its own weight. It

  837
  is under challenge in the courts, there are all kinds of constraints on Dairy Crest, which do not apply to its competitors, and the pricing and allocation system for milk has clearly failed in Britain during the past 10 years or so, causing consumers to pay a high price for their milk while producers receive a low price when they supply it.
  The margins of manufacturers are artificially protected and that has led to an insufficient incentive to go for high value-added products. Often there is not the availability of milk in the United Kingdom to make high value-added products because of the protection of milk for export for lower value-added products.
  That particularly came home to me in my constituency where there has been great controversy recently over the future of a dairy in Hawes which Dairy Crest attempted to close. After the valiant and, I am pleased to say, successful efforts of many of my constituents, it has been brought from Diary Crest and is once again churning out true Wensleydale cheese which I hope hon. Members will join me in consuming in the Dining Room at every possible opportunity.
  But what really brought home to me the problems in the milk marketing scheme was studying the economics of that dairy and seeing that it was gravely affected by the fact that milk simply was not available on many days of the year for it to produce at all. We have the extraordinary situation where milk is not directed to those customers who value it most. It is not available even to businesses who want to buy it and are prepared to pay for it. That cannot be the right way to run an industry. The result is inefficiency and import penetration of high value-added products. Clearly, this scheme must go.
  Mr. Nick Ainger: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problem of supply to processors, to producers of cheese and so on, is not just inefficiency within the milk marketing boards, but the fact that we are allowed to produce only 80 per cent. of the total market. It was the disastrous deal that his right hon. and hon. Friends brought back from Europe in the early 1980s that caused that problem.
  Mr. Hague: Milk quotas are a restraint on our national production, but my right hon. and hon. Friends who negotiated that deal had to start from where they were. They could not suddenly demand huge shares of the European market for milk at the expense of other countries already producing it. In fact, what was done in the 1980s now turns out to have provided an important safeguard for small producers. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I am inevitably concerned that small producers should not be driven out of business but should be given the chance to compete. They are to some extent safeguarded by the existence of milk quotas, even though they were savagely denounced when they were introduced. My right hon. Friend has been vindicated by events.
  Like my right hon. Friend, I welcome the creation of Milk Marque. I hope that it is a success and that a high percentage of producers join it. Without being a monopoly, it will have great bargaining power if it succeeds. It will help to ensure that there are fair negotiations, particularly with large supermarket chains. I hope that many farmers will join it. However, I agree with
  838
  my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) because I cannot see why such things as artificial insemination, other breeding services and milk recording services must be part of Milk Marque. That does not necessarily follow.
  I hope that Milk Marque will stick to the promise that it made in correspondence sent to me and other hon. Members that it will have milk pricing that is market driven and responsive to supply and demand, and will allow easy access for new businesses, encourage the development of new high value-added products, allow rapid and flexible response to the demands of consumers, meet the challenge of foreign imports and provide export opportunities. If it can do those things, it will be a great success and it will do a great service to British agriculture and the British balance of payments. If it succeeds and makes a voluntary co-operative work, it will set a valuable example to the rest of the industry. I endorse and enthusiastically applaud that part of the Bill.
  But that brings me to the other major part of the Bill, concerned with potatoes. Again, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), I must sound a cautionary note and say that I am worried about what is proposed. I have yet to be convinced that it is the right course of action.
  The milk industry has suffered because of rigid price arrangements, the absence of competition and the existence of a monopoly purchaser, but the same is not true of the potato industry. The Potato Marketing Board is different. There is no monopoly purchaser, there is free competition beyond the farm gate, producers compete with each other making contracts with whomever they want and there are no restrictions on imports so British producers have to be competitive.
  Therefore, we should be cautious before we sweep away the system. There is a danger in trying to be neat and deal with all the marketing boards at the same time and in tinkering and interfering too much with arrangements that have worked reasonably well. I share with my hon. Friends a natural bias against marketing boards, quotas and restrictions of any kind, but we must look carefully at how the arrangements work.
  What is the case against the Potato Marketing Board? First, we are told that it leads to higher prices: indeed, I have heard many people say that it must do that or producers would not want to be part of it. It is true that prices have tended to be lower in some countries, particularly France and Germany; yet, in many recent years, Dutch prices have been higher than spot prices in the United Kingdom—and, after all, we should compare our prices most rigorously with those of Holland, which seems to be the source of most of the imports.
  One of the problems generated by today's debate is the existence of tables of statistics that can prove almost any point that hon. Members wish to illustrate. The potato market is very complicated; there are many different grades of potato, and various places and seasons are involved. The price moves all the time. It is possible to construct a table to demonstrate and validate almost any point—but, for what it is worth, I have a table that shows the spot potato price in the Netherlands to have been higher than the United Kingdom price in 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91, and marginally higher, by a few pence per tonne, in 1991–92.

  839
  The basic premise that price is at the heart of the matter and that people will pay to be part of the Potato Marketing Board only if they receive a higher price as a result, is not necessarily valid. People pay not just for a higher price, but for a reduction in the risk, regardless of price. The only conclusion that I can draw from the contradictory data that are available is that although the potato market scheme sometimes leads to a higher price in this country, at other times it leads to a lower price. Sometimes the product is scarcer than it would be if the market were completely deregulated, but sometimes supply is made more secure.
  After all, producers are liable for a penalty if they do not take up all their quota in any given year: they will lose on their quota allocation in the following year. The potato marketing scheme can act to maintain supply, rather than depressing it in a way that would be characteristic of a damaging monopolistic arrangement. I do not consider the price arguments sufficient justification for sweeping the scheme away.
  Another argument used against the scheme is that processing capacity will move abroad. A slight handicap of that argument is the fact that new processing capacity has recently been built in this country. A bigger problem for the industry seems to be the availability of excess processing capacity in Holland, which has led the companies that own that capacity to discount heavily in order to make maximum use of it. Such a development should not be mistaken for a relentless move abroad.
  If the scheme's failings have led to more processed imports, why are there more such imports from the Netherlands into many other European countries—countries that have no potato marketing schemes? Perhaps the problem is not so much that processors are moving out of Britain; perhaps it has more to do with inadequate competition among processors in Britain. I feel that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food must conduct and present a much clearer analysis of the industry and its workings—after all, it is a very complex matter—before they can persuade us that the potato marketing scheme needs to be abolished for the reasons they have given.
  It is said that the removal of the scheme would result in generally freer and fairer competition, but can we speak of freer competition when Dutch producers seem to be combined into a few large co-operatives with the ability to control plantings and negotiate prices far more effectively than individual, fragmented producers in other countries? Are Ministers sure that this would be the only country in which producers joined to agree on how much should be planted? Are they certain that it would be against our interests to be the only country with such a scheme?
  I am very much in favour of free and fair trade, but I am not sure that the outright and rapid abolition of the Potato Marketing Board is the way to achieve it. I think that the other place was sensible to insert one or two provisions in the Bill, and I welcome the Government's announcement that they will not try to reverse those decisions. I also welcome the provisions to ensure the creation of a successor body. I think, however, that there is a strong case for giving the Potato Marketing Board longer to show that it can make things work—that it can work with processors to reduce the percentage of the processed potato market taken by imports, and do more to meet the right specifications with better grading and the like.
  840
  I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry should pause to reflect before overturning the current arrangements, and I hope that the debate will give them some cause to do so.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Nick Ainger: My constituency has interests in all three areas covered by the Bill: wool, potatoes—particularly the early potatoes for which it is famous—and, of course, milk and the proposed abolition of the milk marketing boards.
  Recently, I have engaged in extensive discussions both with my local branch of the National Farmers Union and with the Farmers Union of Wales. Both organisations—as well as individual farmers—have expressed grave concern. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) pointed out, we have here an organisation which appears not to be broke, so why on earth try to fix it? This is especially relevant to constituencies such as mine, which is 60 miles from the nearest city and has serious transport problems. We have one or two buyers in the milk industry—processors—and the local farmers fear that, if Milk Marque is not a success, they will be under pressure from those processors. They are afraid that prices will be forced down in the local market because Milk Marque has failed nationally.
  Having expressed those reservations, I must say that in the main both unions welcome the idea of Milk Marque. They see certain advantages in it. They recognise that Dairy Crest should perhaps have been separated from the milk marketing boards many years ago, and that if that had been done we might not be faced with this Bill now.
  The subject of wool was touched on briefly in our debate some weeks ago on hill livestock compensatory allowances. My farmers on the hills of Preseli quoted figures showing that the price that they now receive for their wool is less than half the price that they received 10 years ago. Wool is no longer a reasonable product for them to sell; it is hardly worth shearing the sheep. In the light of that, it is a great shame that the Government have decided to remove the guarantee price: there is now no bottom to the market, and prices are set to plummet.
  Many hon. Members have referred to both milk and sheep, but as Pembrokeshire has a special interest in new potatoes, and a special sector of the market I shall speak mostly about the possible abolition of the Potato Marketing Board. Last year, 35,000 tonnes of early potatoes were produced in Pembrokeshire, and that produce alone put a significant amount into our local economy. In 1989, nearly £6 million was pumped into the local economy by sales of early potatoes. In 1990, the figure fell to £4·3 million; in 1991, it went up to £6 million; in 1992, it fell to £3·1 million. It would have fallen much further if the Potato Marketing Board had not intervened and placed a bottom on the market.
  The season last year was unusual because the Cypriot, Moroccan and Egyptian early potatoes came in much later and the early English potatoes, because of a mild winter, came, in much earlier. The traditional time for the Pembrokeshire potato was extremely limited. Fortunately, the Potato Marketing Board intervened with about £450,000 for Pembrokeshire growers last year. That is a good example of why we need the board to continue to prevent such enormous fluctuations. To illustrate the price ranges, the House might like to know that the average

  841
  price paid for Pembrokeshire early potatoes in 1989 was£171 per tonne while the average price last year was £95 per tonne.
  The Minister told us that he wanted to break the shackles imposed on producers by the Potato Marketing Board. However, in my discussions with growers and with the NFU, no one has said that they want to see the end of the board or that they want to break free of its shackles. To illustrate that point, I want to quote from a letter—not from a sado-masochist, but from John Davies of Herbrandston Hall, a member of the NFU potato committee and one of the largest early potato producers in Pembrokeshire. He writes:
  "If quotas were removed the bulk of growers in Wales would stop growing. This would be because without stability we would have years of shortage and high prices followed by large surpluses. In those years because of the carryover of the main crop from the previous year potatoes in Pembrokeshire would not be sold at all. Rather than cope with this they would leave potato growing and reduce their overheads and fixed costs.
  There was no early potato industry in Pembrokeshire before the formation of the Potato Marketing Board. Pembrokeshire is the largest supplier of early potatoes in the UK market during May and the first half of June. If the area was substantially reduced it would not be so easy to influence the market and marketing would be very much less effective. The effect of this happening would be an increase in imports of first early potatoes. The home growers have reduced imports from 385,000 tonnes in 1978 to 264,000 tonnes in 1992. This is one of our great successes in import substitution."
  That is a good illustration of how, as a result of the Potato Marketing Board and a regime, we have been able to stop imports or to reduce them significantly.
  Mr. Davies also referred to the importance of the potato industry to the local economy in respect of the provision of casual and permanent labour. He wrote:
  "Potato growers in Wales spend approximately £1·2 million on seasonal labour which is very important to rural economies. About 350 potato growers employ regular farm workers. If they stopped growing potatoes and returned to cereal production they would no longer need this labour."
  It is clear that the Government have completely failed to make the case for the abolition of the Potato Marketing Board. I have yet to hear a speech from the Opposition Benches or from the Conservative Benches in favour of its abolition. I certainly did not hear such a speech from the Minister. He seemed confused as to whether it was a good British idea to get rid of the Potato Marketing Board or a bad European one. We have already heard that the Spanish and French operate intervention policies. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber accept that with the removal of the 50,000 tonnes Government limit, leaving the Potato Marketing Board to intervene to the tune of 450,000 tonnes maximum a year, we would have a totally self-financing scheme which would cost the taxpayer nothing.
  Why are the Government proposing to legislate away the Potato Marketing Board? The only answer I can think of is that, unfortunately, they seem determined to get rid of any whiff of an organised market which has worked so very well. They are now virtually in the pockets of the only people who will benefit from the board's abolition—the major potato processors.
  It is a great shame that the Government have ignored the success of the Potato Marketing Board. I hope that
  842
  they will listen to the contributions that have been made in the debate, particularly those from Conservative Back Benchers.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Paul Marland: We are in some considerable danger of under-estimating farmers in this debate. The Bill is important, and it offers a great opportunity for farmers and manufacturers to look forward to a more successful future.
  There is no doubt that the attitude of most British farmers is changing. They realise that they must move closer to the marketplace and, to do that, they must adapt their businesses. It is perfectly understandable that most people find it difficult to come to grips with change. There is nothing more alarming than change. People fear change itself, rather than what it may bring. However, farmers are business men and many of them take a great pride in being not only good husbandry men, but also good business men.
  As David Naish, the president of the National Farmers Union said at this year's annual general meeting:
  "We must face up to change and make it work for us."
  That is a realistic approach and I applaud David Naish for it.
  I believe that Government intervention in markets, in agriculture or elsewhere, leads to the most almighty muddle. It usually results in trouble. Unmolested markets, certainly in agriculture, are by far the most dynamic, as we can see from the pig and poultry industries. The only way in which the Government should interfere in any of those markets or businesses is to ensure fair play. Let us return to a level playing field.
  For as long as I can remember, farmers have always mistrusted supermarkets and end use sellers. Just this morning, I had a conversation with a dairy farmer in my constituency. He told me a story about a large-scale strawberry producer who, when there was a glut, picked strawberries to send to a supermarket. The supermarket scrutineers went to the farm and said, "We are very sorry, but we can't take your produce because you have one too few portable loos in this field for the number of strawberry pickers that you have here."
  Supermarkets and large-scale end users are very anxious to build bridges with farmers. They have an important selling job to perform. However, I believe that farmers are beginning to realise that the future looks much better with a joint venture with a large retailer, and that a spirit of co-operation and trust between the two parties is essential if they are to go forward together.
  Those of us who have already been approached by end users will be aware that Nestle already buys milk all over Europe direct from farmers, and that Unigate buys milk direct from farmers in Ireland. That has been achieved with very little difficulty, and the farmers are extremely enthusiastic about that regime.
  It is early days to talk about how appalling the situation will be if these boards are swept away. There are stepping stones that show the way, in which the spirit of co-operation between farmer and end user or retailer is developing. On a previous occasion, I mentioned the Strathclyde food initiative. This is an arrangement between Safeways, which is a very large retail group, together with Allied Lyons, Rank Hovis, Unigate and

  843
  other big operators in the market. If the group finds a farmer who is producing something that it thinks would be of interest to its customers, it approaches him.
  Let us suppose that we are talking about someone in Cornwall producing 30 wind-dried hams a week. The farmer is told that the group will send in its experts to show him how to expand his business so that he can produce, say 300 hams a week. He is told that he will be helped to secure larger premises, and that he will be given a five-year contract under which all the wind-dried hams that he can produce will be bought. I use wind-dried hams as an example, although judging from your expression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they sound delicious to you. That is why retailers are interested in trying to produce more of them.
  Obviously there is a way forward for people who are able to develop businesses in this way. As we have seen today, interest rates are coming down. This too gives farmers an opportunity to develop their own marketing enterprises and secure a place alongside the big retailers.
  I am extremely pleased that the interest rate under the loan guarantee scheme for small businesses has been dropped by two percentage points and that farmers who came forward with marketing schemes are eligible, as they are eligible for group marketing grants. I am glad that my right hon. Friend is setting up a review to make the scheme more flexible and to ensure that the rules under which it operates are a great deal more straightforward.
  In the Ministry of Agriculture, there is a tremendous move afoot to slash red tape. I am very pleased about that, as we hear daily about how much difficulty there is. There is the annual sheep premium. There is the change in the date for claiming headage payments, and support for suckler herds is becoming more and more arduous. Farmers are expected to do more to claim grants, and I understand that in some markets, to cover the cost of veterinary inspection in slaughterhouses, a surcharge is being imposed on farmers who sell their produce in those markets.
  That is not right, and I hope that this drive to sweep away regulation and make the farmer's lot a little easier will be continued with gusto. Change is rolling forward. More and more farmers are realising that their best future depends on the changes proposed in the Bill. Opportunities are to be found in a freer market, as David Naish says.
  I turn now to milk marketing. In the past few weeks, hon. Members who are interested in this subject and in other agricultural matters, have been approached by the milk marketing boards, or Milk Marque—my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) has spoken with some passion about this matter—and we have been approached by Nestle and Unigate. Every meeting has been interesting and has helped us to understand some of the opportunities that lie ahead for the farmers. Milk Marque has spoken with great confidence about the future and about its hope of persuading many farmers to stay with it.
  It is quite right that many of them should gain more confidence by doing just that. The milk marketing organisation has behind it 60 years of history and of service to the farmer. However, we are concerned not about the last 60 years but about the next 60. The milk marketing boards have a fine reputation and a large following of dedicated farmers, but they must be careful not to sully their reputation by trying to persuade farmers
  844
  to jump into trading with them, come what may. Historically, they have been rather wooden in their efforts to increase farmers' returns.
  There is no doubt that Dairy Crest has been favoured with surplus milk. Dairy Crest deals only in low-value products—milk powder and butter. At least, that is one of its main interests. This is what has been done with the surplus milk. It is the cheapest means of getting rid of it. But, as the milk marketing boards have said in the past, "Milk is milk, and if you want to buy from us you will have to take what we give you." In no way have the boards been willing to tailor milk to what the end user requires. The days of milk being just milk are coming to an end. Much more attention must be paid to the opportunities to increase the returns to the farmer.
  I was rather shocked by something that my farmer friend said to me on the telephone this morning. He said that the milk marketing board is currently paying him 21p a litre but that it proposes, from April next year, to pay 27p a litre. I should like to know why this man, who is never slow to express his opinions to me, did not chase the board to give him 27p a litre now. What is going to change between now and next April, apart from the fact that the board will have to face up to the real world?
  As other hon. Members have said, there is a feeling that the milk marketing boards are giving an uncompetitive edge to Milk Marque, as they are picking up the cost of promoting it. We have heard about the transport fleet, the property currently owned by the boards, including the large office in Thames Ditton and many depots throughout the country, and I understand that they own three large farms. How will those who do not opt in to Milk Marque share in these assets, to which they have contributed?
  There are the questions of Genus, central testing and national milk recording. My farmer friend, who is going to join Milk Marque, says that the visits made by the national milk recording staff do not matter—lots of people visit his farm—but the visits of the milk recorders are very intimate matters. A recorder knows precisely what a farmer's cows are producing and how his costings are arranged, and that will give Milk Marque an unfair advantage. As other hon. Members have said, the assets should be separated from Milk Marque, and all those who are to share in the flotation of Dairy Crest should share in them.
  Another matter that has come to my attention has rather alarmed me. A circular that the milk marketing organisation has sent to some of its existing buyers says:
  "1. We may not be able to supply you with any milk at all if you have declined to submit an intention to purchase form.
  2. Your priority return may be scaled down or ignored if it appears not to be a bona fide estimate of your own business needs.
  3. We will regard it as part of our responsibility to establish a fair rationing system amongst our customers if there should prove to be a shortage of milk."
  If that is not an attempt to put the elbow on some users and on some farmers by saying that they will have a share in the assets to which I have referred, I should like to know what would be. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister, in summing up, will be able to say something about this matter.
  I am sure that Milk Marque, whatever form it takes, will be successful. If it captures, say, 88 per cent. of the market, who will regulate the market? My right hon. Friend spoke of his distaste for the concept of Ofmilk but said that his mind was still open. Some comment on this

  845
  question in the summing-up speech would be very helpful. We should like to hear exactly what my right hon. Friend's thoughts are now.
  I should like to refer to some other points that were put to my hon. Friends and myself at our meetings with the processors. They all feel that there are great opportunities ahead for producers, and, of course, for themselves, to promote British food. The manufacturers want to trade direct with farmers, and will be able to pay them a premium if they tailor the milk they produce to what is needed for the manufacturing process.
  We know that there are creameries and manufacturing establishments in isolated areas throughout the country—for example, in St. Erth and Haverfordwest, where Unigate has large manufacturing plants. If these plants are to have a successful future in difficult circumstances, and if the farmers are to have a premium, persuading them to deal direct and produce tailor-made milk will reduce the costs of the manufacturer and enhance the returns.
  People talk also about the possibility of imported milk. At the moment, the only liquid milk imported into this country is treated milk and, as I understand it, the cost of moving liquid milk is very high or, at least, is a large proportion of the cost of what is a fairly low value product. That is not on. Many other fears that are being expressed by the farmers about manufacturers going abroad to buy liquid milk are, I believe, ill founded, because I really do not believe they will.
  Northern Milk Partnership is another company with which we have been having discussions. It has issued thousands of prospectuses, it tells us, of details that it will send out for its contracts, and good luck to it.
  The milk manufacturers have told hon. Members that, it they can achieve a satisfactory transition, the United Kingdom consumer can look forward to greater price stability, and even wider range of innovative and good-quality, added-value products, made here in the United Kingdom and, I hope, an end to having to depend on the French so much to send in the more exciting and unusual milk products that we have been consuming in this country.
  I turn to the potato board for a moment, although I do not have many potato growers in my constituency. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) read out a letter from a potato grower in his constituency. May I read out part of a letter I received from the secretary of the Potato Growers Action Group? He says:
  "Large numbers of farmers now oppose the PMB since it lost import controls in 1979. From that date, its main aim of matching supply to demand became obsolete. By imposing restrictive quotas on UK growers, all it has done is create a gap for imports to fill."
  This gap has been filled at the end of the food chain by imported foreign processed potatoes. This is especially disappointing as processed potatoes is where the major growth is in the potato market, and importing processed potatoes denies manufacturers in this country the opportunity of creating work for our own citizens.
  Mr. Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned an action group. Will he accept that a letter was recently published in the farming press from an organisation of that name? It was immediately denounced in following editions of the paper by a great many individual potato producers, who made it
  846
  clear, as has the National Farmers Union, that the majority of potato processors support the PMB and feel that it has done a very good job for the producers. Does he accept that it is a minority view that he is putting to the House?
  Mr. Marland: No, it is not a minority view. We have had discussions with potato producers, and a number of them are very sceptical of the benefits of the potato board. They are not such a small number.
  To carry on with the letter:
  "The Board contradicts itself in claiming low prices to consumers and high prices to growers, depending upon whom it is speaking to at the time. In fact, the weather has a greater effect on price than the Board."
  To be quite honest, not one potato grower has contacted me to say that he is anxious to see the continuation of the potato marketing board.
  The Bill heralds a new era of opportunity for farmers, manufacturers and consumers and will, I hope, ensure that more high-quality, added-value products are made in Britain, to be eaten in Britain and exported to Europe and to the rest of the world.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: We have heard a number of interesting contributions tonight. I must tell the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), with whom I share space on the Select Committee on Agriculture, that his was the first voice tonight in favour of the abolition of the Potato Marketing Board. The vast majority of hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have supported its retention, at least for a period. His was a minority view.
  What has united both sides of the House is the tributes paid to the milk marketing board and its work over the 60 years of its existence. During that time, it has served the milk sector extremely well. We should not forget the circumstances which lead to its creation as a statutory body in the 1930s. At that time, many farmers faced a crisis of monumental proportions. Bankruptcies were commonplace, and small farmers were at the mercy of the free market. Many were driven to the wall.
  It is not surprising, therefore, against that background, that many in the industry view the demise of the board as a statutory body with considerable dismay. It has served milk producers very well. The monthly pay cheque, guaranteed, with regular collection throughout the year, irrespective of location, has been an anchor of certainty in an industry which has seen its fair share of turbulence in recent years.
  However, it has been clear for some time that the dairy sector itself is going through a period of profound change and the uncertainty which that inevitably involves. The main changes have been happening in the marketplace. As was said in another place on Second Reading:
  "The days are long since gone when British milk was consumed almost exclusively as butter, cheddar cheese and silver, top milk."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 1992, Vol. 540, c. 798.]
  The dairy market has seen enormous changes in consumer demand and preferences. We now eat considerably more yoghurt and a large range of other products—for example, soft cheeses, which are now consumed in vast quantities—and over 40 per cent. of

  847
  drinking milk in England and Wales is purchased in skimmed or semi-skimmed form. We have even seen a sharp decline in the doorstep delivery of milk.
  Since a question mark exists over the MMB's exclusive purchasing right of low fat milk, there is no doubt that the board as currently constituted stands at a crossroads. Should the board's powers be amended to take into account these changes in consumer demand or should the statutory powers be abolished? Many producers will feel worried by the approach that has been adopted by the Government but, given that they have adopted this approach, we need to consider the impact of the changes.
  Many small producers, in particular, will welcome the proposal to establish a voluntary co-operative for England and Wales—it gives them relative security in the short term. However, they will need assurances on a continuing commitment to collection and regular payment, wherever their farms are located. Farmers located in isolated rural areas, such as those that I represent, will feel vulnerable and will fear that their collection costs will increase over time. This could lead to an increasing concentration of milk production on the fringes of urban areas where collection and delivery costs are much lower. We need some assurances on this matter.
  In recent years, when farmers have asked me for my advice as to whether they should dispose of their milk quota, I have told them that on no account should they do so, since it gives them a regular cheque and provides them with certainty in a market which is changing rapidly. However, those who will maintain milk production in isolated rural areas need assurances about the new regime.
  One of the most telling arguments in favour of a powerful voluntary co-op is the strength of the multiple retailers. It is a fact that 79 per cent. of the United Kingdom market for dairy products is in the hands of the multiple retailers, and that four of the largest multiples command no less than 75 per cent. of the market. Farmers, therefore, operating through co-ops, have considerable strength to negotiate with retailers; standing outside a co-operative, they face the danger of being picked off one by one.
  We must not forget the position of small producer co-operatives; their interests also need to be protected. Many have complained that they have had difficulty in obtaining sufficient milk and that, under new arrangements, they must be given opportunities to secure sufficient quantities of milk for their plants. Many play a valuable role in maintaining the economy of rural areas and provide much needed jobs in those areas. We would welcome an assurance from the Minister which built on his intervention to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams).
  It is important that Milk Marque, or whichever successor body is set up, does not administer the quota system. It should be transferred to an independent body, which would also maintain an important statistical database. That would ensure the maintenance of commercial confidentiality.
  Research and development are regarded as important by the farming industry. The idea of a development council is a good one. Proper research and development are vital for any industry, especially the milk industry, which faces great challenges. Can the Government give an assurance about their commitment to the continuation of research and development and ensure, if necessary, that
  848
  sufficient funding is given to that end? The lack of proper research and development is hampering much of the industry in the United Kingdom today.
  On potato marketing, hon. Members from both sides of the House have said that it is extremely premature for the Government to call for the demise of the potato marketing scheme. Farming unions, as well as potato producers, oppose the Government's decision to revoke the scheme. A former Minister of Agriculture, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said that, since 1989, the potato marketing scheme has adapted to changing conditions and that targeted areas for potatoes have been expanded specifically to accommodate growth sectors in industry. Many growers have invested heavily in potato storage following the Government's review in 1989, and they would be let down badly by an early end to the scheme.
  I regret the Government's decision to terminate the existing guarantees for wool. A sudden ending of the wool guarantee this year will have a damaging effect on the income of wool producers at a time when world market prices are depressed and sheep farmers face cuts in hill livestock compensatory allowance payments. We should remember that the economy of many areas where there are hill farmers is extremely fragile, and that to withdraw the wool guarantee this year would be a severe mistake. The way in which it will be withdrawn has been deplored by the farming unions. We should at least have proper parliamentary scrutiny of the decision. We believe that the wool guarantee should be retained at least for the time being, to enable the industry to stabilise.
  I have highlighted several matters of great concern to hon. Members who represent farmers in Wales. I hope that the Government will take those matters on board.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me at a time in the debate when the Front Bench is full. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for obtaining the information which I requested earlier. I understand that, for clause 53(4), we should read 54(4).
  I do not underestimate the Government's difficulties in these considerations. It is always much easier to take an industry into state control than to liberate it from the shackles of such control. Essentially, this Bill is about liberating the food and farming industry from certain aspects which could, broadly speaking, be termed state control. The Minister must be pleased that the Bill is generally, if not always enthusiastically, welcomed.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Who by?
  Mr. Christopher Gill: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make interventions from a sedentary position, I will do my best to deal with them if he speaks up, but it would be much easier if he made them in a more formal way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No hon. Member should be making sedentary interventions.
  Mt. Home Robertson: Perhaps the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) can tell me exactly who on earth welcomes the provisions of the Bill?
  Mr. Gill: Many hon. Members have welcomed many aspects of the Bill, and I stand before the House doing exactly that. However, I point out to the Minister that

  849
  many safeguards will be sought and, especially in the case of the milk and dairy industries, must be given. I hope that the safeguards and assurances that the industry seek will be forthcoming. I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Minister recognises that failure to accommodate the major concerns of the industry will lead to investment plans being delayed, cancelled or even taken abroad.
  I recognise the dilemma that my right hon. Friend the Minister faces in trying to reconcile his free market views and instincts within the straightjacket of the managed market imposed by the common agricultural policy. That is nowhere more apparent than in the dairy sector, where a structural deficit of milk in the United Kingdom will tend to inhibit entrepreneurial activity and import substitution. My right hon. Friend reminded the House that the United Kingdom must put its milk to the best use, and he instanced how the Bill would liberate the creative potential of our industry to do just that.
  In the context of the views and opinions of people who add value to the product—the processors—I want to make a few further comments. My right hon. Friend said that we must not be left with the commodity end of the business. Obviously, we must concentrate on adding value wherever we can. The concern of the processing industry is well expressed by the Food and Drink Federation, which makes the point that milk and dairy products are major and essential ingredients for food and drink manufacture and that the availability of supplies and the price of milk and dairy products are central to the ability of manufacturers to meet consumer demands.
  Manufacturers are seeking a marketing system which ensures regular availability of high quality supplies and which is as open, competitive, efficient and genuinely market based as possible, given the constraints of the European Community milk quota system. They are highly concerned, however, that if the Bill's provisions are introduced in their present form a free market for milk will not be the end result. Manufacturers seek assurances that the terms of transfer of the assets of the milk marketing boards will not be such as to press milk producers unduly to join only successor bodies to the milk marketing boards.
  Manufacturers with plant in Scotland and Northern Ireland are concerned that if, as is currently envisaged, the milk marketing boards in those regions are permitted to retain their processor capacity, users will face unfair competition. They also seek assurances that the reorganisation in milk marketing will ensure the development of competition in the market, and about how that will be supervised. The Bill will have failed manufacturers and consumers if it results in a statutory monopoly to market milk being replaced with an uncontrolled voluntary monopoly. Lastly, manufacturers want the Bill to provide full consultation for all interested parties on details of successor schemes. Of course, that theme has been repeated in other speeches today.
  I support the amendments introduced in another place in relation to potatoes. In common with other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today, I welcome the asssurance by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that he will not seek to reverse those amendments.
  In my experience, the potato industry has difficulty in accepting the end of the potato quota at a time when the
  850
  quota system has been extended into other sectors of agriculture. I query the premise that the price of potatoes will not fluctuate widely in a totally free market. I draw the attention of the House to what happens in another totally free and unsubsidised sector of the food and farming industry. Twelve months ago the price of pigmeat was about 128p per kilo, whereas eight months previously it has been about 79p per kilo. In an eight-month period, there was a massive fluctuation of about 62 per cent. in the price of that raw material. I repeat that that was in a market which is totally unsubsidised, free and subject to market forces.
  Mr. Curry: None the less, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has heard any pig producers asking for a heavy intervention regime in pigmeat. They appear to think that that system, with all its fluctuations, is still the best.
  Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend is right. Those who are associated with the pig industry on either side of the farm gate take that view. They support the concept of earning a living by the market, they accept the workings of the market and market forces, but it is difficult to run an industry in which the raw material has such volatility. In my experience, it means that when the producer is making money, the processor is probably losing money. Conversely, when the producer is losing money, the processor is probably making money.
  For a long time, I have believed that, for many agricultural products, there is only one profit in the whole production and processing cycle. I was pleased to hear that view supported by Sir Alistair Grant, the chairman of Safeway, speaking on the farming programme this morning. I am led to the conclusion that I should support the opinion of potato growers in the Ludlow constituency, as endorsed by the National Farmers Union nationally, that the potato marketing scheme should not be summarily dismissed and that, under the principle of subsidiarity, the Government should support the concept of allowing the British potato industry to work out its own salvation over a reasonable period.
  Will my hon. Friend the Minister please investigate the system of area and plant royalty levies, which threatens to put seed potato producers such as Shropshire Highland Seeds in my constituency out of business when a free market in potatoes is created?
  Another aspect of the Bill is grants for marketing. A curious belief still persists that there is a continuing willingness on the part of the taxpayer to fund such operations. I express some disappointment at the apparent lack of faith in market solutions to essentially market problems. I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends of the old maxim that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I ask them to consider the effect of earlier grant schemes, particularly on the production side of our industry, which led to serious structural surpluses and over-capacity, all at a huge cost to the taxpayer. As often as not, that has been to the benefit of big businesses rather than, as perhaps was intended, to the benefit of small farmers and small businesses.
  I recognise that the Bill is an enabling Bill, and I am, of course, conscious of a previous enabling Bill. I refer to the Food Safety Bill, which I supported with enthusiasm. I remember saying at the time that it contained nothing to which a bona fide food handler could possibly take exception. Had anyone told me that, as a result of the

  851
  plethora of regulations it triggered, farmers' wives in my constituency wishing to provide bed-and-breakfast accommodation would have to have their kitchens completely revamped, I might have taken a contrary view.
  I draw the attention of the House to clause 54 of the Bill, which says:
  "An order or regulations under this Act may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions as appear to the person making it to be necessary or expedient".
  I remind Ministers that we are committed as a Government to deregulation and that this industry and other industries—one might say the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker—are fed up with too many rules and regulations. The Government simply have to get off the backs of the wealth creators or risk killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. William Ross: I intervene in this debate simply because it is intended to extend this Bill by prayable order to Northern Ireland and that is not something that either I or anyone else on this Bench ever welcome.
  We should not allow the somewhat bland language of the Bill to conceal the fact that in it we are transferring from this House to Europe a very large authority—and one of the final chunks—that we have remaining over agriculture in this country. That has not so far been mentioned in the debate.
  If we are to end these sytems which have served agriculture so well, they should be replaced only by a system which keeps the strengths given to the primary producer by the present schemes.
  I expect to hear calls from the processors. They are protesting loudly about vertical integration but I do not hear similar protests about vertical integration when the beneficiaries are the retailers or those who process in that vertical integration. The protests arise because the intention seems to be that this would be a primary producer controlled vertical integration and I, as an ex-farmer, applaud that.
  I find it amazing that, when the Minister was introducing the Bill today he was busily talking about abolishing quotas on potatoes but said not a word about abolishing milk quotas or quotas or other goods. He said that we would get rid of quotas on potatoes but keep them on other goods. Why is there this divided opinion on the Government Bench? There must be some reason for it. Perhaps we could have an explanation.
  There is no point in talking about a competitive situation in milk and complaining about problems of supply when the shortages of supply about which there are complaints simply arise from the quotas on production of milk in this country. If one wants a really competitive supply, one has to get rid of quotas, and that is mighty difficult to do. That is the reality of the situation that no one here wants to face.
  There is real concern about the powers being given to Ministers over any successor organisations. That concern is widespread in the agriculture community.
  A number of hon. Members opposite also seem to have forgotten that we have a land frontier in this nation, and it is a land frontier across which raw milk has flowed in considerable quantities over the past few years. That concerns many people in Northern Ireland because we are
  852
  concerned about how the Northern Ireland milk processing industry will develop and whether any of it will move into the hands of a foreign state which would use it to the benefit of their farmers, so that we would be exporting jobs along with the milk processing.
  We are entering a free market situation. Milk is one of the foundation stones of Ulster agriculture and we wish to protect it because it is vital to the whole farming community there. We want a system which is co-operative, firmly based on Northern Ireland producers and controlled by them because they will have the wit to look after their own welfare rather than leaving it in the hands of processors when processing can be sold, right, left and centre to anyone in the world who will use it purely for their own benefit without any concern for the agricultural community.
  I understand that the milk marketing board in Northern Ireland wants to effect the change as soon as possible. There is a time scale problem here, because even if the Bill gets Royal assent by July, the Northern Ireland order may not come until the autumn. That will mean that we are at least three months behind and it will be almost impossible to make the conversion date of 1 April next year. I understand that there were problems with the Scottish milk marketing board, with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Office of Fair Trading; I ask the Northern Ireland Minister, who is present on the Front Bench, to remember that there is a great difference in the way in which the milk is split up and handled in the Province.
  As for potatoes, I know a fair bit about them because for many years we grew the basic seed propagation for the whole of Northern Ireland on our farm, and I have probably seen more varieties of potatoes than most hon. Members—the reality is that they are a high-cost crop with very variable costs.
  There is the problem in Northern Ireland that the potatoes which we grow are very often seed potatoes. They are seed varieties which are of no use in Northern Ireland because they are not grown to produce ware in the British climate; they are grown to produce a ware crop in a continental or north African climate. The Minister is well aware of that. Therefore, we find ourselves this year with a huge number of seed potatoes, while the market has collapsed completely from a sale of £18 million to £9 million. They are potatoes which nobody wants; they are totally useless.
  We are also caught by the fact that, although we produce very high quality seed, this year's ware is a very high yield. The seed has not gone, but is sitting there. I know of one farmer in my constituency who has 4,000 tonnes in stock; it is perfectly good seed, but nobody wants it. There is such a huge variation in the price of varieties in Northern Ireland that a stock scheme simply cannot be triggered. There are potatoes in Northern Ireland which are selling at a perfectly good price. The English growers have the salvation of a £35 differential for shipping across the Channel from the continent. We have the problem of shipping them over here and we need some sort of a stockfeed scheme very rapidly indeed.
  I know that the Minister has been given all the figures and is aware of the problem. I hope that he will make some effort to help seed potato growers in Northern Ireland, because that is a trade which will come back. Those people who buy our seed potatoes have disease problems after a

  853
  year or so and have to come back to the northern producers to get healthy stock. They will be back, and I do not want them to come back and find nothing there.
  I do not think that the Government have been very helpful to the Northern Ireland producers this year. I understand that 2,000 tonnes of seed potatoes were sent out by the Overseas Development Agency—a Government agency—to Bosnia. They did not go to tender for these, and the price was £140 per tonne. Apparently they all came from one source in Scotland—a perfectly good source I have no doubt, but if they had gone to Northern Ireland they could have had 2,000 tonnes in two days for a lot less than £140 a tonne. I understand that the producers in Scotland got £70 a tonne, so somebody was making a lot of money out of Bosnia. The Government have not handled that one very well and we are most unhappy about it, but we hope that they will do somewhat better in the future.
  There is much more that not only I but other hon. Members would like to have said in this debate, but time has run out. I have tried to touch very briefly on the concerns we have, and I hope that we shall get satisfactory answers before the day is done.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I realise that I am up against the clock and I will make my intervention extremely brief so that the wind-up speeches can start on time.
  I share the opinion of other Conservative Members about what will happen to the residue of the milk marketing boards, in particular testing, national data recording and Genus. I agree that it would be wrong to pass those over to Milk Marque.
  I have a solution that I can offer briefly to my right hon. Friend about what he should do, particularly with regard to national milk recording. If it is freed from the milk marketing boards, it will be able to sit very well in the new animal data centre which the National Centre for Animal Statistics wants to set up for the livestock industry. The NCAS is based in my constituency and the new centre will be well worth supporting. The danger is that if we go ahead without moving the milk records away from Milk Marque, the records will be scattered all over the place. It is vital for the livestock industry in Britain that those records are kept together.
  I believe that, under a development council, the animal data centre could provide the livestock industry with an extremely valuable database and be of immeasurable value to future generations, and I urge my right hon. Friend to consider that when he sorts out the final details of the milk marketing boards.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: We have had an interesting debate, including a chirpy little speech from the Minister which I am sure the burghers of Peckham will well enjoy.
  It has been a delayed debate because the Bill has been a casualty of Maastricht. Last week's Farming News went as far as suggesting that the Government were pulling the Bill out—no such luck. The overwhelming view of the
  854
  House tonight has been that the marketing boards—in particular the milk marketing boards—have served the country well.
  Lest we forget the measure of stability that the milk marketing board has brought to British agriculture, we need do no more than read Hansard debates of the early 1930s prior to the original scheme being set up. The horror stories of milk production difficulties in the 1920s and early 1930s are legion in the industry and those days must never be allowed to return.
  The milk marketing boards' cheque has saved the British dairy industry: that point was put eloquently by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling).
  One of the biggest threats to the boards was in 1978. I pay tribute to the shadow Minister of Agriculture, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) who, with the late John Silkin, successfully secured concessions enabling the milk marketing board to survive. I know that the entire British dairy industry is grateful to my hon. Friend.
  Marketing boards in the United Kingdom have been enormously successful, not least the Potato Marketing Board which was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). Despite occasional difficulties, it has been an important component in market stability over a large number of years; a tightly policed target area, combined with intervention arrangements—the existence of a non-tariff barrier, in the form of a £32-plus channel crossing charge on imports, to which the Minister referred—have produced a relatively stable potato sector.
  The problem is that the processors are not getting what they need at the right price and we acknowledge the difficulty. A way round that dilemma has to be found, as the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) said. However, I am not convinced that the Government's proposals for a totally free market provide the answer. The official Opposition cannot sit on their hands and watch a part of the British potato industry driven into bankruptcy on the altar of Government ideology. We will therefore go into Committee primed to respond to, or to initiate, any compromise suggestion that secures the survival of the board, perhaps under a revised scheme.
  It is a pity that the industry—that, is the producers and the processors—has not been able to draw up a revised scheme that the Minister could sell to the Community. However, we must avoid at all costs a scheme based on intervention which costs the taxpayer money. I know that that has been discussed by the industry in recent weeks, but I make it absolutely clear that it is not on Labour's agenda and I understand that it is not on the Government's.
  The sight of potato mountains being destroyed in France and, to some extent, in Northern Ireland may invite calls for public subsidy, and there is evidence to suggest that that is precisely what is happening in Europe, but that is not the answer. Where quotas avoid state intervention and public subsidy we should never be too hasty, to remove them, which is why we see some merit in the revision of the scheme, rather than its abolition.
  The official Opposition are deeply concerned about the Government's proposals for wool—a matter which the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) alluded to in an interesting contribution. We are acutely conscious of the problems faced by Britain's sheep farmers. As I said

  855
  during the most recent debate on hill livestock compensatory allowance payments, we believe that, to some extent, that problem can be dealt with in the marketplace, with an assault by Britain's lamb producers on the European sheep markets where prices are substantially higher. Nevertheless, until higher lamb prices are available to farmers, we strongly believe in the principle of a wool scheme that supplements low incomes in much of the sheep sector.
  On milk and the Government's proposals for reorganisation, we believe that the milk marketing boards could have survived and would have done so under a Labour Government. We recognise that a number of difficulties have arisen, all of which have been alluded to during the debate. A series of challenges to the boards' powers have effectively undermined its strategic position in the marketplace.
  The activities of Botfari, the Cheshire company acting as a contract processor, having eaten into the board's powers as a monopoly purchaser. Equally, the heat-treated and low-fat milk cases, while being pursued with various degrees of success and failure, served to challenge the role of the milk marketing board as exclusive purchaser in the market place. We are, therefore, faced with the need to address a reality—a real change in circumstances—and it is in that light, and with that in mind, that the official Opposition will play a highly constructive role during the debate in Committee.
  Mr. Mark Robinson: Can the hon. Member enlighten me that I am hearing correctly? From what he is saying, the Government had no choice but to introduce the Agriculture Bill.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have not said that—indeed, we shall oppose the Bill. I have suggested that we could have retained the milk marketing board but amended its powers. In Committee we shall argue that case.
  We want a strong Milk Marque and a level playing field for processors to organise contracts with producers. We have set ourselves a number of objectives for the Committee stage, all of which are founded on the need to retain an orderly market in the supply of milk. We are acutely aware of the need for legislation to be framed in such a way as to balance carefully the interests of direct contract processors and of Milk Marque, acting as a broker. In that light, we shall wish to ensure that the successor organisation to the milk marketing board is not able to manipulate the market through the abuse of its market share or through the restricted availability of any of its retained assets.
  The legislation, if properly framed at the enabling stage and in any subsequent orders, should relieve the Dairy Trade Federation or its members of the need to go to the Office of Fair Trading or to the competition authorities in the European Community.
  One measure of the success of the Bill will be whether it can be implemented without driving the processors into appeal procedures on reorganisation of the market.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) emphasised the concerns of processors in her constituency about that issue. We shall want to ensure that the Bill provides for the widest possible consultation with producers and processors of milk prior to any
  856
  reorganisation schemes being approved by Ministers. We are tabling a number of amendments to deal with that process.
  We believe that the Dairy Trade Federation has argued fairly for a number of co-operatives to be established under alternative arrangements. It may well be that, as the market develops, a number of new co-operatives will be formed. The question is whether, at the legislative stage, Ministers should have those other arrangements in mind when deciding whether or not to approve the board's proposals.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: I am sorry to disturb my hon. Friend in full flow, but is not one problem for producers, particularly in less-favoured areas such as mine, that they could be picked off by a buyer other than the milk marketing board's successor? Those producers would then be forced out of business because their milk could not be cross-subsidised by the milk marketing board's successor.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend raises an important issue, with which I shall deal later.
  Some people argue that for Milk Marque to be strong in the marketplace it does not necessarily need 80 per cent. of the milk suppliers. We shall no doubt debate such matters at length in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler) raised the issue of consumer interests. Before Second Reading, the debate has been characterised by far too little consideration of that vital interest. Apart from comments by the National Consumer Council, there has been almost no discussion in the industry on those subjects. The result has been that a number of developments are proposed which, combined with devaluation of the green pound, have major implications for the processing industry in the United Kingdom.
  The formidable and confidence-inspiring Mr. Andrew Dare, chief executive of the English and Welsh milk marketing board, is making statements that cause much concern. Two weeks ago he announced on the radio that Milk Marque would be charging more than 27p per litre. In that interview he failed to say that, within the 15-month period between December 1992 and April 1994, the manufacturing milk price—if one takes the Milk Marque proposed supply price and the green pound devaluation into account—will have risen by almost 35 per cent. for butter powdered milk, almost 35 per cent. for Cheddar cheese milk and almost 37 per cent. for short-life products such as yoghurt and cream.
  In the processing industry, milk forms 35 per cent. of the production cost for yoghurt, 40 to 45 per cent. for the liquid milk and 75 to 80 per cent. for butter and skimmed milk powder production. It is clear that increases of that magnitude, which will be imposed on processors and passed on to the consumer, will have major implications, not only for jobs in the processing industry, but for the housewife who will pay more.
  Devaluation is one thing, but a predatory Milk Marque acting against the public interest is another. Those early attempts to manipulate the price of milk—which the board justified on the basis of guide pricing—and attempts to influence the flow of contracts, point to Milk Marque effectively becoming a voluntary monopoly. That is unacceptable. We want a strong Milk Marque, but not one that means that free and effective arbitration procedures

  857
  can drive up the price of milk in conditions of deficit milk supply and then undermine employment in the processing industry.
  I should like to quote an article in The Grocer of earlier this year. Under the heading,
  "Milk price increases take toll on trade",
  it says:
  "Cheshire cheese manufacturers are turning tankers away in an effort to limit losses resulting from this year's £330 a tonne increase in the milk price. The £100 a tonne extra they received from buyers in January merely compensated for raw material cost rises last autumn".
  That was the increase gained from the green pound devaluation.
  "John Fishburne, chairman of Crewe-based Hankelow Foods, went on to say, 'Recouping the remainder from competitive retailers is not easy. In order to keep loss-making stocks to a minimum, Hankelow is only taking four tankers a week into its dairy instead of the usual seven'."
  So the writing is on the wall; let the market beware.
  There has been a price hike, in this case arising out of the devaluation of the green pound. The next price hike arises out of deregulation and the abolition of the milk marketing scheme. A number of processors in the United Kingdom find their viability at risk unless there is a restraining factor in the marketplace—that is why I asked the Minister my question about arbitration in the market.
  Although I accept that the single European market, following devaluation, brings new opportunities for British dairy exports, an inflated milk price can only cause harm to domestic markets. It is likely that we will have to find some means of arbitration in the new deregulated market. These are matters for Committee. The response of the processors, despite the DTF's protests, has been muted. It seems that they do not want to upset Milk Marque and the formidable Mr. Dare. Equally, they seem to believe that the consumer, faced with no other choice, will simply bear the price increases.
  This is just not good enough. A great deal of concern—to answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones)—has been expressed about the position of low volume milk producers and those who run dairy operations away from processing plants in the more remote parts of the United Kingdom. I was particularly struck by some polling data from the south-west of England, where marginality is such an issue that farmers feel that they must support Milk Marque. Mr. Dare's apparent announcement that Milk Marque will remain, in effect, the buyer of last resort, although helpful as a reassurance to the industry, needs fleshing out and reinforcing in Committee, where we shall press these matters.
  We shall also press the case for new entrants to the processing industry who, we hope, within the dynamics of the new marketplace, will have access to sensibly priced milk supplies—a point made by the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).
  We accept that innovation is invariably sparked off in conditions of competitive risk, but competition should not snuff out the potential for such innovation. Much debate has taken place on the milk marketing board's assets and there has been a great deal of exaggeration outside the House of the asset value of Dairy Crest and of the size of the cheque that the producers can expect when it is floated.
  858
  The Scottish milk marketing board has fought fiercely for vertical integration, and I have much sympathy with its argument—which, in the light of recent rulings, it would appear to have lost. Northern Ireland has similarly argued its corner; no doubt in Committee we shall pursue the cases put by these boards in greater detail. I give the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) that assurance.
  There is also, however, the question of the other assets held by the MMB—especially Genus, national milk records and central testing. The instinct of Labour Members favours supporting the retention of many of these assets in the successor body, but that position is not engraved on tablets of stone. We believe that the Committee stage provides some opportunity for further detailed consideration. We hope that the Government, while not having to approve schemes at this stage, will sound out the views of Committee members before taking any decisions.
  It would be quite improper of the Government to argue that these matters are for Milk Marque. In our view, those are matters for the Government, in that the wrong decision on approvals could distort the flow of contracts between producers, processors and Milk Marque—a point raised by the hon. Members for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). They expressed deep concern on those matters, which we shall be following up in Committee.
  The Bill is interesting, but it is highly controversial. There are major flaws at its heart. First, it winds up the wool marketing scheme without paying any regard to the problems of sheep farming incomes in the United Kingdom. Amendments to mitigate the damage were moved in the Lords, but they were rejected. We shall try again in the Commons.
  Secondly, the Bill abolishes the potato marketing scheme and will drive the United Kingdom's potato producers into a free market. The inevitable consequence of that policy will be widespread bankruptcies. A number of hon. Members have made that point, if not used that language. That includes my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian and for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), the right hon. Member for Westmoreland and Lonsdale and the hon. Members for Richmond, Yorks, for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) and for Cambridgeshire, North-East. All have emphasised the damage that could be done to the industry if the Government go down the route that they have selected.
  Thirdly, the Bill leaves the pricing of milk to free market forces, with major implications for the consumer and the processor. We are most uneasy about that approach. Jobs may be at stake. With those considerations in mind, we feel that we have no option but to divide the House. I ask hon. Members to join us in opposing the Bill.
  9.36 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): The speech of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) boded well for the Committee because it seemed that we would have a genuine debate about the Bill. The Bill is about how markets operate—a fascinating subject. Only in his last few moments did the hon. Gentleman revert to an apocalyptic vision of what he thinks will happen. I am sure that we will be able to reassure him that that will not be the

  859
  case. After all, apocalypse now is what the dairy producers predicted when reform of the milk marketing system was first considered. Now, that argument has been won and people are talking merely about how we get from here to where everybody acknowledges we should be. The argument has been won on milk and the arguments on potatoes is one which we will win, and win by persuasion.
  We have been debating three major commodities—milk, potatoes and wool. I join all hon. Members who have paid tribute to the long generations of milk marketing boards. We recognise the role that they have played both in rescuing the industry in the 1930s and in carrying it forward. It is no part of the Bill to confer a denigratory obituary on the scheme. However, the concerns of farmers in 1933 and those of farmers in 1993 are different, and the situation has changed.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said, certain new factors radically alter the situation. There are milk quotas—and quotas that have a high value. Farmers are in a sellers' market. After all, Milk Marque, Nestle and Northern Milk Partnership are fighting their way to the farm gate, competing for the milk. That is a happy situation. Milk Marque appears to intend to offer an equalised price to farmers, with the sort of guarantees that farmers enjoy under the existing system.
  For those few hon. Members who suggested that we should be defending the status quo, I must point out that the status quo is beyond defence, not because of actions by the Government but simply because the situation and the market position have changed so much, and the legal challenges to semi-processed products are such that the threat was that the board would implode. No reasonable body—whether those running the board or those in government with a responsibility for agriculture—could take the chance of waiting for that to happen.
  Therefore, sensible successor arrangements had to be worked out and it was important that the initiative and the proposals should come from the board. The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are responsible and that is true, but the proposal should be put forward by the board and we should then exercise our responsibility and our judgment in our response to that.
  Hon. Members have said that there should be a process of consultation and the Bill provides for that. Before my right hon. Friend the Minister makes an order which would trigger the changes, he is obliged to consult all the people who might be concerned, whether processors, consumers, retailers or producers. That safeguard is already there.
  I recognise that people on the other side of the argument have been concerned about the possible abuse of position by a successor body. The quota administration will not be in the hands of Milk Marque. We are discussing where that responsibility should lie. It might lie with the agricultural Departments or with the intervention board, but it will not lie with Milk Marque. That is clear.
  Secondly, Dairy Crest must be floated before vesting day for Milk Marque. That is the largest part of the assets that will be distributed to dairy farmers. If, by mischance, it cannot be floated by that date, it must be put in neutral hands, such as a trust, to see it through until it can be launched upon its independent career. Therefore, we have taken care of that possibility. Prices will be set by the
  860
  market. The milk marketing board, after the letter to which many hon. Members have referred, has issued a press release setting the record straight.
  There is a triple safeguard against the abuse of dominant market position. First, there has to be ministerial approval. We shall look hard at what is put in front of us. There is no prior commitment to accept whatever Milk Marque does or whatever the milk board has put forward. We must consider whether it is a reasonable way of handling the question.
  Secondly, there will be surveillance by Brussels. I see nothing wrong in there being provisional agreement to what is happening. It is natural that it should ensure that there is no abuse of market position. As I said earlier, the immunity from scrutiny by the Office of Fair Trading that the board enjoys because it is a co-operative organisation will be removed the second Milk Marque comes into existence. Therefore, Milk Marque will be subject to such scrutiny. Any hint that Milk Marque harbours monopolistic nostalgia will bring down the competition authorities before we can say "pinta". I am sure that the board know that that is the case.
  Mr. Mark Robinson: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as I have a major distribution company in my constituency, Wincanton Distribution, which will be affected by the proposals. What is worrying people is that the process of regulation by the Office of Fair Trading is a cumbersome one. To many, the presence of a regulator will overcome that problem. I hope that my hon. Friend will not close his mind to that problem as the Bill goes through Committee.
  Mr. Curry: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but he will appreciate that the safeguards that I have outlined provide a sufficient framework, given that there will be severe competition in the marketplace. At all events, the board, which is responsible for putting the proposals forward, will have heard what my hon. Friend says and what many other hon. Members have said about the situation of the assets and their eventual fate.
  I said that the board had, to put it politely, issued a clarification of its earlier circular, saying clearly that there was no attempt to intimidate future purchasers. It was not trying to wave the big stick over them. It understands that people who do not sign up can do so subsequently. It is not trying to create the impression among farmers that it is offering a surrogate monopoly. There is genuine concern, and I think that the board will have learnt from the episode that that is the wrong way in which to go about things. However, I appreciate its anxiety to reassure those who will buy milk, and the farmers who may sign up, that there will be a fundamental stability in the market place rather than a great dislocation.
  I appreciate the concerns expressed about wool, perhaps more than many other people. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and others have mentioned hill farmers, a good many of whom I represent. Let me outline the steps that have been taken. It has not been disputed that four years' notice was given of the ending of the wool guarantee, and the British Wool Marketing Board is not among the organisations quoted as having asked for a prolongation of that guarantee. I have engaged in long and detailed discussions with the board, and it appreciates that it is time to draw a line under the scheme.

  861
  We have helped to establish a £10 million reserve fund by exempting the board from interest charges and reducing the levies that it pays to the Treasury. We have recognised the need for a float. We have also urged the board—I have been personally involved in this—to take account of the need for a reorganisation of its structure. It has been presented with a report on how it can adapt itself to cope with the more competitive world in which it may be moving, but it has addressed the question with a certain lack of urgency. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen would perform a service by encouraging it to make its decisions a little more rapidly.
  Mrs. Peacock: I hear what my hon. Friend is saying, but does he recall a conversation that he had with Donald Holdsworth, chairman of the Confederation of British Wool Textiles? Mr. Holdsworth and the confederation's members took a different view from that expressed by my hon. Friend on behalf of the wool marketing board, and I feel that that view should be addressed.
  Mr. Curry: Having met Mr. Holdsworth twice, I clearly recollect the points that he put. I would say to him—as I say to my hon. Friend—that the balance has now swung towards farm support from the Community. Sheep farm wool plays a very marginal role in incomes. This year, total payments for farmers with hardy breeds in the less favoured areas amount to £30·50 per sheep from all sources in public support alone. Market prices are high, partly because of the buoyancy of the continental market. The hon. Member for Workington said that he wanted us to capture the continental markets, and he is right. One third of all the lambs that we produce on British hillsides are going straight into the overseas market place, benefiting the French consumer. I am delighted about that.
  There is also an entirely new factor, which was not there even a few months ago: the ewe quota now has a value. We have seen the first sales, and a singificant new capital asset value has gone into the hills. We may not wish to capitalise and monetarise everything, but the fact remains that that development may well provide the security with which the dairy quota has provided dairy farmers.
  Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give an assurance that the guaranteed wool price will not be abolished before the Bill is enacted?
  Mr. Curry: No, I cannot do that. Royal Assent was expected to be rather earlier than it will be, for reasons that I need not spell out. It will not now happen before May, when provision for that financial guarantee will end. If we extended it, we should merely have to extend it until Royal Assent, which would lead to a pretty chaotic situation in the market. We shall therefore introduce a statutory instrument to end the guarantee—but it will only end the setting of the guarantee for this year, whereas the Bill removes the requirement to set a guarantee. The statutory instrument will not pre-empt the Bill, but it will get us out of a corner. I put it in those terms because that is the truth. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will appreciate my frankness. It is a timetabling problem—[Interruption.] Hon. Members would expect fairly basic language from Agriculture Ministers.
  What the Bill does in respect of potatoes is very clear. It permits the Potato Marketing Board to nominate or
  862
  suggest a successor organisation which can then take forward the essense of the board's work in terms of research and development and promotion. If that provision were not in the Bill and the board had to be wound up because of Community regulations, we should have no choice but to wind it up on the spot and to distribute the assets. We do not want that. The important research and development role should be taken forward and there should be continuity for the security of potato producers.
  In addition, I anticipate that if farmers wish to organise themselves as potato marketing groups, they may well apply for marketing grants to which my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) referred. No doubt we should look at such applications closely to see whether we could help.
  We must be very careful. The Potato Marketing Board is a curiously named organisation. It is actually a potato non-marketing board. It does not market potatoes. It polices quotas for which farmers pay £86·50 a hectare in levy. If a farmer plants potatoes for commercial reasons outside the board's scheme, he commits a criminal offence. That is something of an anomaly in today's circumstances.
  There are two threads in our thinking about potatoes. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I could easily say that it was all a Brussels problem. We could say that the proposals came from Brussels and that we did not ask for them. We could say that they came forward because the Commission felt that they were part of the completion of the single market. We could say, "Well, sorry, it's all very unfortunate, but we are going to be forced to adopt this and that's the end of the argument."
  Very few member states want something other than a very lightweight regime. Our present area quotas and intervention would be incompatible with the proposal. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, we believe that it would be difficult to argue in Brussels, in respect of the one commodity for which there is no regime and no Communitywide intervention, for intervention or that we should retain limits on our producers when no one else in the Community will face such limits. That concept would be rather difficult to sell.
  The second thread is the economic argument. I admit that there are questions about whether the surplus scheme serves the United Kingdom interest now.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give a frank response to this question? I understand that Ministers have received information from several sources about subsidies paid to processors and producers of potatoes from various countries within the Community. Will the Minister give an undertaking at the Dispatch Box that he will provide all that information to the members of the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill?
  Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman can have any information that I have. However, I do not recall receiving any brown envelopes containing that information.
  There are genuine questions about whether the surplus scheme serves the United Kingdom interest in respect of the loss of market share in seed potatoes, the migration of opportunity and fears of loss of manufacturing capacity in the processed sector.
  The market has shifted. In 1975, we consumed 143 lb of potatoes per head. That is a lot of potatoes. That figure

  863
  declined to 110 lb per head last year. However, the consumption of crisps and potato products has risen from 7 lb per head to nearly 17 lb per head and consumption of frozen chips has risen from 4·7 lb per head to nearly 18 lb per head. We must consider those figures in the context of a slightly declining market in potatoes overall.
  The market is shifting. We are anxious that where there are high-value opportunities the United Kingdom should maintain its very significant lead in what is a high-tech part of the industry. This is at the heart of our concern about the present scheme. We know that potato producers are concerned, and we do not wish to have a long period of uncertainty. We should like to settle the issue with the Community and get agreement on the scheme. That is why the Bill contains provisions to avoid an hiatus between any agreement in Brussels and the creation of a successor organisation in the United Kingdom. Even though the structures are to change, we shall be able to assure farmers of the continuity that is essential to their business.
  The processors, whom some people regard as the demons at the feast, have an interest in maintaining the loyalty of the people who sell to them. They certainly have no interest in disregarding the producers who have sold to them for years and in going to an entirely different marketplace. As many hon. Members have said, potatoes are a high-tech business. Farmers have to be properly equipped. The efficient producer may well expand his acreage. Over the years we have seen consolidation and a declining number of producers. This measure may merely emphasise a tendency. I shall be surprised if, ultimately, it has a more draconian effect.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks said that investment is taking place already. Of course it is. Nobody is suggesting that absolutely nothing is happening, that the system is frozen rigid. It is quite clear that processors are investing in Britain despite this scheme, not because of it. They will be able to anticipate increased investment in the event of the freeing of the marketplace. We believe that that argument must be taken seriously. The export of acreage and of added value is of genuine concern to us. However, we want to ensure that we advance in a positive and sensible manner so that there will be a future for potato growing in England and that we shall have an expanded share of the market.
  The marketing grants are an uncontroversial but important aspect of the Bill. The grant schemes were deliberately launched in a fairly low key. We were not out for some sort of big bang. We have looked very hard at the schemes to ensure that they are viable. The problem arises from the fact that the current legislative framework is inadequate. We cannot look at the sectors that involve more processing, and processors cannot be brought into schemes very efficiently. Thus, we want more room for manoeuvre. We want marketing schemes that will enable us to respond more satisfactorily to the problems that are experienced in the marketplace. I am sure that this will be welcomed as a sensible addition to our armoury.
  All hon. Members agree that British food is extremely good. We want to see more of it being eaten. We want to see more of our own products capturing our markets, as well as getting into the export markets. As I said earlier, one third of our lamb goes overseas, and we have a significant export trade in beef and in pigmeat. At the same time, in several high-value processed sectors, commodities are being imported into Britain, while, to some extent, commodities are produced in Britain and exported.
  864
  There is little that we can do with milk, in the sense that we have quotas. Because of the quotas, we are unable to increase our output and, thereby, reconquer the whole of our market. Therefore, we are trying to focus production where added value is to be found, where the jobs are and where the future technology lies. With potatoes, we have the opposite situation. We do not have a quota crisis. If we can get our act together, we shall be able to satisfy all our own needs. That is what we are aiming for. In respect of wool, the marketing situation has changed dramatically in recent years. We do not think that the fears that have been expressed will be realised.
  The Bill is about opportunity—opportunity for farmers, opportunity for industry, and opportunity for producers to have better access to British products. It is a Bill about deregulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) vetoed the Hedgerows Bill on the ground that it was too regulatory. I am sure that he will welcome deregulation of some of the current marketing scene. The Bill is about competition, but, above all, it is about the future of British agriculture. I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 243.

  Division No. 198]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cash, William

  Alexander, Richard

  Churchill, Mr

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Amess, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Ancram, Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Arbuthnot, James

  Coe, Sebastian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Congdon, David

  Ashby, David

  Conway, Derek

  Atkins, Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Baldry, Tony

  Couchman, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cran, James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

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

  Bates, Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Day, Stephen

  Bendall, Vivian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dover, Den

  Booth, Hartley

  Duncan, Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bowden, Andrew

  Eggar, Tim

  Bowis, John

  Elletson, Harold

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bright, Graham

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evennett, David

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Faber, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Burns, Simon

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Burt, Alistair

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Butcher, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Butterfill, John

  Forth, Eric

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  865

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Maclean, David

  Freeman, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gallie, Phil

  Malone, Gerald

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mans, Keith

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Marland, Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Merchant, Piers

  Gorst, John

  Milligan, Stephen

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Mills, Iain

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Needham, Richard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hague, William

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Norris, Steve

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hawkins, Nick

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hawksley, Warren

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Page, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Paice, James

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Patnick, Irvine

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hendry, Charles

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Horam, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

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

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Redwood, John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jack, Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Sackville, Tom

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shersby, Michael

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

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

  Soames, Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spring, Richard

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sproat, Iain

  Legg, Barry

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Leigh, Edward

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Stephen, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Stern, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sumberg, David

  Lord, Michael

  Sweeney, Walter

  Luff, Peter

  Sykes, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  866

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Watts, John

  Thomason, Roy

  Wells, Bowen

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Whitney, Ray

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Whittingdale, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

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

  Willetts, David

  Tracey, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Trotter, Neville

  Wolfson, Mark

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wood, Timothy

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Yeo, Tim

  Viggers, Peter

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Walden, George

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Sydney Chapman

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Ainger, Nick

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

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Denham, John

  Allen, Graham

  Dewar, Donald

  Alton, David

  Dixon, Don

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dobson, Frank

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dowd, Jim

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Barnes, Harry

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Barron, Kevin

  Eastham, Ken

  Battle, John

  Etherington, Bill

  Bayley, Hugh

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bell, Stuart

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fisher, Mark

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Flynn, Paul

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Betts, Clive

  Foulkes, George

  Blunkett, David

  Fraser, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bradley, Keith

  Galbraith, Sam

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gapes, Mike

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Garrett, John

  Burden, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Byers, Stephen

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Caborn, Richard

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Callaghan, Jim

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gould, Bryan

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cann, Jamie

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gunnell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hall, Mike

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clelland, David

  Heppell, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Corbett, Robin

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hutton, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ingram, Adam

  Darling, Alistair

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  867

  Jamieson, David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Janner, Greville

  Pope, Greg

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prescott, John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Randall, Stuart

  Keen, Alan

  Reid, Dr John

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Rogers, Allan

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rooker, Jeff

  Litherland, Robert

  Rooney, Terry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ruddock, Joan

  Loyden, Eddie

  Salmond, Alex

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAllion, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCartney, Ian

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McFall, John

  Short, Clare

  McKelvey, William

  Simpson, Alan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  McMaster, Gordon

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McWilliam, John

  Snape, Peter

  Madden, Max

  Soley, Clive

  Mahon, Alice

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mandelson, Peter

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marek, Dr John

  Stevenson, George

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stott, Roger

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Straw, Jack

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Maxton, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Meacher, Michael

  Turner, Dennis

  Michael, Alun

  Tyler, Paul

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Vaz, Keith

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Milburn, Alan

  Wallace, James

  Miller, Andrew

  Walley, Joan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morley, Elliot

  Watson, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Murphy, Paul

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Winnick, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Worthington, Tony

  Olner, William

  Wray, Jimmy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Parry, Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Pickthall, Colin

  Mr. Alan Meale.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing
  Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
  It being after Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which she was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Order [19 March].

  ESTIMATES, 1993–94J (NAVY) VOTE A
  Question,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1994 a number not exceeding 63,350 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service.
  put and agreed to.

  ESTIMATES, 1993–94J (NAVY) VOTE A

    ESTIMATES, 1993–94 (ARMY) VOTE A
    Question,
    That during the year ending on 31st March 1994 a number not exceeding 163,590 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 130,000 for the Individual Reserves, and a number not exceeding 70,300 for the Territorial Army.
    put and agreed to.

    ESTIMATES, 1993–94 (AIR) VOTE A
    Question,
    That during the year ending on 31st March 1994 a number not exceeding 83,480 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 19,450 for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and a number not exceeding 2,800 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.
    put and agreed to.

    ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1991–92
    Question,
    That a sum not exceeding £131,142,154·72 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for Defence and Civil Services for the year ended on 31st March 1992, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 432.
    put and agreed to.

    SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1992–93
    Question,
    That a further sum not exceeding £2,654, 112,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1993, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 433, 434 and 494.
    put and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to he brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr Stephen Dorrell, Sir John Cope and Mr. Anthony Nelson.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3)
    Mr. Stephen Dorrell accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1993 and 1994; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

    AGRICULTURE BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Agriculture Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown under any provision of the Act about grants for marketing.—[Mr. Wood.]

    AGRICULTURE BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Agriculture Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

    (a) the imposition by any provision of Part I of the Act about the taxation of a person who is a transferor or transferee in relation to a scheme approved under that Part, of charges to income tax, corporation tax or capital gains tax,

    869

    (b) the imposition, by any provision of Part II of the Act about the taxation of a person who is the transferor or a transferee in relation to a scheme approved under that Part, of charges to corporation tax, and

    (c) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by a Minister of the Crown under any provision of the Act about grants for marketing.—[Mr. Wood.]

  Trade Union Ballots
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Funds for Trade Union Ballots Regulations (Revocation) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 233), dated 8th February 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th February, be annulled.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Order Paper says that this instrument has not been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It was considered this afternoon, and the Joint Committee has placed in the Vote Office a report to the effect that a section of the instrument is redundant because of the effect of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill. I thought that I should draw the attention of the House to this, because once again the Government are hurrying through delegated legislation without giving adequate time for the Joint Committee to give proper consideration to it. The Committee Clerk has made special efforts to ensure that the House is informed about this matter.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Member, as ever, is helpful to the House.
  Mr. Dobson: The regulations would cut off the funds which the Government have, for the past 13 years, provided to cover the cost of trade union secret ballots. In future, the cost will have to be borne by the members of each union. Last year, these ballots cost £4·25 million. That is quite a lot of money, and certainly a lot of money to be found from the voluntary contributions of members of trade unions, which are voluntary organisations without large sources of finance.
  This decision is entirely typical of the events of the past week or so, because it is another Tory promise broken and another Tory betrayal of the people who trusted them. Last week's Budget extended VAT, put up national insurance and increased income tax, all in blatant betrayal of promises made during the 1992 general election. This week the Government go back on a promise made at an earlier general election, that of 1979, when they promised in their election manifesto to
  "provide public funds for postal ballots for union elections and other important issues."
  At that time, ballots were not going to be made compulsory. Now, after the Government have made these ballots compulsory, the funding is to be taken away. The Government have no mandate for this. They have never raised it in any consultative document. They did not put it to the people at the last general election, and it is therefore contrary to the promises made at the outset and repeated at every later stage in the development of the Government's industrial relations policy.
  The present Government, the present Prime Minister and the present Secretary of State for Employment all attempt to present what might be described as Thatcherism with a human face. Yet is has to be remembered that Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbit promised to provide those funds, and to be fair to Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbit, they delivered them. Yet this Prime Minister, this Employment Secretary and this Government are taking those funds away. They

  871
  are breaking that promise. The Prime Minister is exceedingly keen on charters, we understand, and clearly, if he is going to cover everyone against the Tory party, he will have to produce a twisters charter to keep an eye on them.
  It is not just the Government in general who are twisting and betraying their promises. Individual Tory Members have committed themselves in the past to the provision of these funds. A quick look through earlier debates shows that at least 15 existing Tory Members spoke in favour of the ballots. So far as I can see, not one of those who spoke in the past ever suggested that these funds would be withdrawn at a later stage. Not even any hon. Member on the far right suggested that they should not be provided or should be withdrawn.
  The present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. and learned Member for Tunbridge Wells (Sir P. Mayhew), then the junior Employment Minister, said in 1980 that trade unions were being told: "You do not have to have a secret ballot for any of your decisions—it is up to you; but if you are thinking of having one, you do not have to worry about the cost, for the taxpayer will reimburse you." Not any more, Paddy.
  The present Minister of State, Foreign Office, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) commended the merits of these funds when he said of that 1980 Bill:
  "It provides for the establishment of a fund from which secret ballots are to be financed",
  and went on:
  "That proposal is one to which no reasonable-minded Member could object."—[Official Report, 17 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 138.]
  I wonder what he will do in the vote tonight.
  The present Minister of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), said:
  "The Bill is simply making funds available so that the resources of unions that want to have ballots are not under pressure."
  He went on:
  "This at least frees them from that constraint."—[Official Report, 17 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 99.]
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I will not. It is a very short debate, and I do not have time to give way.
  The right hon. and hon. Members whom I have mentioned are at present Ministers of the Crown, and they now expect people to take them at their word when they make a promise on behalf of the Government on Northern Ireland, foreign affairs or matters to do with social security. It is quite clear that there is no chance that anybody will take a promise from them.
  When the ballots were made compulsory, in 1984, the then Employment Secretary—
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I will not.
  The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) gave this reassurance at the point when ballots were going to be made compulsory:
  "The money provided under the 1980 Act to meet the cost of such ballots will continue to be available."—[Official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 160.]
  He is here tonight, and I wonder which way he will be voting.
  872
  I could give other examples. For instance, the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), told the House on that occasion:
  "I support the measures in this Bill, particularly the secret ballots to be paid for by the Government, because ordinary trade union members in my constituency have been crying out for this every day virtually since the general election."
  Mr. Oppenheim rose—
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way.
  Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. Dobson: I am willing to bet that the ordinary—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I have a point of order, to which I must listen.
  Mr. Nicholls: Would it be in order, Madam Speaker, for you to remind the hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench that this is supposed to be a debate, not a boring monologue?
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not the responsibility of the Chair to instruct hon. Members who have the floor that they must give way. It certainly is a courtesy in a debate. The hon. Gentleman is determined that he will not give way for the present, so the hon. Member must bide his time.
  Mr. Oppenheim: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you saying that we have been discourteous?
  Madam Speaker: I am not saying anything of the kind; I am saying that the hon. Gentleman must bide his time. I think that it was a point of frustration, not a point of order.
  Mr. Dobson: Generally speaking, Madam Speaker, I attempt to be courteous to all hon. Members, but there are a number of Members on the Benches opposite who are so notoriously and continuously discourteous that they cannot expect courtesy from this side of the House. Both the hon. Gentlemen who have raised spurious points of order fall into that category.
  I should like to ask the hon. Member for Chorley whether any of those ordinary trade union members in his constituency have been crying out for these funds to be taken away. I do not suppose that he told them at the general election that the Government intended to take them away, and I do not suppose that he has told them since, but we have to ask ourselves why the Tories are doing this. We can reasonably say that it is a typical example of Tory spite against trade union members, but I do not think it is only that.
  One reason for them taking away the funds at this time is political fund ballots. Up to know, the renewal of political funds by ballot could be financed from Government funds. The Government have forced ballots on trade unions; they have forced postal ballots and therefore, not unreasonably, they funded those postal ballots. They are now about to withdraw that facility, just as another round of political fund ballots appears on the horizon. It is not just spite against the trade unions; it is malice against the Government's political opponents. They have done everything they could by law to obstruct the funding of the Labour party and any political opposition from trade unions.
  The trade unions have, rightly, for a long time contributed substantially to the funds of the Labour party

  873
  through open and democratic decisions reached by British nurses, dinner ladies, miners and railway workers. The Tories have never liked it, and at every chance they have attempted to obstruct it. By this measure, they are attempting to make the process more expensive and to ensure that less money is available for political activities both directly by the unions and by the Labour party. Therefore, it is necessary to contrast this with the process by which the Tory party raises its funds.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Dobson: I shall not give way. Unlike the trade unions, who face innumerable legal obstructions—
  Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A few moments ago you said that you anticipated that the hon. Gentleman would want to give way when he had recovered his nerve. Would now be an appropriate moment for him to do so?
  Madam Speaker: It is for the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor and is at the Dispatch Box to determine when he is going to give way.
  Mr. Dobson: We can reasonably contrast the legal obstructions to raising and disbursing political funds by trade unions which the Government have placed into law with the absence of virtually any obstruction to the funding of the Tory party.
  Take company law, for instance. Companies do not have to establish any special political funds; they can make contributions to the Tory party out of their general funds. Nor do they have to conduct a ballot of anybody before they decide to do so. Just a few rich Tories can simply hand over money to the Tory party. Let us take as an example Thames Water, an organisation which is a taxing authority, because—
  Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to start talking about water charges when he is not prepared to give way to Conservative Members on the subject of trade union ballots?
  Madam Speaker: It is for the hon. Gentleman to determine what he has to say. It is not for the Chair to involve itself with the comments of hon. Members.
  Mr. Dobson: The point I am making, in case the hon. Gentleman cannot understand it, is that the processes whereby trade unions raise funds and use them for political purposes are decided democratically by way of ballots. There is no ballot involved in the decision of Thames Water, the monopoly supplier of water to people in its area, when it levies what everyone recognises as a water tax—known as the water rate—which people cannot avoid. From that tax, Thames Water has been giving money to the Tory party. There was no democracy or ballot there.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order. In a debate on trade union balloting, Madam Deputy Speaker, is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to spend his time talking about Thames Water, Conservative party funding and all sorts of irrelevant matters that have nothing whatever to do with trade union ballots?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have only just come to the Chair, and I want to listen carefully. It will be easier for me to do so if there is less noise.
  Mr. Dobson: For ease of reference, Madam Deputy Speaker, when Madam Speaker was in the Chair I said that it was proper to contrast the arrangements made by law by the Government for the accrual and disposal of funds for political purposes by trade unions with what happens when companies and other people donate to the Tory party, and she accepted that.
  No ballots are involved when people raise money for the Tory party. Only one ballot has been conducted by a company, National Freight, and the shareholders voted overwhelmingly against giving the party any money.
  In the interests of democracy, what happens with funds from Britain is bad enough, but when we contrast the different arrangements, we must also consider the Tories' keenness on democracy when it comes to raising money from people from abroad. It raised £2 million from John Latsis, a Greek fascist who was involved with the colonels in the killing and torture of the people of Greece.
  Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to call Robert Maxwell a Greek fascist just because he contributed substantial funds to the Labour party?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair, and I notice that the hon. Gentleman raised several points of order before I came to the Chair.
  Mr. Dobson: No one in their right mind would suggest that giving money to the Tory party makes someone a fascist. What makes them a fascist is supporting the Greek colonels, who murdered and tortured Greek people who stood up for democracy.
  Within Britain, there was the case of Mr. Azil Nadir, who unlawfully shifted more than £400,000 of his company's funds to the Tory party, without declaring them in the company's returns. The Tories were in effect receiving stolen goods, and they have not returned them to the shareholders or to the administrator. No ballots were taken then.
  Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to spend his entire speech in our debate on an important issue talking about Conservative party funding, fascists, Greeks and all sorts of people around the world rather than dealing with the issue in question?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I have been trying to follow what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has been saying. I should prefer it if hon. Members left me to decide what is in order and what is not. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, while passing reference may properly be made to other matters, he must now—having sketched in the background—deal more closely with the subject under direct consideration.
  Mr. Oppenheim: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If it is in order for Opposition Members to talk, in passing, about Tory party funding, might it also be in order for Conservative Members—if they are called later—to talk in passing about the filthy Maxwell money that the Labour party accepted before the last election?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I shall wait to hear what is said first.
  Mr. Den Dover: I was listening carefully to what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said about trade union ballots. When the legislation was passed 10 or more years ago, it was mainly targeted on postal ballots. I should be interested to hear from the hon. Gentleman whether the secret ballots benefit the trade union movement, and whether there might be a move away from postal ballots if the funds were not continued.
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman has not been keeping up with the increasingly draconian state of industrial relations law under the party of which he is a member. In future, all ballots will have to be postal ballots. It is curious that, at a time when postal ballots were voluntary, the Government agreed to fund them, but now that they are compulsory, the Government are taking away that funding.
  One of the problems we face when dealing with this subject is that we have never seen anything from the Government to justify the termination of the provision of the funds. Therefore, we have to guess what the Minister is going to say. My speech is based on the assumption that the Minister will use certain arguments, one of which will involve the need for democracy in the unions. Another argument that he might use is that the process is costing the taxpayer money, so it is unfair to taxpayers.
  Therefore, it is necessary to contrast the limited sums that the taxpayer is providing—£4·25 million in the last year for which figures are available—with the cost to the taxpayer of some of the ways in which the Conservative party has been raising money. We now know from several sources that rich foreigners who live in this country have been granted enormous tax breaks by the Government, in exchange, in effect, for donations to the Conservative party. It is true that several of those rich foreigners were invited to No. 10 Downing street for a meal at the taxpayer's expense. But that fell a long way short of the total cost to the taxpayer, as the foreigners were then promised by the Prime Minister that the present tax laws would not be changed if the Conservative party won the election, and they coughed up money for Conservative party funds.
  The process cost the taxpayer vastly more than the £4·2 million—the cost of all the ballots, not just political fund ballots. The decision cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds, which the rich foreigners will not have to pay.
  I say—with some care—that secret deals at the expense of the taxpayer in exchange for donations to party funds are utterly unacceptable to the people of this country. At this moment, politicians in Italy are being prosecuted for exactly that offence, and it is likely that they will go to gaol for such processes. We have corrupt arrangements that are costing the taxpayer a fortune and utterly straightforward—
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is making some extremely serious and scurrilous accusations without any evidence. Will you ask him to withdraw the accusations of corruption or prove them?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, the points are generalised. The rules of the House relate Io accusations made against individual Members. However, I am sure that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) will wish to maintain the highest tone in his remarks.
  Mr. Dobson: It is my desire—
  Mr. Cormack: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman's accusations are clearly directed at my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman is accusing my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of corruption, which cannot he in order.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not what I understood him to say.
  Mr. Dobson: I certainly believe in maintaining the highest standards of integrity. It is right and proper for the reputation of this country to maintain those standards in the funding of all political parties.
  Mr. Cormack: Is the hon. Gentleman accusing the Prime Minister of corruption? If so, what evidence does he have?
  Mr. Dobson: I am saying that the Tory party is guilty of corruption, and I shall maintain that until the day the Conservatives publish their funding details and prove to us that they have not had any money from Robert Maxwell.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his remark that Downing street paid for a Tory party function out of the taxpayers' purse? Is that his accusation against the Prime Minister?
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Lady misunderstands me.
  Mr. Don Dixon: My hon. Friend did not mention the name of the caterers.
  Mr. Dobson: No, I did not. But a dinner was held at Downing street, paid for by the taxpayer, and it turned out to be rather advantageous to the Tory party—let us leave it at that.
  By contrast with all this shifty, seedy raising of foreign money to fund the Tory party—because hardly anyone in Britain will make contributions to it—the trade unions have been finding life more and more difficult throughout the recession. Now, all the costs involved in these ballots will have to be met, not from Government funds, but from the pockets and handbags of ordinary British trade union members. The money will come from income on which they have paid tax and national insurance, unlike the income that goes to the Tory party.
  The decisions taken by Britain's trade unions are open and democratic. This process will make them more expensive. It is intended to undermine their capacity to achieve something like parity or bargaining power with the employers. It is part of the Government's effort to force wages lower and to force our people to work longer hours in worse conditions. This measure is intended to undermine the resources that the unions have for political action.

  877
  But it is my view that, instead of doing that, it will strengthen their resolve to get rid of this Government, who betray their promises and betray the
  878
  British people in the interests of the rich, who want to drive down wages, and of the limited number of rich foreigners who want the benefits of living in this country without having to pay their fair share of the costs of running it.
  10.43 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick: I have just heard an interesting sedentary exchange originated by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who shouted to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), "You could have done better than this," to which the latter replied, "Yes, I would hope so." I expect that most of us could have done better than the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) did. We have heard a series of nasty, unsubstantiated, scurrilous allegations which the hon. Gentleman failed to prove.
  Ms Angela Eagle rose—
  Mr. Riddick: The trade union reforms that the Government have brought to the House over the past 14 years have been a success. The unions have become more democratic. The Government were responsible for the introduction of ballots for the election of trade union officers and ballots before strike action can be taken. We now have trade union leaders who have to respond to what the members want rather than members responding to what the leaders want.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: When will the Tory party introduce some democracy into its funding? Why does the hon. Gentleman not answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)?
  Mr. Riddick: The majority of the money that the Conservative party receives is raised from ordinary, individual members in the constituencies.
  We have also brought the trade unions within a reasonable framework of law. All those changes have been brought about in the face of intractable, determined opposition from Labour Members. They have voted against all the trade union measures that we have brought before the House. They voted against all the ballots that we have set up.
  The closed shop, as much as anything, kindled my interest in politics in the 1970s. The then Labour Government gave carte blanche to trade union leaders to force employees to belong to trade unions. I was looking through my files for the debate tonight and came across an excellent article in a fine newspaper called The Free Nation, produced by the National Association for Freedom—an excellent organisation. The heading is, "Commissar Jones's orders". Here is part of what Jack Jones, the then leader of the Transport and General Workers Union, wrote to his members. He said:
  "we can now go ahead with closed shop or 100 per cent. agreements in the knowledge that it will be fair for an employer to dismiss in circumstances of enforcing such an agreement… I hope you will advise your officers and shop stewards about the legislation and ensure that maximum efforts are made to achieve 100 per cent. membership wherever possible."
  In other words, he was perfectly happy for workers to be put on the dole queue if they refused to join a trade union. When we hear lessons from Mr. Jones about pensioners, we should not forget his past.
  It is not surprising that the Labour party has opposed all our legislation. It always has been and always will be beholden to the trade unions. Of the 271 Labour Members of Parliament, 152 are sponsored by trade unions. All 20
  880
  of the shadow Cabinet are sponsored by trade unions. The trade unions contributed some £5 million to the Labour party general election fund.
  Mr. Frank Cook: There is no secret about what the hon. Gentleman has just been telling the House. All that information is freely available, declared and publicised. When will the Conservative party behave in a similar fashion about contributions from the likes of Li Kha Shing?
  Mr. John Bowis: Is the hon. Gentleman swearing?
  Mr. Riddick: I do not know.
  The Labour party is beholden to the trade unions. The Conservative party is supported by business, but business creates wealth. We are happy to be supported by private enterprise, by the wealth creators. [Interruption.] I heard a Labour Member shout "crooks". One could not get a bigger crook than Mr. Maxwell, and whom did he support? What is more, he was a Labour Member of Parliament.
  I should like to return to debating the order.
  Mr. Richard Caborn: Before doing so, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Riddick: No, I shall not give way.
  I recognise the difficulty that the regulations will create for some of the trade unions, but they cannot be immune from the recession or the public deficit that we face today. If the Government are faced with the choice of spending money on hospitals or subsidising trade union ballots, there is no contest: the money must be spent on the public services. It is perfectly reasonable to ask trade unions to fund their ballots. We should not forget that the Trades Union Congress has never recommended that its affiliated unions make use of the scheme. Until 1985, TUC-affiliated trade unions boycotted the scheme.
  I am not hostile to the trade unions. My advice to anyone who has a bad employer is to join a trade union. Anyone who has a good employer generally does not need the services of a trade union. My advice to my wife when she was working before she had our first baby was to belong to a trade union and to stay in it. She worked in an art gallery and her employer was a Labour-controlled council. I thought that it was important that she should be in a trade union so that the union could protect her against some of the worst excesses of that Labour-controlled council.
  The reality is that in the past 14 years it has been the Conservative Government who have had the guts to tackle the excesses of the trade unions. I am happy to support the regulations tonight.
  10.51 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I am bound to wonder what the Government's attitude would be if the majority of trade unions supported the Conservative party. I suspect that they would be less enthusiastic about removing this small amount of funding from trade unions.
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) rightly advised his wife to remain a member of a trade union. However, the distinction that he sought to draw between people who work for good employers and people who work for poor employers is a bad point.

  881
  I have always understood that the Conservative party is not opposed to trade unions as such. I understand that many members of the Conservative party are members of, and active in, trade unions. Surely they and hon. Members on both sides of the House should agree that people should join trade unions for their own protection. What Conservative Members seem to object to is not so much trade unions in themselves as the fact that they perceive that trade union members feel compelled to support the Labour party.
  The present decline of civil legal aid under the Lord Chancellor's latest proposals and the fact that claimants under civil legal aid will be obliged to make a contribution from the outset, provide a good justification for us as Members of Parliament advising constituents to be members of trade unions.
  I have considerable professional experience of acting for trade unionists in civil pesonal injury claims. There is no doubt that even when legal aid was more widely available for such claims, the trade union legal assistance scheme on the whole provided a better and more expert service.
  Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) said that he would encourage anyone who had a bad employer to join a trade union. Is the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) aware that 10 days ago there was an Adjournment debate about an industrial dispute that has been going on for months in the west midlands and I do not think that anyone would argue that the employer concerned is a bad one? There was a ballot and the vote was overwhelmingly in favour of joining a union. Yet the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), defended the employer's action in refusing to recognise the right of those people to join a union and gave every possible excuse why that employer should not recognise the people involved.
  Mr. Carlile: As ever, the hon. Gentleman has made his point powerfully; but I was trying to make the point that not only those working for bad employers, but those working for good employers, are well advised to join trade unions—partly, at least, because of the benefits available to members, particularly in relation to union legal aid.
  There is a second reason why those with good employers should join trade unions; a good employer can obtain nothing but benefit from the fact that his employees are union members. He will find it far easier to negotiate, discuss health and safety and deal with common problems that arise if he can do so through the elected representatives of those employees. The best possible elected representatives are responsible trade union officials who have been elected by the employees, and can represent the views of their members not on a whim but on the basis of well-organised and well-constructed union consultation.
  I feel that the regulations and the political thinking that underlies it, are purely an attempt to bash the unions because they happen to support the Labour party—but even that is misguided as a political view of the position. Under the existing arrangements, the Government have a stake in trade union ballots: because they fund the ballots,
  882
  they can enforce the funding regulations. If the existing regulations are breached, they can take the trade union concerned to court for not following those regulations. If the regulations are enacted, they will lose, at a stroke, a considerable degree of lateral influence over the unions. That strikes me as a very bad move, which will do nothing for industrial relations—and, indeed, will encourage many trade union members who may not be inclined to support Labour to decide that the Government are out to damage their interests in the workplace.
  The sum involved is so small, and the gain to industrial relations and union-Government relations so obvious, that I ask the Minister to reconsider whether the changes are really in the public interest.
  10.57 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I pay tribute to the hundreds of thousands of trade union members who give their time voluntarily to serve their fellows at work. When we talk of those intermediate groups in society, we are not talking merely of members of ward committees, Labour or Tory, or about those involved in churches, chapels, mosques, temples or synagogues; we are talking of a body of people that, at its peak, comprised between 250,000 and 300,000 people who served as shop stewards, working often for no thanks and always for no pay.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) pointed out that they have taken up issues that matter to individuals: issues such as accidents at work, health and safety and general representation.
  It is beyond dispute that the trade unions have gone wrong at times, but the fact that they have now come right is also well established—partly because of the move towards free and fair elections.
  The serious point made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was that the regulations have come about with virtually no notice and no discussion. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will explain why the announcement that the ballot money would be cut off was made so suddenly; most of us were surprised by that announcement.
  The issue of the money itself is slightly less important. In the case of a union subscription of about £60 a year, the cost of a postal ballot is not so very great—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Yes, it is.
  Mr. Bottomley: I leave the hon. Gentleman to make that point if he wishes.
  If we are to be fair, we must consider other issues. Some parts of the union subscription cover matters which are tax-deductible, but only a small number of union members apply for tax relief on those parts. If some parts of the funds are allowable for tax relief, it would be fair if they were dealt with automatically so that individual members need not have to discover that they qualify. We would then show that we do not keep money from trade unions to which their members are legally entitled. That is one way in which the Government could avoid the accusation that they are union bashing.
  I will leave it to other hon. Members to point out something that was not covered by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras—Labour's attitude to state funding of union ballots. When I was a Minister at the Department of Employment I went to the Trades Union Congress and I managed to live quite well and be more

  883
  than a light drinker by offering to pay for the drink; of all my friends in the trade union movement. They said, "Government money? Not a hope." I lived on their money for virtually a week. The idea that the Labour party supports the funding is not consistent.
  We can go a stage further. Should we assume that members of trade unions are members of trade unions which support the Labour party? Half the members of trade unions are in unions which do not have political funds and, of course, not every union fund is openly dedicated to the Labour party. If a diplomat tried to comment on the relationship between trade unions and political parties in this country, he would say that there were matters of substance and of direction. It would help trade unions if they shook themselves free of the association with the Labour party.
  It was honourable for the trade unions to establish a political party. The lives of many trade unionists around the world are threatened and even ended because the trade unions stand for democracy and for an alternative to a dictatorial regime. We do not have dictorial regime in this country, but in many countries such as in central America, Africa and many parts of Asia, being an active member of a trade union is to volunteer for intimidation and to suffer the kind of violence that people in the United Kingdom may suffer from the IRA. It is as bad as that, as I saw in El Salvador.
  If the trade unions with political funds which backed the Labour party at the last four elections, and backed the loser four times in a row, were more neutral in their political interests and were actively involved with both major political parties, they might do much better than by supporting just one political party. However, that is a matter for those unions and that is why the political fund ballot will be interesting in 1995.
  With regard to the relationship, there are points of strength and of weakness. The Tory Government and Tory voters can be congratulated on helping to get trade unions away from their dominant political role, which was unhealthy for them and for the country, and back to a position where we can openly say that trade union members and their families are one of the largest groups of Conservative voters.
  However, we do not always earn those votes by our actions. For example, it would be healthy if we said, in respect of the Timex dispute, that the management are using tactics ill suited to the United States and not at home in this country at all. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke up about the people who were arrested in the demonstration, he pointed out that those who were arrested were not workers at the factory and he was right.
  The workers should be proud that they have stayed within the law. When trade union members do that, even though Government do not take sides in an industrial dispute Conservatives should say that they do not like management rolling back wages and conditions arbitrarily. That may sometimes be necessary to stay in business, but we should take a more even-handed approach. It is not our job simply to be on the side of industry as represented by management. We should also be on the side of industry as represented by the workers.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Careful—they are getting a bit tetchy on the Front Bench, lad.
  Mr. Bottomley: I do not need any help from Opposition Members just at the moment.
  We need a network of co-operation, and that means trying to work with the democrats within the trade union movement to provide an election system which the members recognise to be fair.
  Those of us who are members of building societies as lenders or borrowers are involved in secret ballots on this, that or the other, and we are aware that that practice is not an unusual thing in the network of institutions which have helped to build up the better parts of this country and have helped people when they required help.
  As the Minister will be aware, I believe, that there is sometimes a lack of coherence in our approach. When we consider issues such as the way in which the mining communities were shattered by the form of the announcement in the autumn, and the fact that the courts said that some of that action was unlawful, I wonder whether all the industrial relations experience of the Department of Employment and of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has suddenly vanished. In my day that sort of thing would never have happened. Ministers and civil servants in the Department and, for that matter, outsiders would have said, "You can't do that—look at the law." In respect of these regulations, we are looking at one part of the law.
  We need to create an organic relationship with trade unions and their members. We need to consult them about the things which affect them. In the case of this issue, I do not believe that we did consult them. I may be wrong about that; my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell me if I am.
  I want to speak now as a party politician. The bulk of relationships between people in the Conservative party and trade unionists should be conducted on a people-to-people basis, involving individuals. Let me say something about my own trade union. It is fine to go sponsoring Members of Parliament and to have meetings of those Members, but why, in my seventeen and a half years as a member of that union, have I been excluded on every occasion as a consequence of my not being sponsored?
  I am a member of the union, but I am excluded from the meeting. Every time there is to be a new general secretary, I write and ask for an invitation, but I am always refused on the grounds that my election expenses are not met. If the purpose of paying election expenses is to have union members elected to this House, but someone is elected without that sponsorship, what is the democratic reason for that Member's exclusion from all meetings? They cannot all be intended to help the Labour party. If so, they are not very effective. Some of them must be about issues with which the House is dealing.
  We need a periods of hard reflection. It is not a question simply of being hard in thought. We must avoid giving the impression of being hard of heart and soft in the head. The Labour party needs to think through its relationship with the trade unions, as does the Tory party, and when the Government are thinking of doing something which will affect trade unions they ought to treat those bodies as they treat other people in society: they ought to consult them and then make their decision, rather than make their decision as a substitute for consultation.
  11.6 pm
  Mr. John Hutton: Like all my right hon. and hon. Friends, I take the view that this is a foolish and mistaken measure. It is foolish because, whether or not they realise it, the Government have fundamentally contradicted what has been the central theme of their industrial relations policy for more than 14 years.
  Since 1979, the Government have lectured the Opposition about the need to improve democracy in the trade union movement. My view is that we should take no lectures about democracy from the Conservative party. If and when it turns itself into a democratic party and publishes its accounts, we may be more prepared to pay attention to what it says. Throughout the past 14 years, the Government have told us that the trade unions are not democratic. We have been told that there is a need to promote the use of postal and workplace ballots in the decision-making processes. At the same time, the Government have claimed that this is not a burden on the trade union movement, as public funds are available for reimbursement of the costs. From tonight, that will not be the case. At a stroke, the Government have undermined their fundamental argument and contradicted the main theme of their industrial relations reform.
  This is a mistaken measure, as it will compromise the ability of many trade unions, particularly the smaller ones that make heavy use of the reimbursement scheme—
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hutton: No. I intend to make some progress.
  The regulations will compromise the ability of many trade unions, particularly the smaller ones, to comply with the mandatory ballot requirements imposed by successive measures since 1980. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that the Government always gave the impression that the refund scheme was permanent and was necessary to help trade unions to meet their new legal obligations. In fact, it might be educational for Conservative Members if they were to be reminded of what the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said as Secretary of State for Employment. On 8 November 1983, when introducing the Trade Union Bill, he said:
  "I hope that whenever possible unions will make use of postal ballots. The money provided under the 1980 Act to meet the cost of such ballots will continue to be available.—[Official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 160.]
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Did the hon. Gentleman perhaps consult his Back-Bench colleague the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg)? If we are to quote debates, the hon. Member said in the debate on the Employment Bill on 17 December 1979,
  "The trade union movement has not asked for it"—
  that is, funds—
  "and there is no evidence that the trade union movement cannot afford to run secret ballots." [Official Report, 17 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 488.]
  He said it.
  Mr. Hutton: I am quite sure that my hon. Friend is able to defend himself, if he wants to, on that point.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not like replying to someone else's intervention, and it was very improper of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gravesham (Mr.
  886
  Arnold) to quote me in an intervention in someone else's speech. However, if I may answer the point, when I made that speech 12 million people were members of trade unions in this country. They were able to act independently because of the funds which 12 million members generated. The whole basis of opposing it at that time was the knowledge that the Government were setting about introducing legislation which was intended to restrict the trade union movement.
  Since then, they have introduced the legislation and it has restricted the trade union movement. They have also created, through the folly of their policies, 3 million unemployed people. In that pincer movement they have caught the trade unions. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) shakes his head. He does not like it, but he should not make smart remarks and then be unable to defend them. The trade union movement has been nobbled and, to a large extent, destroyed by the activities of this Government, and evidence of that is the fact that they are withdrawing this funding, which shows that introducing it in the first place was a sham and a lie.
  Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that comment. I was sure that he would be able to respond to the point that the hon. Member for Gravesham made, and I was correct in my assessment. The hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind that what was true in 1980 is not true in 1993, because the balloting regime that the Government have imposed over the past few years has changed dramatically from the one that was introduced in 1980. That was exclusively a voluntary scheme; now it is essentially mandatory. The balloting mechanisms themselves have also changed beyond recognition.
  Nor was there any mention of the Government's intention to withdraw the refund scheme for trade union ballots in the manifesto on which Conservative Members were elected in 1992. It is clear from the Hansard record of proceedings relating to the refund scheme for trade union ballots, that it was always the Government's intention to make this funding available. Now they have changed their minds.
  The scheme provides important practical help to trade unions and is thus a direct benefit to trade union members and to their employers as well. The figures from the annual report of the certification officer bear out the relevance and importance of the rebate scheme. The last year for which we have an annual report from the certification officer is 1991. In that year, 78 trade unions, both large and small, made applications for refunds in respect of more than 700 ballots, and the certification officer paid over £4 million in refunds to those trade unions.
  It is also interesting—I am sure that Conservative Members will benefit from doing this—to look at the list of unions and organisations that made use of the refund scheme. They were not large, TUC-affiliated trade unions; many were small, non-TUC-affiliated unions, including, for example, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and the Health Visitors Association. The value of the scheme is demonstrated by the range of organisations that make use of it.
  The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill will also add considerably to the cost of trade union ballots by removing the discretion over the conduct of workplace ballots and requiring external scrutiny of those ballots as well. By moving away from the discretion on conduct of

  887
  workplace ballots, the Government have added considerably to the cost conducting the ballots. There is no doubt that workplace ballots are considerably cheaper to operate than fully postal ballots. While we are in the mood to quote from previous speeches, perhaps I can refer again to the speech by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater on 8 November 1983, when he said:
  "I am not convinced that postal ballots are always the best means of ensuring maximum participation in elections…A workplace ballot…may often be a more effective means of getting voting papers into the hands of trade union members, as a comparison between some unions which operate postal ballots and others which operate workplace ballots clearly shows."—[Official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 160.]
  I wonder why it is, therefore, that at a time when the Government are about to withdraw the rebate scheme for trade union ballots, they have extended considerably not only the range of subjects covered by the obligation to ballot but the actual mechanism by which the ballot itself may be conducted. Why have the Government chosen this moment to withdraw the scheme?
  The Government's case cannot be based on public expenditure criteria, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) suggested earlier. In the context of a debate about public expenditure, it is important to talk about the options available to the Department of Employment and not make comparisons between expenditure of the Department of Employment and the Department of Health, as the hon. Gentleman did.
  If we are talking about the Department of Employment and its expenditure criteria and priorities, is it not extraordinary that, at a time when the Government are withdrawing the £4 million which is necessary for the conduct of the postal ballot introduced by a Tory Government, they are proposing to spend .£1·5 million of taxpayers' money on the ludicrous commissioner for the protection against unlawful industrial action? The House has never proposed to spend money on a more stupid and ludicrous proposal. The Government would rather fund fruitless litigation than promote democratic behaviour in the trade unions.
  I believe, as do many of my hon. Friends—clearly, Conservative Members also believe this—that the Government's actions are aimed more at the next round of political fund ballots in the near future. The proposal is a naked and partisan use of legislative power to further their own perceived political interests. I wonder whether the Government's real hope is that the unions will not conduct the next round of due ballots and that their political funds will expire. Clearly, that would be to the political advantage of the Conservative Party.
  In conclusion, this is not a sensible or desirable path for the House to follow, and we should reject the Government's proposals out of hand.
  11.15 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): At least the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) addressed the issue that we are debating tonight. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) did not do so. Indeed, he made a disgraceful speech which I am sure, on reflection, he will wish in the morning that he had not made. I do not propose to respond to some of the matters that he raised because they are not matters for this debate.
  Listening to the hon. Members for Barrow and Furness and for Holborn and St. Pancras and the hon. and learned
  888
  Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), one might be forgiven for thinking that this scheme was one of the Labour party's most cherished initiatives from the 1970s—a piece of benevolence for which the trade unions are indebted to the Labour Party. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said, it is hard to believe that this is the same party whose members objected so violently to the introduction of the scheme in 1980.
  On hearing tonight's reaction to the phasing out of the scheme, one might imagine that at the very least we received the support and gratitude of the Opposition when it was introduced. Far from it. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) explained what he said in 1979. He replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) by saying that, when he said that there was no need for this public funding, that reflected the fact that the trade union movement was larger and more able to pay its costs in 1979.
  There is another quote from the same debate, from the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth:
  "There is no case for the use of public money for this purpose. There is no demand from trade unions that such money should be used for the purpose. There is no public demand for spending public money in such a way."—[Official Report, 17 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 123.]
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: I am glad that the Minister reads my speeches. Rumour has it that he only ever reads the works of Adam Smith. At least this represents an improvement in his reading.
  The point I made in 1979 remains valid. The trade union movement had an independence born of its strength in 1979 which does not now exist. The Minister is making a case for withdrawing this funding—[Interruption.] I am sorry that those on the Government Front Bench are getting excited. They should remain calm.
  The Minister is saying that this funding should be withdrawn at a time when the trade union movement is much smaller than it was in 1979. That exposes what the Government are doing, which is turning the screw harder on the trade union movement. Any attempt to pretend that these ballots were introduced in a spirit of good will to the trade union movement is a lie.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is arguing that the trade union movement is now a lame duck and should therefore have a public subsidy. What the hon. Gentleman said in 1979 was that there was no case for public money being used in this way—as well as the quote which was drawn to the attention of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham.
  The Trades Union Congress cannot be described as anything other than a late convert to the scheme—if, indeed, it has ever been converted at all. Its policy was, as stated in its 1982 conference report, that
  "Affiliated unions shall observe Congress policy and not seek or accept public funds for union ballots under the Employment Act 1980 ballot funds scheme."
  At least until 1986, the TUC was openly hostile to the scheme and tried to punish any unions which had the temerity to make use of it. The engineers union and the electricians union learned this to their cost, as they came perilously close to expulsion from the TUC for doing so. That is hardly a ringing endorsement.
  The TUC has continued to fudge the issue. Despite all that we have heard tonight, the TUC has never endorsed the scheme—never, that is, until its vociferous protests

  889
  after we announced that the scheme was to be brought to an end. We have all heard of deathbed conversions, but surely someone on the Labour Benches should have advised the TUC that these are supposed to come before and not after the moment at which death has been pronounced.
  Many taxpayers would, I am sure, find it extraordinary to learn that part of their taxes is spent paying private organisations to comply with what are now, for the most part, the requirements of the law. I say to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that to understand why their money has been spent in this was we need to go back to 1980, when the scheme was established, and when the principle of industrial democracy in British trade unions was, to say the least, in its infancy. Postal balloting of trade union members was almost unheard of in 1980. Secret workplace ballots were not much more common.
  The norm was that union business—including the all too frequent calls to strike and to take other industrial action—was carried out by a show of hands in the workplace car park, under the meaningful gaze of Shope stewards and the more militant union members. That was the context in which the ballot funding scheme was established. Its purpose was to encourage trade unions to adopt postal balloting at a time when this was very much the exception rather than the rule. The Government made no secret at the time of their wish to see much wider use of postal ballots for important trade union decisions. The Opposition and the trade union bosses opposed this. I doubt whether many ordinary trade union members would endorse such a stance now.
  I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham that the scheme was never intended to last for ever, and we never said that it would. During the 1980s the law was radically changed. Progressively and, it has to be said, in the clear absence of any willingness on the part of the trade unions to put their own house in order, the law gave union members the right to a postal ballot for electing their leaders and a secret ballot before they could be called out on strike.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend is putting me in a slight dilemma, because during my year and a quarter as a Minister in the Department of Employment no one once suggested that the scheme was temporary. I put it to him that the regulation would go down slightly more easily if he said that he intended one way or another to continue funding the trade union education and health and safety work, which is also to be cut off. None of his arguments would apply.
  Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend, as he told the House, is a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, which receives a quarter of the £4 million which has been provided under the ballot scheme, so I understand his concern. The trade union education and training grant is a separate matter. We have already said that we shall make additional funds available to the Health and Safety Executive to provide for training on health and safety.
  The truth of the matter is that most trade unions refused to touch the ballot funding scheme so long as the law allowed them to deny their members a secret ballot. They only became interested in the scheme—and then only some of them, and only in the teeth of TUC opposition—when the law compelled them to acknowledge that their members had a right to vote in secret to elect their leaders
  890
  sand before strikes. In 1985, 26 unions made applications, most of them not unions affiliated to the TUC. In 1992, applications were made by 80 unions. Like that of the Labour party, the attitude of the trade unions to the scheme has been a monument of inconsistency.
  The issue comes down to the proper use of significant amounts of public money—taxpayers' money. In 1981 the ballot funding scheme cost £13,000. Today it costs £4·2 million. The House must ask itself whether that is the most effective use of public money in the current circumstances.
  A total of £4·2 million is enough to pay for almost 3,500 cataract operations, or more than 1,000 hip replacements. The Opposition clearly find this of no interest, but I wonder whether, when people come to their surgeries asking about waiting time in hospitals, they will say that they prefer the money to go on a trade union ballot scheme. I am sure that I know where, given the chance to make a choice, the taxpayer would prefer his money to go—and it is not on buying stamps and stationery to help trade unions to hold ballots on matters such as strikes. The Opposition have argued—
  Mr. Dobson: As the Chancellor is here, and as he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time the deal was done, will the Minister ask him to confirm that the cost to the taxpayer of the deal not to tax rich people from abroad who are domiciled here was about 60 times more than the amount spent on these ballots?
  Mr. Forsyth: I understand why the hon. Gentleman has spent the entire evening trying to avoid the arguments on this matter, and to change the subject to other matters. Until tonight, I had never known an Opposition spokesman who put down a prayer and then refused to address the reasons behind his prayer.
  The hon. Gentleman has argued that the decision to phase out the ballot funding scheme is an attack on trade unions and that it will place an unreasonable financial burden on trade unions. I am totally unconvinced by the argument that trade unions will be unable to afford to comply with the law when the ballot funding scheme is phased out. After all, some trade unions have never used the scheme at all and continue not to do so. The National Association of Local Government Officers, with its 760,000 members, has never made a claim under the scheme, and neither has the Graphic, Media and Printing Union or its antecedents.
  The unions which formed the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which sponsors the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, might seem to many to typify the TUC's schizophrenic behaviour on this whole question. It was formed out of the National Union of Seamen, which made claims under the scheme, and the National Union of Railwaymen, which resolutely refused to do so. The merger of the unions led to even greater schzophrenia, with a claim made under the scheme despite a conference vote not to accept Government money for ballots. Current RMT policy, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras—who is desperately trying not to look as though he is listening to the argument—knows, is anyone's guess. It would be interesting to have the hon. Gentleman's views on whether his union is still all at sea or off the rails on this issue.
  I have already referred to the gross assets of the TGWU. The certification officer records that, at the end of 1990, the gross assets of the 300 or so trade unions

  891
  amounted to no less than £777 million. Against that background, the argument that unions will face financial ruin because of the phasing out of some £4 million of Government subsidy—or that this ought to represent a priority claim on scarce public resources—is wholly unsustainable. I simply cannot accept that trade unions will be unable to cope without this subsidy.
  It is a dangerous and fundamentally flawed argument, which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Holborn and St Pancras put, to suggest that because the law requires an organisation or an individual to act in a certain manner there should be a public subsidy to enable those affected to meet any costs which might arise from the requirements of the law. Because Parliament decides that seat belts should be compulsory in the rear seats of cars, the Government do not offer subsidies to car manufacturers or individual car owners to fit the belts. That would not be a proper use of taxpayers' money—nor is it any longer a proper use of taxpayers' money to subsidise trade union ballots.
  The bottom line is this: trade unions have obligations which exist because they continue to enjoy privileges under the law. For unions to ensure that they comply with those obligations, it is not for the taxpayer to provide them with the resources to enable them to do so.
  The trade union ballot funding scheme is a scheme whose time has passed. It was established to accomplish a particular purpose: to encourage trade unions to make postal balloting the rule rather than the exception. That encouragement is no longer needed. Trade union members are now balloted by post on numerous issues, and have a legal right to vote by post on the most important of these. The original purpose of the scheme has been fulfilled and there is no case for continuing this subsidy at the taxpayer's expense. It is right that it should be phased out, and I urge the House to reject the Opposition motion.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 290.

  Division No. 199]

  [11.29

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

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

  Ainger, Nick

  Burden, Richard

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Byers, Stephen

  Allen, Graham

  Caborn, Richard

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Ashton, Joe

  Canavan, Dennis

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cann, Jamie

  Barnes, Harry

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Barron, Kevin

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Battle, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Beggs, Roy

  Clelland, David

  Bell, Stuart

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cohen, Harry

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Connarty, Michael

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Betts, Clive

  Corbett, Robin

  Blair, Tony

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blunkett, David

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Boateng, Paul

  Cousins, Jim

  Boyes, Roland

  Cryer, Bob

  Bradley, Keith

  Cummings, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  892

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dafis, Cynog

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Darling, Alistair

  Loyden, Eddie

  Davidson, Ian

  McAllion, John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McCartney, Ian

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

  Macdonald, Calum

  Denham, John

  McFall, John

  Dewar, Donald

  McKelvey, William

  Dixon, Don

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dobson, Frank

  McLeish, Henry

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dowd, Jim

  McWilliam, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Madden, Max

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Mahon, Alice

  Eastham, Ken

  Mandelson, Peter

  Etherington, Bill

  Marek, Dr John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Fisher, Mark

  Martlew, Eric

  Flynn, Paul

  Maxton, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Meacher, Michael

  Foulkes, George

  Meale, Alan

  Fraser, John

  Michael, Alun

  Fyfe, Maria

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Milburn, Alan

  Galloway, George

  Miller, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Garrett, John

  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

  Mullin, Chris

  Gould, Bryan

  Murphy, Paul

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Grocott, Bruce

  Olner, William

  Gunnell, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hain, Peter

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hall, Mike

  Parry, Robert

  Hanson, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Henderson, Doug

  Pickthall, Colin

  Heppell, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Pope, Greg

  Hinchliffe, David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hoey, Kate

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Home Robertson, John

  Prescott, John

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hoyle, Doug

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Hutton, John

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Illsley, Eric

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Ingram, Adam

  Rogers, Allan

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jamieson, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Keen, Alan

  Short, Clare

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Simpson, Alan

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

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

  Leighton, Ron

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Litherland, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  893

  Soley, Clive

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Stott, Roger

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Wilson, Brian

  Straw, Jack

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Walley, Joan

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mr. John Owen Jones and

  Watson, Mike

  Mr. Dennis Turner

  Welsh, Andrew

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Day, Stephen

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Alexander, Richard

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Amess, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Ancram, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Arbuthnot, James

  Duncan, Alan

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dunn, Bob

  Ashby, David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Atkins, Robert

  Elletson, Harold

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Evennett, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Faber, David

  Bates, Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bellingham, Henry

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Eric

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Booth, Hartley

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Boswell, Tim

  Freeman, Roger

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  French, Douglas

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gale, Roger

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gallie, Phil

  Bowis, John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Garnier, Edward

  Brazier, Julian

  Gill, Christopher

  Bright, Graham

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gorst, John

  Burns, Simon

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Burt, Alistair

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hague, William

  Cash, William

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hannam, Sir John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Congdon, David

  Hawksley, Warren

  Conway, Derek

  Hayes, Jerry

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Heald, Oliver

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hendry, Charles

  Cormack, Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Couchman, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cran, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

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

  Horam, John

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  894

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

  Pickles, Eric

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Redwood, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Richards, Rod

  Jessel, Toby

  Riddick, Graham

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sackville, Tom

  Knapman, Roger

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knox, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Legg, Barry

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Leigh, Edward

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spring, Richard

  Lidington, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Lightbown, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Steen, Anthony

  Lord, Michael

  Stephen, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Stern, Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stewart, Allan

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Streeter, Gary

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sumberg, David

  Maclean, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sykes, John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Marland, Paul

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Milligan, Stephen

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

  Mills, Iain

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tredinnick, David

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Trotter, Neville

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Viggers, Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Needham, Richard

  Walden, George

  Nelson, Anthony

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waterson, Nigel

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Watts, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Wells, Bowen

  Norris, Steve

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Whitney, Ray

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Whittingdale, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Page, Richard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Paice, James

  Willetts, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wolfson, Mark

  Pawsey, James

  Wood, Timothy

  895

  Yeo, Tim

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Mr. Robert Hughes.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  PETITION

    Channel Tunnel Link
    11.41 pm
    Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I wish to present a petition which has been signed by 10,000 residents of the London borough of Hackney, protesting at the choice by British Railways Board of the eastern route for the channel tunnel link because it will go through the centre of Hackney and threaten the environment and local jobs:
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House instruct British Rail to abandon all plans to route a Channel Tunnel high speed rail link across the Borough of Hackney.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Missing Persons
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
  11.42 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I am pleased that I have been given the opportunity to air on the Floor of the House the vexed question of missing persons in the United Kingdom.
  I make no apology for asking the Minister to consider the debate first from a personal and emotional viewpoint. I ask him to consider the anxiety of my now deceased constituent, Janette Hamilton, of Falkirk, when her 14-year-old daughter Vicki failed to return home from a weekend trip to visit her sister Sharon in Livingston, Scotland on 10 February 1990. I ask him to contemplate the growing despair as the police diligently pieced together Vicki's movements: from Livingston to Bathgate, West Lothian; from the bus station to a fish and chip shop in Bathgate; and from the fish and chip shop to where?
  More than two years on, no one has been able to unravel the mystery. No one has ever been able to enter the labyrinth into which more and more young people are disappearing and to answer the question, "What happened to Vicki Hamilton?"
  Will the Minister ponder the overwhelming despair that engulfed Vicki's mother as the days grew to weeks, then to months and then stretched beyond a year? If he can do so, he will realise why I speak here tonight, and hopefully it will help him to frame his reply.
  In July 1992 Janette Hamilton was a broken woman when she approached me for help in persuading the Government to do more to trace missing children like her daughter Vicki. She also wanted Government help for the counselling and support for those who are left behind and who wrack their brains for clues and warning signs that they may have missed. They pray and hope that there is some sign to show that their child is still out there.
  The final help for which Janette Hamilton asked was that I should tell the nation through debates such as tonight's that she believed that her daughter was still alive in the hope that the media in England and Wales would display one more photograph of her daughter with the simple message, "If Vicki is out there or anyone knows what happened to her—get in touch." I record that message unashamedly as, sadly, Janette Hamilton died on 12 January 1993, never knowing what happened to her daughter. One year and 11 months after Vicki's disappearance, Janette Hamilton was a broken woman. In the words of Vicki's sister, Sharon, Janette died of a broken heart.
  The Government know that the scale of the problem is not measured in ones—tragic though each case may be. The 1988 report of the Association of Chief Police Officers, entitled, "Working Party on Missing Persons", shows that there have been three missing person cases unsolved from my region of central Scotland since before 1988. There were 60 unsolved cases from Scotland. The report recorded 1,642 persons missing for 28 days or more in the United Kingdom in 1998. There have been 2,678 unsolved missing persons cases on record since before 1988. That is the last such report that I have been able to find. It appears that such statistics are not easily collated or found.
  The number of instances of missing children in the United Kingdom was estimated by the Children's Society
  898
  —after conducting a survey of all chief police officers in 1988—as 98,000 incidents each year. In 1992, the survey of the National Children's Home estimated that there had been 100,000 incidents of missing children, involving 443,000 different children under 18 in England and Wales, and under 16 in Scotland.
  My investigation and correspondence since July 1992 revealed, first, that the Government gave no financial assistance to provide counselling for missing persons' relatives such as Vicki Hamilton's mother. In a letter of 24 August 1992, Earl Ferrers, for the Home Office, said that he recogised that
  "the Suzy Lamplugh Trust has been able to offer comfort and support"
  to my constituent.
  Surely the 2,678 families of the untraced missing persons since 1988 deserve some support through grant assistance to allow a development of the missing persons bureau and the Suzy Lamplugh trust. Surely an amendment to the social work legislation should be considered if direct funding is denied. That would at least allow local concerns to be turned into local support for such worthwhile organisations.
  The greatest deficiency that my investigations have discovered is the lack of success in establishing a national computerised database of missing persons. That was first agreed by the United Kingdom Government when they adopted the Council of Europe recommendation R79(6) in April 1979. The crime committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers submitted a report early in 1989 to the Home Office, recommending such a database. In the House of Lords on 6 November 1989, Earl Ferrers said that the Government were discussing such a database with the Metropolitan police.
  Early-day motion 1159, calling for such a database, was tabled on 26 June 1990 in the House of Commons, and signed by 219 Members. On 5 July 1990, the then Home Office Minister replied to a parliamentary question that the Home Secretary
  "hopes to announce his conclusion shortly."—[Official Report, 5 July 1990; Vol. 175, c. 640.]
  On 12 July 1990, the then Minister said:
  "We intend to introduce such a register."—[Official Report, 12 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 444.]
  It is now 23 March 1993. Earl Ferrers once again pledged the Government to introducing such a database in a letter to me on 21 August 1992.
  The SO5 procedure—the card index system held by the Metropolitan police—is clearly inadequate for the task of tracing missing persons, particularly young people. The procedure used by police forces to notify and seek information on missing persons is, to say the least, less than uniform. In many cases, it is totally inadequate.
  In a debate in another place on 6 July 1992, Earl Ferrers said:
  "It is unlikely to be done before 1995."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 1992; Vol. 538, c. 1050.]
  I have also received reports of a meeting between Earl Ferrers and other interested organisations that was held in November 1992, in which he stated that there were further delays in upgrading of the national police computer 2, which would carry such a database. Does that mean further delays beyond 1995?
  I hope that tonight the Minister will show that the Government understand the need for action. I ask that they commit the resources needed to move forward the database development much faster than the planned

  899
  completion date of 1995. I also ask the Minister seriously to consider how the Government might better support those who appear to be voluntarily counselling the relatives of missing persons. That should be the responsibility of the Government in a truly caring society. I look forward to being given some reassurances for the relatives of Vicki and of other missing people.
  11.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) on obtaining this debate and on raising the complex and sensitive issue of missing persons. I share his feelings about the tragedy of Vicki Hamilton and about the terrible anguish that her mother must have suffered in the months leading up to her tragic death at the beginning of the year.
  The subject of missing persons has, in recent years, aroused considerable and justified public concern, and I am grateful for an opportunity to describe some of the initiatives which the Government are currently pursuing to address it. I am thinking in particular of the development of a national computerised register of missing persons.
  The police service is invariably the first agency to which the family of a missing person will turn, whether or not there is reason to believe that his or her disappearance is linked to the commission of a criminal offence. The speed, efficiency and professionalism which characterise the police's response to missing persons inquiries, particularly the mercifully few criminal abductions which they are called upon to investigate, are familiar to the House. The overwhelming majority of people are found, safe, well and usually fairly close to home, within about 48 hours their having been reported missing.
  Impressive though this record is, it has to be said that the existing arrangements for recording missing persons afford the police only limited support in their efforts to trace and identify those who have disappeared from home. Responsibility for investigating reports of missing persons is an operational one for chief officers of police. Records of missing persons are held locally and may be circulated to other forces, or to the Metropolitan police's missing persons bureau at New Scotland Yard—it offers a goodwill service to provincial forces—as chief officers consider necessary, but there are no nationally agreed standards for referral between forces or to the bureau.
  This lack of comprehensive, centrally held data on missing persons may mean that a person or body recovered in one part of the country is not readily identified as someone who has been reported missing to the police elsewhere in the country. The additional distress which this delay and uncertainty may cause to anxious relatives can be easily imagined, although a tragic discovery will mark the conclusion of only a very small proportion of missing persons investigations.
  At the moment, the police national computer—the PNC—holds details of missing persons, including those under 18 and adults who have disappeared in circumstances which indicate that they may have come to some harm. During the course of the year, the details of some 120,000 missing persons are entered on to the PNC, although at any one time only about 2,500 records are actually held on the system.
  A major drawback of the current PNC application is that the records stored on it are retrievable by the police
  900
  only on the basis of a name—which, as I have said, is obviously not much help when they have an unidentified body on their hands. Very little detailed information is currently held which might give the police some lead in tracing a missing person.
  Progress is being made, however. I am pleased to report that there are at the moment some encouraging trials taking place of a new facility to retrieve records from the national file on the basis of descriptive detail. This has already been used in two operational inquiries. There is scope to make it more flexible. Under the present system only batch processing is possible, and the system will not allow the descriptive details to be modified once a search has begun. However, it is clearly a useful tool and a real step forward in streamlining police procedures. I hope that the facility will shortly become available on the PNC.
  A separate initiative, using the data from the PNC, has recently been undertaken by the North Yorkshire constabulary, who may be able to offer support to other forces who are attempting to trace missing persons or identify bodies. All that adds up to increased efficiency—making the job of the police easier and, in some cases at least, easing the anxiety of relatives and friends of missing persons.
  The development of a much more sophisticated missing persons application is one of a number of proposals that the police have submitted to improve the range of services that the PNC provides. The proposed application would be designed to hold more information, so that police could search across a wide range of descriptive fields—such as hair and eye colour, or clothing—and the facility would allow the retention of records for the purpose of further analysis.
  The data protection registrar has agreed that records can remain on the system even though the subject may subsequently have returned home. That is because it is regrettably the case that some children run away from home or care on more than one occasion. Access to the history of previous incidents could be extremely valuable to the police in the event of that child going missing again.
  However, there is still some way to go before we introduce the more sophisticated national missing persons register. The priorities identified by the police themselves are of fundamental importance in dictating which new services should have first call on resources. I have to say that the police have said that they look to the PNC to meet other, more pressing needs before an enhanced missing persons application can be brought on stream. They have shown their preference to have the national criminal record system completed, the police national network implemented, a national automatic fingerprint identification system developed, a system built to assist them in handling major disasters such as the tragedy with the Zeebrugge ferry, as well as a development to provide the police officer making a roadside vehicle check with more information about the driver of the vehicle.
  The combined effect of accommodating those competing priorities is that the new missing persons facility is unlikely to become available until 1995 at the earliest, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged.
  The Government are aware that the delay in providing a national database has been a disappointment to a number of organisations that have campaigned vigorously and persuasively over a number of years for the introduction of nationally standardised procedures for reporting and recording missing persons.

  901
  For that reason, we have been looking very carefully at how, in the meantime, we might improve the way in which the existing regime operates. We have been talking to the police about ways in which they might be able to make more effective and co-ordinated use of the facilities that are at present available to them, so that we might bring about some worthwhile improvements to procedures in the short term. I hope that we shall shortly be in a position to announce our plans for promoting a more standardised approach to the problem of missing persons, which will provide useful interim progress until the enhanced computerised register is serviceable and on stream.
  The hon. Gentleman will doubtless be aware that the police in Scotland have set up a national index of persons who have been missing for more than one month. The index is held centrally on computer at the Scottish Criminal Record Office and can be accessed by all Scottish police forces. A correspondingly entry is also made on the PNC. The Scottish index is overseen by the Scottish Criminal Records Office, which operates a reminder system, so that forces are advised at regular intervals of those persons in their areas who are registered as missing on the computer.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the important work done by the National Children's Home. That research has prompted us to consider whether existing arrangements are sufficiently sensitive to pick up less immediately obvious warning signals, which may show that something is seriously wrong in the life of a child, that he or she may be the target of hitherto unsuspected abuse, of whatever type or degree, or other criminal behaviour.
  Home Office officials are consulting their colleagues in other Government Departments on proposals for developing a strategy that will ensure that the needs and problems of returned runaways are properly identified and, where appropriate, drawn to the attention of the relevant statutory authorities to initiate whatever remedial action is judged to be necessary.
  I referred earlier to the representations which the Government have received in recent years from groups and individuals who maintain a special interest in missing persons. None has been more active or committed in this respect than the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. My right hon. and learned Friend and I greatly value the trust's continuing work on behalf of missing persons and those they leave behind who, I know, are often beset by overwhelming feelings of helplessness and isolation.
  The trust's application to the Home Office for funds for the missing persons helpline, which it operated until the middle of last year, received careful consideration, but, the Department's commitment to improving police procedures for dealing with missing persons precluded the provision of financial assistance to the helpline. Helping people to avoid becoming the victims of violence is a primary aim of our crime prevention effort, and the Suzy Lamplugh trust's contribution towards that aim is significant and welcome.
  Support for those people who do become victims of crime is central to the Government's policy on law and order, and has led to the development of a range of services to meet their needs. The victims charter, which was published in 1990, describes the level of service which
  902
  victims of crime should expect from the criminal justice agencies. We liaise regularly with those agencies to encourage compliance with the aims and provisions of the charter.
  There are also, of course, the local victim support schemes, some 380 of them across England and Wales, covering 97 per cent. of the population, whose 8,000 volunteer visitors provide emotional help and practical assistance for about 750,000 victims of crime a year, including 130,000 victims of rape and other crimes of violence. There is a similar organisation in Scotland—as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), will confirm—which is receiving a grant of more than £640,000 from the Scottish Home and Health Department in the current year.
  Local scheme workers or volunteers contact all victims of crime referred by the police in their own homes. Contact is made by letter, telephone or a personal visit. Workers provide emotional support, a sympathetic ear and practical help, such as assisting with criminal injuries or other claims forms, advising on housing difficulties, accompanying victims to court and, if necessary, referring them to other sources of more specialised, long-term help.
  The Government fund the national charity Victim Suppport generously. We are providing £7·3 million this year and £8·4 million next year—a 15 per cent. increase. In addition to local victim support services those funds also help to provide more than 30 Crown court witness schemes to support witnesses in the more serious, and inevitably more traumatic, criminal trials. Victim Support offers its services not only to the immediate victim, but to relatives and friends, who are, of course, the indirect victims of crimes.
  I hope that what I have said this evening demonstrates the Government's commitment to making progress in the difficult area of missing persons. As I said at the outset, it is a problem which throws up a number of sensitive issues. Although the police are invariably unstinting in their efforts to recover vulnerable missing persons, or those whose disappearance suggests that they may be at risk of harm, not everyone who goes missing will fall into those categories; nor will the circumstances of their departure be at all straightforward.
  The problem of missing persons is a deeply complex one which, if its causes are to be understood and effectively addressed, must draw to it the collective efforts and expertise of all the statutory and voluntary organisations which share a responsibility for the welfare of those members of our society. It will never be enough simply to identify symptoms here and there, and then to treat them selectively and in isolation.
  The value of sensitive and informed inter-agency co-operation has been increasingly recognised in recent years, and is now brought to bear on a range of difficult social problems which need to be tackled on a number of fronts. For example, joint working procedures are now mandatory in child protection cases, and are encouraged in other areas, such as domestic violence. I have no doubt that only by harnessing this spirit of co-operation and sharing of information shall we succeed in finding a way through the difficult and disturbing area of missing persons. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the tragic lesson of Vicki Hamilton will not be lost as progress is sought.
  What is clear is that we must direct all our energies and resources toward protecting the vulnerable members of

  903
  our society from those who would harm and exploit them. I hope that the most important end will be materially served by our plans to refine and rationalise procedures for recording and tracing vulnerable missing persons.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Twelve midnight

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  C-LIX Court Listing
  C-LIX Court Listing
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Electoral Registration
  Electoral Registration
  Elderly People (Threats)
  Elderly People (Threats)
  ESDA Evidence
  ESDA Evidence
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Prisoners (Assault)
  Prisoners (Assault)
  Police Force (Ethnic Minorities)
  Police Force (Ethnic Minorities)
  Race Relation Act
  Race Relation Act
  Blakenhurst Prison
  Blakenhurst Prison
  No-crime Offences
  No-crime Offences
  Racial Incidents
  Racial Incidents
  Fines, London
  Fines, London
  Wolds Prison
  Wolds Prison
  Supply and Transport Contract
  Supply and Transport Contract
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
  Charities
  Charities
DEFENCE
  Royal Irish Regiment
  Royal Irish Regiment
  RAF Brawdy
  RAF Brawdy
  Fleet Maintenance Organisation
  Fleet Maintenance Organisation
  Sea Training, Portland
  Sea Training, Portland
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Money Market Rates
  Money Market Rates
  Forestry
  Forestry
TRANSPORT
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Residential Properties
  Residential Properties
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Public Transport
  Public Transport
  Options Review
  Options Review
  M25
  M25
  Jet Skis
  Jet Skis
  Diesel Smoke Emissions
  Diesel Smoke Emissions
  Bulk Carriers
  Bulk Carriers
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Stansted Airport
  Stansted Airport
  Maritime Rescue
  Maritime Rescue
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Motorways
  Motorways
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Bangladesh (Burmese Refugees)
  Bangladesh (Burmese Refugees)
  Maastricht Treaty
  Maastricht Treaty
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Bosnia (Aid)
  Bosnia (Aid)
  Guatemala
  Guatemala
  Sri Lanka Dams
  Sri Lanka Dams
EDUCATION
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Bullying
  Bullying
  Voluntary Activities
  Voluntary Activities
  Homework
  Homework
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Ramfield plc
  Ramfield plc
  Clarke Foods Ltd.
  Clarke Foods Ltd.
  Deregulation
  Deregulation
  Regional Assistance
  Regional Assistance
WALES
  Multiple Occupancy Houses
  Multiple Occupancy Houses
  Village Halls
  Village Halls
  Education Authorities
  Education Authorities
  Dentistry
  Dentistry
  Unfit Housing
  Unfit Housing
  Housing, Dwyfor
  Housing, Dwyfor
  Care and Repair Schemes
  Care and Repair Schemes
  Hospitals
  Hospitals
  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Livestock Identification Scheme
  Livestock Identification Scheme
  Forestry Commission (Land Sales)
  Forestry Commission (Land Sales)
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
  EC Secondments
  EC Secondments
  Public Bodies
  Public Bodies
  Welsh Language Television
  Welsh Language Television
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
SCOTLAND
  Storm Damage
  Storm Damage
  Community Care
  Community Care
  Departmental Spending
  Departmental Spending
  Education Colleges (Capital Expenditure)
  Education Colleges (Capital Expenditure)
  Public Bodies
  Public Bodies
  GP Fund Holders
  GP Fund Holders
  Sheriff Court, Greenock
  Sheriff Court, Greenock
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  Dental Care (Children)
  Dental Care (Children)
  Newton Street Railway Tunnel
  Newton Street Railway Tunnel
  Milk Quota
  Milk Quota
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Religious Affiliations
  Religious Affiliations
  EC Secondments
  EC Secondments
  Publicity
  Publicity
  Prevention of Terrorism Acts
  Prevention of Terrorism Acts
  Departmental Functions
  Departmental Functions
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Vaccine Damage
  Vaccine Damage
  Administrative Headquarters, Leeds
  Administrative Headquarters, Leeds
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pensions
  Pensions
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Industrial Waste
  Industrial Waste
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  EC Labour Statistics
  EC Labour Statistics
  Industrial Tribunals (Deposit)
  Industrial Tribunals (Deposit)
  Legislative Changes (Consultation)
  Legislative Changes (Consultation)
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Unemployment Tax
  Unemployment Tax
  Workplace Accidents
  Workplace Accidents
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Wool Industry
  Wool Industry
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authority Debts
  Local Authority Debts
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Plymouth Development Corporation
  Plymouth Development Corporation
  East Thames Corridor
  East Thames Corridor
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Renewable Energy
  Renewable Energy
HEALTH
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  GP Fund Holders
  GP Fund Holders
  Community Care
  Community Care
  Tomlinson Report
  Tomlinson Report
  Health Helpline
  Health Helpline
  Residential Care
  Residential Care
  Health Promotion Clinics
  Health Promotion Clinics
  Cumberland Infirmary
  Cumberland Infirmary
  NHS Trusts
  NHS Trusts
  Amenity Beds
  Amenity Beds
  Priority Patients
  Priority Patients
  Maternity Units
  Maternity Units
  Natural Medicines
  Natural Medicines
  Publication of Accounts
  Publication of Accounts
  Suppliers' Bills
  Suppliers' Bills
  AIDS (Medical Staff)
  AIDS (Medical Staff)
  Food Poisoning
  Food Poisoning
  Ambulance Service
  Ambulance Service
  Stillbirth
  Stillbirth
  Pharmacies
  Pharmacies
  Administrative Headquarters, Leeds
  Administrative Headquarters, Leeds
  Tranquillisers
  Tranquillisers
  Physiotherapists
  Physiotherapists
  NHS Vacant Properties
  NHS Vacant Properties
  Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Breast Cancer
  Breast Cancer
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  East Dental Hospital
  East Dental Hospital
  Environmental Health Officers
  Environmental Health Officers
  Secure Accommodation
  Secure Accommodation
  GPs (Computers)
  GPs (Computers)
  Ethnic Minorities
  Ethnic Minorities
  Community Care
  Community Care
  Psychiatric Patients
  Psychiatric Patients
  Xenotransplantation
  Xenotransplantation
  Premature Births
  Premature Births
  Bone Marrow Treatment
  Bone Marrow Treatment
  Executive Training Programmes
  Executive Training Programmes
  Lewisham Hospital
  Lewisham Hospital

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.
The Earl of Lovelace The Earl of Lovelace— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Children with Special Educational Needs
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the progress being made in assessing the educational needs of children with disabilities.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the 1981 Education Act set new standards for the assessment of children with special educational needs and for the provision to meet their needs. The Education Bill, which is to receive its Second Reading in this House today, substantially improves upon the 1981 Act for the benefit of all children with special educational needs.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, following the Audit Commission's highly critical report of July last year, what action have the Government taken? What problems remain following any action that the Government may have taken? Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient support is being given to those children who require help but who need not be statemented?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Audit Commission report received considerable publicity during the summer of 1992. Its findings tended to confirm the need for changes to the 1981 Act, some of which are embodied in the Government's proposal for revision and improvement of that Act. The issue of integration was considered within the report, but in general it recommended the need for a cautious approach, and so its findings are broadly in line with existing Government policy. However, as a result of the Bill now before your Lordships, every school will be required to produce policies to provide for children with special educational needs, including those without statements. All schools will be subject to an inspection every four years. That inspection will include quality of provision for children with special educational needs.
Lord Rix: Is the Minister aware that there are many parents who are confused—indeed intimidated—by the statementing process? Will the Government ensure their support for voluntary befriending groups which make it possible for such parents to receive appropriate advice and to take a meaningful part in the future development of their children?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, under the Bill, as well as being able to express a preference for a maintained school, parents are being given the opportunity to make representations to the local education authority
158
if they believe that a non-maintained school would be better for their child than a maintained one. The whole point of the assessment and statementing procedures is to discover what are the needs of the child and how they can be met.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the financial bickering that goes on after children are assessed and statemented? Is he aware or the case of Christopher, a child suffering from spina bifida and cerebral palsy? His statement specified that he needed a special seat in school, but the health authority refused to pay for that because it was in a classroom. So the buck was passed from one authority to another while that child suffered pain and discomfort which resulted in his education being cut down. Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the relevant authorities make specific provision for these children?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not aware of the details of the case that the noble Lord described, but the Bill deals with the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord. It fulfils the commitments we made to pupils with special educational needs.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us who were worried about the position on statements for children are delighted with the provisions which are contained in the Bill which is due to receive its Second Reading this afternoon?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lady Blatch is grateful to have my noble friend's support.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the hospital authorities are not especially helpful in making available accommodation for those children who need speech therapy and physiotherapy? They are the two therapies that the local authority has to buy in. What progress has been made in increasing the number of therapies available?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness any details today. The Bill covers those issues. The Bill has 276 clauses and 17 schedules and we shall be discussing it in the House over the next three months. There will be ample opportunity to discuss all the issues which it raises.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, if the Minister listens to the debate this afternoon, he will probably find that his noble friend is the only Member to agree with the proposals in the Bill. The debate will reveal that one of the Bill's large omissions relates to special educational needs. Will the Minister give the House details of how the improvements will be made?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord must conserve his enthusiasm until the Bill arrives in this House later today. I can assure him that my noble friend and I will listen closely to all 46 Peers who are to speak today.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the six-month timetable for statementing has been put into a code of practice and

159
not on to the face of the Bill. Will the Minister therefore tell the House what status the code of practice is intended to have?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is an interesting question and one which the noble Lord can ask during today's debate on the Bill.

Domestic Workers from Overseas
2.43 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will provide protection against exploitation for overseas domestic workers admitted to this country under the Home Office concession of 1980, comparable to that provided for au pairs.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, overseas domestic workers are allowed to accompany their employers to the United Kingdom only if there is an established and bona fide relationship between the employer and the employee. That is a higher level of screening than that which is used in au pair cases. All domestic workers are entitled to the protection of United Kingdom employment protection legislation.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. If it is right that young women coming from, say, France or Yugoslavia should be protected, why are the Government obstinately refusing to provide adequate protection for young women of a comparable age coming from countries such as the Philippines and India, who are here solely to undertake domestic work?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, au pairs come here in a different capacity from those who come as domestic workers. Au pairs are not domestics; they come to live as part of a family, to learn English, to find out about our way of life and to undertake light domestic duties of a kind that any daughter might undertake—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, and any son!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, no, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, must not pre-empt events; it is daughters at the moment and sons later on. In return, the young women receive board and lodgings and pocket money. Domestics are in a totally different category. They have had a period of employment with their employer and on arrival they are subject to the employment legislation of this country.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are many cases of domestic workers coming to this country from places such as India whose passports are taken away from them by their employers? Consequently, they are denied the ordinary rights which are available to other people coming to the United Kingdom.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not have any figures to show the number of people whose passports have
160
been removed by their employers. Such action is an offence and if the domestic workers go to the police the necessary inquiries will be made.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is it not the case that two years ago when we discussed the matter the Government promised to issue a letter to all domestic servants coming into this country advising them to be careful not to give away their passports?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, when domestic servants come to this country with employers they must have entry clearance and an interview. Entry clearance is granted only if the domestic worker has been in paid employment for a substantial time. The entry clearance officer ensures that the applicant receives and understands a leaflet explaining his or her rights in the United Kingdom. Employers also receive a copy of the leaflet intended for domestic workers and they will be aware that their servants have rights under our law.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does the Minister realise that some of the worst abuses have occurred because the domestic workers have no one to whom they can turn for advice and counselling? Could it not be made a condition of entry under the concession that they have regular access to a counselling service?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that would result in an undue increase in bureaucracy. If domestic workers wish to have counselling and to speak to people because they feel abused in any shape or form they are entitled to go to the police as much as is anyone else. The noble Lord appears to be indicating from a sedentary position that they cannot get out. Of course, if a person is held against his or her will that is an offence and it requires someone to take some action.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Question referred to the 1980 concession. Does the Minister agree that the concession was in favour of employers rather than those coming into this country? Is it not the case that a survey carried out by the Commission for Immigrant Filipino Workers revealed that as many as 80 per cent. of those domestic workers have their passports taken away and that a high proportion are subject to abuse and lack of payment? If there is a circular which gives them advice about their rights, why have its effects not been monitored and why has my noble friend's suggestion of counselling help not been taken up?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is perfectly reasonable that anyone who comes to this country should know the conditions under which they are coming. Domestic workers will be allowed entry into this country only if they have already worked with their employer and know what is expected of them. Once they are here they are subject to the laws of this country, like anyone else. It is not suitable to set up a special counselling agency checking on all people who have foreign domestic workers living with them in order to make sure that those workers are being looked after properly.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, although I agree that the numbers are few, the status of domestic workers who come to this country and then row with and leave their employers is different from that of other people because they immediately become illegal immigrants. The situation is rather tragic. I do not believe that the Government have ever paid enough attention to this matter. The numbers involved are few. I should like to ask that at least special attention should be given to every such case and a careful record kept.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree that if a person who has come into this country has a row with his or her employer and then wishes to change employment, under the arrangements that person would be an illegal immigrant. However, there were 8,613 entry clearances issued for domestic workers between January and August 1992. I am sure your Lordships will agree that to give counselling to all those people would be a substantial undertaking.

Children's Play Unit: Funding
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, and if so how, they will ensure that the functions currently undertaken by the National Children's Play and Recreation Unit are fulfilled following the cessation of its funding on 31st March 1993.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Sports Council will take over the play unit's responsibilities from next week for the National Play Information Centre and playwork education and training, together with seven of the unit's current staff.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, is the Minister aware that to many people involved with children's play, that looks more like bureaucratic convenience and cost savings than anything else? Will the Minister urge the Government to set up a proper inquiry into the place of play in children's development and how it should be funded?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the decision has followed detailed consideration of the issues. My department has been involved in the play unit's management committee, which has on it representatives of voluntary and private sector interests in play and local authority associations. We also consulted formally with the National Voluntary Council for Children's Play and the local authority associations. We are pleased that the Sports Council is taking on that role.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people have concluded that the inadequacy of child care and child play facilities is one—and only one—of the reasons for the increase in crime? Does the Minister accept that very few organisations support the idea that that responsibility should now be handed to the Sports Council? Will the Department of National Heritage now carry out the survey which it
162
promised to carry out with proper consultation with all organisations concerned, including the local authority associations?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I said that we have had consultations. I must tell your Lordships that the play unit has experienced management and other problems, many of which were similar to those experienced by its predecessor, the play board. We have concluded that a separate national play organisation is not the best way forward. There would be advantages in integrating any continuing play function more fully into the management structure of an existing organisation. That is what we have done.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, will the Government look again at this matter? The proposal seems to be cripplingly defective in at least two respects. Is the Minister aware that the Sports Council is the wrong body to deal with this? Apart from being accounting officer in the past, it has never had anything to do with it. The Government seem to confuse play with sport, which is an error. Is the Minister aware also that the proposed funding is grossly inadequate? Will he do something about that?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot agree with my noble friend. We are anxious to see that the new arrangements should be given time to settle. This year will see the replacement of the Sports Council by the UK Sports Commission and the Sports Council for England. Once those bodies are established, it will be appropriate for us to consider with them how this policy area is developing. The focus of play has been the provision of play areas such as playgrounds for children and after-school and holiday-care schemes. The Sports Council will continue to play an important role in the provision of children's play for five to 14 year-olds. The Sports Council will take on the responsibilities of the National Play Information Centre and playwork education and training. That is a very positive way forward.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, will the Minister look carefully at the words of the noble Lord. Lord Gilmour, every one of which I agree with? Many of the organisations which have been consulted have disagreed with the Government's decision. Will the Minister accept that there is no prospect of that important activity having any high priority in the considerations of the Sports Council, which has enormous financial pressures on its allocations to much more mainstream sporting activities?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. The Sports Council has considered carefully what resources are appropriate for this work and is making the necessary provision within its budget. It has agreed a base sum of £220,000; but it is considering also the possibility of additional funding for the four national centres for playwork education and the National Voluntary Council for Children's Play.

163
At a meeting of the National Voluntary Council for Children's Play in February 1992, the unit was criticised on a number of grounds. I quote from an extract of the minutes:
"Not enough attention had been paid to prioritising the work of the play unit. Those on the management committee felt that they did not have a clear remit and had been discouraged from taking an active role. The unit has worked in an insular and isolated way and had not collaborated sufficiently with other organisations".
That is why we took the decision which we did.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the budgeted £220,000 in the Sports Council's allocation compares with £830,000 centrally allocated the year before, and £1,130,000 allocated in the year before that? Is that not rather a devastating cut?
Viscount Astor: No, my Lords. The budget is £220,000. The reason that it was more than that previously is because it included provision for three specific projects called Children Today projects which ran from 1989 to 1992 with a total funding of £552,000. Those were grant-funded projects for a specific period. That period and those projects have now come to an end.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, can my noble friend give any assurance to a mere Scotsman that all this talk of play and sports councils will improve the English performance at cricket and rugby?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will join with me in congratulating my noble friend's captain, Gavin Hastings, on his captaincy of the British Lions on their forthcoming tour of New Zealand. I am sure that it will be an extremely successful tour.
Lord Molloy: My Lords—
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if the Government have carried out that survey, will they publish it—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has not yet asked a question on this subject.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House and I note his sense of fair play. Is the Minister aware that many people working for voluntary organisations give a great deal of time and effort to these matters? Were they consulted about these changes? Will they be consulted with regard to the future of that extremely valuable British organisation?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there has been detailed consideration of the issues and consultations with many representatives of the voluntary and private sectors. The problem was that the play unit's detailed priorities have not always been clear or subject to proper scrutiny by the management committee. Anxieties have been expressed about the weakness of the unit's relationships with other organisations in the
164
field. That is why the decision was made. We look forward to the Sports Council taking on that extremely important role.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, will the Minister accept that a child's right to play is recognised in Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child, which the United Kingdom ratified in 1991? Sport is not mentioned in that convention. Perhaps that may be for the reasons so well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour; namely, that sport is but one part of a child's play which extends to emotional, intellectual and social development, and so on.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I said, the focus has been on the provision of playground areas, and so on. The noble Baroness is right. The UN Convention on the Rights of a Child came into force in this country on 15th January 1992. This Government have an excellent record on caring for children. From now on that care will be based on the Children's Act, which meets the obligations in whole or in part of 13 of the main 40 articles of the convention. This Government have played a major part in drafting that convention.

Armed Forces: Redundancies
2.59 p.m.
The Duke of Manchester The Duke of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many redundancy notices have been served on members of Her Majesty's forces in foreign territories and whether they consider it desirable in such circumstances to ask those servicemen to serve out their remaining time on active duty abroad.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I am aware that 2,406 personnel have been issued with redundancy notices while serving in overseas countries. All Army redundees can apply to spend the last six months of their service in the UK.
The Duke of Manchester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. First, if a serviceman is killed during action, is his wife or family entitled to the redundancy and also the lump sum of money which would normally be due to him? Secondly, if he is lucky enough to receive that money and his wife subsequently remarries, would she be entitled to carry on receiving the pension which she would be receiving normally prior to remarriage?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can tell the noble Duke that the arrangements for widowhood as a result of spouses being killed during the course of action are, we think, generous and would certainly apply in those circumstances. So far as concerns pensions, if a widow remarries and is widowed a second time, she has the ability to apply for a pension. The record shows that over 75 per cent. of those who apply do qualify and receive the pensions that they would have been qualified to receive had they not remarried.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not somewhat clumsy and insensitive to serve a redundancy notice on a soldier serving overseas?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have to say that I had expected the supplementary question of the noble Duke to be more along the lines of that posed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I am very pleased that my noble friend has enabled me to try to explain the reasoning behind it. It has indeed occasioned a great deal of criticism, not only in the public press but also among Members of your Lordships' House. I think that I should first make it clear that, so far as I am aware, there has been absolutely no criticism from serving members of the forces about the way in which redundancy notices have been served. I am pleased to be able to make that statement, because an enormous amount of trouble has been taken to ensure that it should be done in the most sensitive way possible.
However, I should point out to my noble friend that there are three considerations, above all, that dictate the way in which redundancy notices are served. The first is mobility. The tour length in Yugoslavia, and many of those in Northern Ireland, is only six months. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for an officer to be serving in one theatre when selected for redundancy and in another when notification is made. Secondly, I should point out to my noble friend that the numbers involved are very considerable—between 30,000 and 40,000 officers and soldiers move between operational and non-operational theatres in any one year. The picture is constantly changing. Thirdly, it is only right that people should be treated in exactly the same way no matter where they are serving, as indeed is the case so far as concerns their pay.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, can the Minister please inform the House whether one of the main problems facing soldiers who are made redundant—that of housing—will be carefully considered by the Government? They are not on the housing ladder and, in the past, that has been one of the great problems which they have had to face.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am genuinely extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that question. Housing is one of the principal concerns and one of my principal responsibilities within the Ministry of Defence. An enormous amount of time and trouble has been taken on this matter. As regards redundees, it is important that they should have housing available to them. For that reason, Old Sarum (the Joint Services Housing Office) has been established. I would encourage all redundees to make contact with that office. They are warned to do so before they go.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind the increasing number of calls by the United Nations on military forces to police the trouble spots of the world, why are we continuing with redundancies? There is no questioning the fact that if troops are called for to act on behalf of the United Nations there will be an even greater number of British lads involved to the point where the United Kingdom may be
166
denuded of its own infantry forces. Should not the Government re-appraise the whole situation now and stop this nonsense of reducing our infantry forces?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Dean, said. I also noticed what the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, said in an article in The Times today. As I have said before, if we see that the commitments outweigh the troops available for performing them, we shall re-examine the situation. That is not the case at present.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my noble friend said that in most cases servicemen would be able to spend the last six months of their service in the United Kingdom. However, can he say whether or not that will be possible as Options for Change begins to bite and as commitments look as though they might expand?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can reassure my noble friend. As I said in my original Answer, everyone in the Army who wishes can spend the last six months of his service in the United Kingdom.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell the House how many advertisements for recruits to the Army have been inserted in the press during the past year and what was the cost involved?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I cannot, off the top of my head, say what such costs would be, but I would say to the noble Lady that I make no apology for recruiting advertisements being issued in the press. As she will be well aware, it is important that career structures should be maintained in the Armed Forces. If we do not recruit at the bottom, it will be very difficult to promote people and to keep going the promotional ladder and careers.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Viscount said that he had heard no complaints about the procedure that has been adopted. However, will he perhaps talk to the eight officers who were handed compulsory redundancy notices while on active service in Bosnia? Further, will he perhaps talk to the 36 officers who were handed compulsory redundancy notices in Northern Ireland? Does he really think that that is a proper way for Her Majesty's Government to proceed?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, when I said that there has been no complaints, I include both those categories—that is, including those gallant soldiers who have received compulsory redundancy notices. I should point out that it is only the officers in phase 2 of the redundancy programme who have been made compulsorily redundant. The rest are volunteers. If there are complaints, I should very much like to hear them. I can only repeat that we have not received any complaints so far and that a great deal of trouble has been taken over this programme.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that with the storm clouds beginning to blow up in Russia, as they are in

167
Yugoslavia, Options for Change is beginning to look more and more like "options for chaos and catastrophe"?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope that, by implication, my noble friend is not trying to suggest that we should send British soldiers to the former Soviet Union for peace-keeping purposes. I hope that the lessons we learned in the early 1920s will prevent us from doing so.

Business
3.8 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: 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 police reform.

Education Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is my pleasure not just to be taking the Bill through your Lordships' House but also to be supported once again on the Front Bench by my noble friends Lord Henley and Lord Astor and by my noble friend Lord St. Davids who will deal with all matters which apply to Wales. Modesty forbids my referring to us as "The A Team" of the Front Bench. However, I can say that my noble friends will add great strength and good humour to our deliberations.
The Bill builds on the sound foundations that were laid in the 1988 Act and continues our drive to achieve higher standards. It provides for a new framework in which self-governing grant-maintained schools will continue to thrive and in which the resources available to education may be deployed to better effect. It also offers a new start for some of our most vulnerable children—those in failing schools and those with special educational needs.
It was back in 1981 when I was leader of Cambridgeshire County Council that I was involved with a pioneering scheme called local financial management. That allowed schools to have control over a substantial part of their budgets. I was privileged to belong to a forward looking authority which believed in delegating as much operational autonomy to its schools as possible while at the same time retaining good relationships. The next logical extension of that policy was to allow schools even more control over their day-to-day affairs; that is, a chance to become self-governing. I therefore feel doubly privileged to be part of a forward looking government who believe in and practise devolution of power to schools, to their governing bodies and to parents.
Schools have responded with great enthusiasm to their first real taste of autonomy. Local management
168
of schools is now an accepted part of the education scenery and it has been used by hundreds of schools as a stepping stone to full self-governing grant-maintained status.
This Bill is the last great step in the devolution of power to where it really belongs—in the schools themselves. But devolving power to schools means looking again at the organisation of our education system. That is what we have done.
Under the 1944 Education Act, it was local education authorities that had responsibility for the provision of education. Yet effective control over what went on in classrooms, and over what determined the content and quality of education, rested with the heads of individual institutions and their staff. So there was a disjunction between formal responsibility and effective control which was to prove problematic and which eventually led to the Education Reform Act 1988. That Act gave much more responsibility to individual schools and colleges; and it gave parents the opportunity to seek grant-maintained status for their schools. The Further and Higher Education Act 1992 did the same for further education colleges and paved the way for the polytechnics to become universities. This Bill now extends that vision. It provides a framework within which the power and responsibility for achieving high standards will lie mainly with individual schools, with governing bodies, head teachers and their staff being accountable to parents and local communities who have the greatest interest in seeing that their schools succeed.
Clause 1 of the Bill, which replaces Section 1 of the 1944 Act, embodies this vision. It carries forward the Secretary of State's general duty to promote the education of the people of England and Wales. It requires him to,
"exercise his powers with a view, among other things, to improving standards, encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice".
It enables him to do so only to the extent that his specific powers, either on the face of the Bill or in existing legislation, will allow.
I know there is concern about the impact of the clause on higher education institutions. I assure the House that such concern is misplaced. The clause confers no additional powers on the Secretary of State in relation to universities. The clause needs to be read alongside the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. That Act, as this House will well recall, fully secures the continuing independence of universities, and nothing in this Bill, in Clause I or elsewhere, changes that situation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is setting this out in a letter to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.
The universities have long been self-governing institutions. Further education colleges and sixth form colleges achieve that status formally from 1st April this year. Many schools are also enjoying, and showing that they can benefit from self-governing status. Only seven weeks ago I announced the 400th grant-maintained school. Today there are 503 approved grant-maintained schools. To date one in five secondary schools have balloted. Many primary schools have also done so and the number of applications is rising daily.

169
But the precise rate of opting out will depend entirely on the judgment of parents. The Government have absolutely no wish to impose self-governing status on any school. Application for self-governing status can only be made following a democratic ballot of parents. Their commitment to their children's education is crucial. We know that more and more parents are seeing the advantages of choosing self-governing status. I repeat, however, that this is a matter for parents.
The Bill recognises that schools do not exist in isolation. It will encourage the traditional partnerships to adapt to changing circumstances. I would like to say a little about each of the main partnerships: about how the important but changing role of the LEA 'will mesh with that of the new funding bodies; about how a network of self-governing Church schools will still have the support of the Church education authorities; and about how our drive for higher standards will continue to be underpinned by the national curriculum and by the new inspection framework.
The reality is that self-governing schools are already a significant feature of the educational landscape. They are, and will continue to be, directly accountable to parents and to the local community.
Part II of the Bill re-enacts with some improvements the grant-maintained provisions of the 1988 Act. It will help secure a smoother transition to self-governing status and ensure that no unnecessary obstacles are placed in the way of schools considering taking that option. In particular we are making it possible for schools to apply for self-governing status as part of a group. Opting out as part of a group will give schools, especially small schools, the opportunity to share administrative and managerial functions while at the same time retaining their individual characters and ethos.
It would not be appropriate for the growing number of self-governing state schools to be administered by a central Whitehall department. That is why, in Part 1 of the Bill, and in line with government policy more generally, we are delegating functions to new bodies—the Funding Agency for Schools in England, and, in due course, when the number of schools in the Principality requires it, the Schools Funding Council for Wales. It is our intention that these bodies should not become LEAs by another name. They will not be managing individual schools. It will be the schools themselves, their head teachers and governing bodies, who will be responsible for the education they provide. As their name implies, the principal function of the funding authorities will be to fund grant-maintained schools. They will be accountable for this, as for their other functions, through my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, to Parliament.
But they will also need to share the responsibility for securing sufficient school places once there is a certain minimum proportion of grant-maintained schools in an area. There must be appropriate planning for the growing grant-maintained schools sector. That is not a role which can be given back to LEAs. So there is no alternative to funding agency
170
involvement. But all statutory proposals, whether by the funding agency or the LEA, will be subject to objection by those in the local community. And, as now, all controversial proposals will be determined by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The Bill provides for appropriate consultation to take place between the funding agency and LEAs.
I would like to talk briefly about the future role of local education authorities. There have been many scare stories and I wish to allay any fears or apprehensions. LEAs will continue to have a role, and an important one. However, with or without this Bill, the role of LEAs is changing as all schools take control of their budgets under local management of schools.
I have also noted considerable concern about local education authority trading powers. Local education authorities will continue to provide support services to their own schools and, under certain circumstances, will provide support services to self-governing schools. I know there is concern on that issue and I look forward to many opportunities, both in Committee and on Report, to allay any concerns that noble Lords may have on those issues.
The future role of local education authorities must reflect their responsibility for their own schools and the expanding self-governing sector. The authorities will, of course, continue to maintain those schools that choose not to apply for self-governing status. But even for them, and the more so with self-governing schools, the LEA's role is developing into an enabling one that is increasingly concentrated on those functions for which an LEA is best fitted; for example, assessing and statementing pupils with special educational needs, and enforcing school attendance.
I should like to say a little about each of these important areas. First, I shall deal with special needs. No debate on providing for children with special educational needs can properly begin, especially in this House, without acknowledging and paying tribute to the fundamental work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. It was her report which provided the underlying research and philosophical basis for the 1981 Education Act. I am delighted that the noble Baroness is in her place in the House today and that she continues to take a keen interest in special educational provision. We all benefit from her wisdom in these matters.
I should also like to say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. Part III of the Bill fulfils the commitment I gave to this House on 29th June last year during the Committee stage debate on the Private Member's Bill introduced by my noble friend. I wish to thank him most warmly for the care with which he has looked at our proposals: he has examined them in great detail and has contributed to the legislation now before the House. I am grateful to other noble friends and the many organisations concerned with special educational needs with which they are associated for their constructive contribution to this important debate.
The Education Bill now before the House not only fulfils the commitments on legislating for pupils with special educational needs which I gave the House last year; it goes well beyond those commitments. The Bill

171
establishes a coherent system which allocates clear roles and responsibilities and is answerable to the parents of the children whom it serves. The Bill puts clear statutory duties on the governors of all schools—self-governing and LEA maintained—to use their best endeavours to secure the special educational provision for all their registered pupils with special educational needs, both with and without statements.
We have strengthened those duties particularly to benefit pupils without statements. The Bill, as now amended, implements our new policy of requiring all governing bodies to draw up, to publish and to report on their school's policy for special educational needs. Schools will therefore be more accountable to parents and also to the independent inspectorate whose framework requires inspectors to evaluate those policies.
We are giving parents of children with statements greater choice over the school for their children. We are improving access to the present arrangements for conducting assessments and making statements through regulating the time and the manner in which LEAs carry out their duties. We are also providing a more coherent and comprehensive set of rights of appeal for parents, and establishing a new independent tribunal to give parents quicker redress through a more open and independent appeals procedure. To clarify one point on which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has been particularly concerned, I should say explicitly that the tribunal will hear appeals from parents about the choice of school for their child.
Of course, we must not forget the needs of the most able children. That is why we are announcing a new initiative today, in collaboration with the National Association for Able Children, and also with Ofsted. This will develop practical guidance for teachers dealing with gifted children.
There is little point in establishing the new structures and partnerships envisaged in the Bill if children do not attend school. Levels of truancy are causing my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the department great concern. The structure imposed by the school day is an important discipline in itself. A young person out of school for no good reason is vulnerable to bad influences and, as we all know, truancy can be the first step towards juvenile delinquency and a criminal career. We have witnessed too many manifestations of that sad downward spiral recently.
The statutory responsibilities of local education authorities in relation to school attendance are set out in Part IV of the Bill. The clauses bring together, in an updated form, existing provisions contained in a number of statutes. They empower local education authorities to serve school attendance orders and to take cases to court where necessary. They also make provision for parental choice to be taken into account where it is consistent with the aim of ensuring that the child attends school regularly.
The Government declared in the White Paper their intention to place a new duty on local authorities to provide education otherwise than at school for those
172
pupils who require it. We recognise that pupils requiring such provision—for example, pupils excluded for disciplinary offences—often present very real difficulties for the education system. But we must not duck that challenge. The aim will be to make proper educational provision for these young people. We shall be laying before this House shortly a number of government amendments designed to give effect to that commitment.
I must now turn to those schools—thankfully a very small number but disproportionately represented in our inner cities—which are failing to provide good education for our children. We simply cannot stand by any longer wringing our hands while those schools fail our children. Part V of the Bill includes provisions to ensure that the needs of those pupils will be met. Those children deserve no less.
All schools will be subject to inspection under the 1992 Act. Where a registered inspector concludes that a school is "at risk", the Bill provides for swift and effective action to be taken, regardless of whether the school is a local authority school, a church school or a self-governing grant-maintained school. Our objectives are clear: to raise standards in all schools; to expose good, bad and indifferent practice; to disseminate good practice; and to eliminate unacceptable bad practice.
I have referred to the great strides that have been made since the Education Reform Act became law. The national curriculum, like local management of schools, was a concept that was criticised and feared in some quarters. As is often the case, the imagined was radically different from the reality. Both the framework and much of the detail of the national curriculum are now in place. We are continuing to pilot and then introduce the vital assessment arrangements.
The National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council have made a vital contribution to the introduction in our schools of the national curriculum assessment arrangements. I pay tribute to the two chairmen —David Pascall of the National Curriculum Council and my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach—and also the members and officers of both councils. But it now makes sense to move on and to establish a single body which will bring greater coherence to curriculum and assessment matters. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority will ensure that the national curriculum will continue to be a force for raising expectations and standards.
The Bill also builds on the existing arrangements for the development of the Welsh curriculum. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority will have a more limited remit in Wales than its predecessors. The Bill enables the Secretary of State for Wales to transfer functions of the SCAA in relation to Wales to the Curriculum Council for Wales, which will then be re-named the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales. I am pleased that I did not have to say that in Welsh! It is the intention to transfer assessment of the Welsh language

173
at all key stages from the English to the Welsh body, as well as assessment at key stages 1 to 3 in all other subjects.
I am aware that there has been some anxiety that the provisions of the Bill could threaten Welsh medium education in Wales. I can assure your Lordships that there is nothing in the Bill which threatens teaching in Welsh.
Our earliest schools were church schools. They played a fundamental part in the development of a national education service. The Government attach the greatest importance to the continuing role of the Churches. The distinctive ethos of church schools, the moral values which they take special care to give their pupils, and the attention to pastoral care on the part of their teaching staff, are features which I should like to see in all our schools.
As more church schools opt for self-governing status we arc determined that the partnership between the state and the Churches should continue and strengthen. I have no doubt that many church schools, having made the decision to seek self-governing status, will very much want the continuing support of the relevant diocesan education authority. Those schools should rest assured that, although they will be joining the self-governing sector of schools and so will lose the "voluntary" label they had under LEA stewardship, I am every bit as determined as they are themselves to ensure that church schools remain a distinctive family within the self-governing sector.
Now would seem an appropriate time to outline how the Bill will strengthen the place of religious education in all our schools. The Government are committed to the role of schools in promoting children's spiritual and moral development. The whole of a school's work should contribute to that dimension of the curriculum. But religious education and collective worship provide an important focus for the development of children's values and beliefs.
The Bill is intended to strengthen the position of religious education in all our schools as a vital element of the curriculum. It builds on the arrangements set out in the Education Act 1944, and strengthened again in the Education Reform Act 1988. As a result of this Bill, we are going to see an end to LEAs dragging their feet over the legal requirement to update their religious education syllabuses. The Bill also brings the law into line with the development of self-governing schools.
I have spoken at some length. I greatly appreciate your Lordships' forbearance. This is a vital piece of legislation. We owe it to every child to ensure that he or she is given the chance to realise his or her full potential.
There are radical proposals in this Bill. The Bill extends parental power and I make no apology for that. We need to foster a culture in which responsibility and accountability rest principally with the local provider—that is, the individual school. We need to establish a vital new partnership between self-governing schools, their parents and their local communities.
But no school exists in isolation. Self-governing church schools will continue to need the full support
174
of the church education authorities; and local education authorities will continue to provide certain services to the pupils of all self-governing schools.
We see this Bill as another significant milestone in education. It retains important features of, but updates, the 1944 Education Act. It builds on the 1988 Education Reform Act in order to provide a coherent organisational framework for our schools. It will give professional teachers the space and support to practise their art. This Bill will secure, as of right, a good education for all children from whatever background they come and from whatever ability level they start. We shall make a reality of an education concerned with the wholesomeness of young people by addressing the academic, cultural, mental, physical, spiritual and moral needs of all of our children. In this way we shall not only meet the challenges of a fiercely competitive world; we shall beat them too. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blotch.)
3.32 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, much of the speech of the Minister has, I believe, underlined precisely why there is so much widespread concern about this Bill throughout the land. It is indeed the final stage in the Government's destruction of the 1944 consensus on education in England and Wales. The contrast in purpose and attitude is enormous. Despite the acute pressures of war, the 1944 Education Act was considered in detail by a Commons Committee of the Whole House and became law only after much consultation and detailed scrutiny. The White Paper which preceded this Bill was published in July last year with only two months for consultation—a significant period because it covered the school summer holidays! The Bill then rapidly followed and very soon the Government applied the guillotine to the debate in the other place.
On publication there were 255 clauses and 17 schedules, making it the longest Education Bill ever. There are now 276 clauses and 18 schedules, after 331 amendments and 24 new clauses were introduced by the Government in the other place. Many of these amendments and new clauses were tabled at the last possible moment, with no proper opportunity for consultation or considered amendment. It cannot be the case that short consultation and a long Bill make for good legislation and educational improvement. The nation is therefore looking anxiously to this House for informed and detailed scrutiny of the Bill.
Currently, the Bill is a recipe for continuing instability in the education system. It makes no attempt to address real problems by providing more teachers for growing classes or replacing dilapidated textbooks or deteriorating school buildings. Instead, it centres on the Government's ideological dogma of removing responsibilities from local authorities without any real consideration of the practicalities.
The Government's clear aim is to decimate local education authorities, leaving them only the tasks no one else wants to fulfil. This is most starkly illustrated by the introduction of the so-called "Clause Zero",

175
now Clause 1 of the Bill, which was introduced only at Report stage in the other place without consultation except, interestingly, for a preview in the Daily Mail which announced it as the death of local education authorities. Clause 1 is intended to replace Section 1(1) of the 1944 Education Act, which put the duty on the Secretary of State for Education to,
"secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area."
The new Clause 1 makes no mention of the role of local education authorities. Indeed, the Minister has stressed that. The Government's aim is clearly to phase them out of general school provision. That was illustrated by comments from the Minister, Eric Forth, in Committee in the other place who said, when questioned on why there was no opportunity for schools to opt back into local authority control:
"there may not be anything for them to opt back into".
When asked to clarify, he added:
"I meant a sufficiently viable authority which would be able to handle schools balloting to come back under its control".
However, whatever the Minister may claim, the Government's "big idea"—the internal market in education, operated through grant-maintained schools—has so far failed. It has had only a marginal development in all but a handful of LEAs. The main outcome of the 1988 Education Reform Act has been centralisation: the national curriculum, testing, and centrally determined local management formulae.
This centralisation to the Secretary of State has frightening implications. It seems that in a recent memorandum to the Select Committee which deals with these matters, 44 pages detailed over 100 powers delegated to the Secretary of State, only one of which was subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. If that is true, what does it say about the state of democracy in this country? What does it tell us about who really runs the education system?
Before we leave the Napoleonic zero clause we would do well to note the anxiety which it has provoked in higher education to which the Minister referred. The point remains that, as drafted, the planning powers of all the funding councils as they affect standards, diversity and choice, appear to have been transferred to Ministerial edict.
Listen to what the Conservative Education Association said of the Bill in September of last year:
"We believe that it represents a massive and dangerous increase in the power given to central government".
That was before the zero clause. Meanwhile, parents who have not rushed to apply for grant-maintained status for their children's schools are now being pushed into it by the introduction into the Bill of a new clause requiring governing bodies in areas designated by the Secretary of State to consider balloting on grant-maintained status every year.
The grant-maintained system is the bedrock of the government's philosophy. The Government see grant-maintained schools as the epitome of parental choice. Yet they fail to see that the growth in the number of these schools merely subjects them all to a national bureaucracy which is less accessible and less accountable. They fail to see the inherent contradiction of their own centralising policies, which give more
176
power than ever before to the Secretary of State, and they fail to value the importance of the support services which the local education authority can provide to schools collectively and economically.
Now they are even abandoning their guiding principle of parental choice. This Bill for the first time allows schools to become grant-maintained without a parental ballot. Schools which are considered failing and which are temporarily taken over by education associations will automatically become grant-maintained or close. The Conservative Education Association is alarmed about that. It says:
"This strikes us as precisely the sort of ideologically based policy that should be avoided".
It goes on to describe it as an,
"unwarranted extension of central government power"
and concludes:
"The Secretary of State defines what failure is, and is then judge and jury in every case".
An amendment introduced in the other place provided for grant-maintained special schools, but there is no procedure on the face of the Bill for how such schools are to become grant-maintained. Therefore, it is possible that they could do so without a ballot. Once 10 per cent. of pupils in an area are attending grant-maintained schools, the funding authority may establish new grant-maintained schools in that area, with or without the support of the majority of parents.
In addition, this Bill removes the need for two governors' resolutions which at least provided time for debate and consultation before a school begins to ballot on grant-maintained status. The Government have insisted that grant-maintained status is a one-way street. There is to be no way back and therefore no democratic choice for future parents.
As I understand it, the Government's argument against allowing schools to opt back to county status is that it will create an unstable education system. But we already have an unstable education system. Ten per cent. is a very low threshold. How can local education authorities plan the provision and financing of education in their areas when at any moment another school may choose to opt out, perhaps one that attracts a significant proportion of its pupils from outside the area, in contrast to the wishes of the parents of the area itself who may have shown little desire to see their children attending grant-maintained schools, and when the Secretary of State may then choose to make an order to share the LEA's responsibility for planning places with the funding authority.
A stable system where schools, parents and local education authorities know where they stand and can plan with some degree of certainty is badly needed. Why could we not say that schools should decide whether they want to be county or grant-maintained and stick with that decision for five years? Would that not be a more commendably forthright form of government? Instead, we have change by attrition. How sadly political candour, courage and leadership have deteriorated since 1944.
The Government's clumsily devious style is again illustrated in their use of specialisation as a cover for introducing selection by stealth without consultation of parents or teachers, without a clear policy on the

177
means by which it can be achieved and without a thought for those many children who will be labelled as failures by such a system.
As Local Schools Information has said:
"The encouragement of specialisation in schools is bound to lead to the extension of selection in some form if those schools are over-subscribed; it will otherwise add nothing to parental choice except for those parents living nearest the schools concerned".
That judgment is endorsed by the Conservative Education Association which has said:
"We welcome the priority the Government are giving to technology. We agree that our economic future depends on greater success in this area, but we feel that the need is for an improvement in all schools and not just a few technology schools and CTCs".
Any introduction of selection by a school should surely be considered a change of character. But it is significant that Eric Forth stated to the Committee in the other place that:
"if 10 per cent. of the intake of a school that wishes to specialise … is selected on aptitude, that would not constitute a significant change of character".
In other words, should a school wish to specialise in this way, there is no requirement to test the feelings of parents, the local community or even the Secretary of State. How can that help in the coherent provision of an education system to meet the aptitudes and abilities of all pupils?
It seems that grant-maintained status may indeed be seen by the Government as a route back to selection. This month we have seen three schools being given permission by the Secretary of State to introduce selection. But there seems to be some doubt about the way that happened. Perhaps the Minister, when she winds up, could clarify the situation. According to a report in the Independent on Sunday, two of the schools, in Hertfordshire, did not want to introduce selection and are only doing so at the instigation of the DEE. If true, this significant change of admission policy, without the consultation of parents, signifies that the Government's ideology means, once again, central direction —hardly choice and diversity in action!
Whatever the whys and wherefores of Hertfordshire, may I again quote the Conservative Education Association?
"If the grant-maintained system develops as some of its more ideological supporters hope, then the system will restrict choice rather than increase it".
Dictation from the centre to local schools can only intensify as the number of grant-maintained schools increases. Once 10 per cent. of the pupils in a local education authority area are attending grant-maintained schools, the funding authority will share with the LEA the duty to plan school places in that area—a structure reminiscent of Richelieu's intendant system designed to build up the centralised power of the Bourbon kings in 17th century France. How can two separate organisations have such a parallel duty? With whom will ultimate responsibility lie? How can a national funding authority which the Government do not envisage having regional arms be the best way to plan schools in Cornwall or Cumbria? If there is a need to provide a new school in an area, in which sector shall it be placed? Or if there is a need to close a school in an area, in which sector should one be
178
closed? This is a certain recipe for inefficient bureaucracy—as the ancien régime eventually discovered in France.
The Conservative Education Association sums it up well:
"We fear that all that will happen is the replacement of local education authorities with a far larger, more bureaucratic and less accountable national education authority".
Studies have consistently shown that nursery education improves a child's chances in life. Children are likely to achieve more both academically and behaviourally if they have nursery education. Yet this Bill endangers the provision of nursery education. It is likely that some grant-maintained schools may apply to the Secretary of State for permission to provide nursery education. Should such permission be granted, the funding will automatically be deducted from the LEA's budget., meaning that nursery provision will be available in those schools and those areas that apply for it first, rather than in those schools and those areas where it is most needed. For the LEA's discretion to judge such need and to plan the provision of nursery education will be gone, and there is no duty on the funding authority with regard to nursery provision. The outlook is bleak. Either we shall see no new nursery provision or, at best, unplanned and unco-ordinated nursery provision across authorities.
While much of the general framework of the Bill's provision for special needs is to be welcomed, it ignores the question of resourcing the decisions of the tribunal. The special educational needs tribunal is quite free to make decisions about a child's education without any consideration for the cost of such provisions. Yet the cost, for example, a residential placements in special schools can be in excess of £20,000 per annum. Where such placements are deemed necessary for a child's education the Government must indicate from where the money will come. It is also vital to recognise the importance of integration and co-operation in much special needs provision. That is a priority which it is essential to take seriously and which quite clearly the LEAs are ideally placed to fulfil.
Clause 265 of the Bill extends the period during which local authorities can provide goods and services to grant-maintained schools by two years. While that is to be welcomed, we have to ask why there should be any limit at all. The Government say that the market will solve all, but will the market really provide the kind of library service that schools need? What about outdoor activities? Will the market, in all circumstances and in all areas of the country, really provide services as diverse as school meals and specialist support with difficult children as a means of pre-empting delinquency?
Is it not likely, particularly in rural areas, that only one supplier will emerge who can then determine the price? Surely if LEAs wish to continue supplying services and grant-maintained schools wish to bury them, they should have the choice to do so. There is a widespread concern about Clause 256 and music tuition. What talent may we be about to smother? That is a point which must be pursued.

179
The consensus created in terms of religious education by the 1988 Education Reform Act must not be undermined. Religious education should be relevant and meaningful for all our children or it will not enable them to learn the ethics and moral values they need to play a full part in society. Different areas have different needs from a religious education syllabus and that is why local committees were set up to determine local syllabi. Yet, amazingly, grant-maintained schools, while having a key involvement in drawing up such syllabi, are not to be obliged to follow them.
Adult education offers many the only opportunity they have to return to an education that was cut off too early, a chance to achieve something. Yet growth in grant-maintained schools and subsequent cutting of local education authorities' budgets make adult education harder to provide. It is not just about money—although that is obviously important—it is also about rooms in which to hold classes and books and materials to use. While the local education authority is responsible for both schools and adult education, the two services can integrate to the benefit of both, by sharing resources and classrooms. If the Secretary of State will not allow that to continue, then a solution must be found to ensure adult education classes have access to the resources that they need.
Last week, in this House, we debated access to higher education. Adult education courses available in school premises have often been an invaluable route to higher education for many from poorer families or the ethnic minorities. At a time when the nation is acutely concerned about crime, and particularly juvenile crime, surely we should be paying more attention to the values of education and the involvement of the whole community. Over-simplified league tables lead to crude competition; crude competition leads to exclusion; exclusion leads to alienation, and alienation is often a cause of crime. It is disturbing that those in the Government who are responsible for education do not at least appear to see that more clearly.
The real criticism of the Bill is its lack of vision and its total failure to rise to the challenges of the century ahead. Where is the determination to provide once and for all universal nursery education—the essential base for any relevant educational system? Where is the commitment to create a general teaching council to ensure a sound professional status and reliable professional standards for our teachers? Where is the resolve to reduce class sizes? Where is the determination to build the one nation about which the Prime Minister likes to speak?
Where there has been an opportunity, as in 1944, to capture the imagination of the nation and to build consensus, we have seen instead a demeaning ideological and divisive game plan. Where there was an opportunity to look at the social and economic demands of life beyond the year 2000, and to consider what educational system would best equip our children to meet them, we have seen instead Ministers preoccupied with increasing their own control. Relevant education must equip our children not only for work but for sharing, caring and living creatively
180
in our communities. And yet the Bill, far from strengthening that sense of community without which it is virtually impossible to win the battle for social responsibility, has moved firmly in the opposite direction, pandering to narrow, short-term vested interest at the local level, setting school against school, and centralising power still further with the Secretary of State. It is not just a bad Bill—tactics triumphing over strategy—it is, I have to say, a sinister Bill. We have a great deal of work to do in the weeks ahead.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, with great regret and some shame I have to confess that owing to the very large number of speakers in the debate, I may have to catch a train home to the south coast before it finishes. I apologise, especially to the Minister, whose words I shall read carefully in Hansard.
Here we have another massive piece of legislation on education—the 17th, I believe, since the Tories came to power. So they should finally have got it right. But have they? We on these Benches think not, as do many individuals and organisations qualified to know but little consulted. Among them is a group of people more closely concerned than anyone, except the children themselves; namely, the parents. Certain parents have formed an organisation which they have called the Parents Initiative. They had a lobby here a few weeks ago. I heard some of their questions, a few of which I shall put to the Minister in the course of my speech.
On these Benches we do not feel that Her Majesty's Government have addressed the real needs of education. The real needs of the schools service are: high quality teaching; small classes; adequate buildings and resources; and an early start. I believe that if one asks any parent he or she would come up with much the same answer. Many parents have removed their children out of the state system, as I am sure noble Lords know, in order to achieve small classes for them.
All those things cost money. To pay for them, at the time of the last election the Liberal Democrats proposed an extra one penny in the pound on income tax specifically for that purpose. We do not believe that the internal market can supply those needs. Market forces seem to be the answer to all problems for this Government. It is rather like the answer of Mrs. Squeers to the ailments, real or potential, of the pupils at Dotheboys Hall—a spoonful of brimstone and treacle—which had the bonus, administered as it was before meals, of spoiling their appetites so that it did not cost so much to feed them.
The story began with local financial management, an excellent idea which was initiated by the Liberal Democrats. Paradoxically, it has blown up in this Bill into a massive exercise in centralisation which we believe is largely a political rather than an educational venture. Local authorities, including the London County Council, were set up in 1888 by Lord Salisbury, in an Act shepherded through the Commons by my grandfather. They were to be a counterweight to central government despotism. The present Government, who have been in power too

181
long, have worked unremittingly to destroy that framework and leave themselves with their power uncha1lenge.
The Bill carries that process further. Local authorities will no longer be partners in the provision of education as laid down in the Butler Act of 1944. Clause 1, introduced at the last moment in another place, proclaims that the Secretary of State alone shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales. Suppose one day we had a reincarnation of Dr. Goebbels! The Secretary of State was given 400 new powers in the 1988 Act and this Bill gives him another 50.
Henceforth, the provision and funding of education in England and Wales will no longer be by a partnership between central government and locally based elected bodies of citizens but in the hands of centrally appointed, unelected quangos, the funding authorities. The Parents Initiative asks:
"Wouldn't it be more democratic if all the new bodies were independent, appointed by t he Education Select Committee, for example?".
And it asks:
"Shouldn't parents have the right to have a Local Education Committee which they can lobby?".
I know that individual grant-maintained schools will have a much appreciated autonomy. That does not mean that parents and children as a whole will not find themselves without the democratic outlets that they had before in the form of the local education authority.
Let us consider how the transition to grant-maintained status is to be facilitated and pressurised. The Minister said in her speech that the Government had no wish whatever to impose grant-maintained status on parents. But they come very near to doing so. Clause 21 empowers the Secretary of State to require governing bodies of LEA schools in specified areas to consider once in each school year holding a ballot on grant-maintained status. Governing bodies are to be heavily leant on over that, as noble Lords will see in subsection (4) of the clause. One presumes that specified areas are ones where the local authority is in the hands of one of the opposition parties. Clause 29 makes no provision, as in the 1988 Act, for a second ballot to take place to confirm the first. No opportunity is given for a school that has lost its way with grant-maintained status to opt back into local authority control. So a decision taken perhaps by a small number of parents, with a majority of one, stands for all time. My suspicion here is that it is the hope of the Government that before too long there will be no local education authority for schools to opt back into.
Nor is anything done to rectify the situation whereby a parent whose child is on the point of leaving a school has a right to vote on the school's future status whereas a parent whose child is about to join the school next term has no vote. Think of the destabilising effect of the requirement that grant-maintained status should he considered annually; think of the political feuds and factions that may develop between governors and between parents. That is regrettable on an isolated occasion. But what if the
182
issue is raised every year and kept constantly on the boil? What price the stability and happiness of the school management then?
I do not like Clause 24 at all. It requires governing bodies to make available to any parents the names and addresses of all other registered parents of the school unless they have objected in writing. I would object most vehemently if exposed to lobbying and politicking from a handful of other parents.
I am aware that some of the grant-maintained schools are well satisfied with their own situations. But those schools are likely to become progressively selective. What happens then to the children who are not selected? I understand that a typical situation has arisen in Camden. Two flourishing grant-maintained schools are drawing pupils from their own well-heeled areas—quite legitimately, because in each case they are the nearest school. However, a third area of the population, less well heeled, cannot find places at either of the grant-maintained schools and the children have to travel a considerable distance to the nearest LEA school. It seems increasingly as though the much-vaunted choice will be choice For the schools rather than choice for parents and children.
I shall pass over the confusion that we believe will arise as a result of funding agencies and LEAs having shared responsibility for school placement, which I am sure will be covered by other noble Lords.
We are much concerned about the services that LEAs have always supplied to their schools. Grant-maintained schools are to be permitted to buy LEA services for a maximum of two years. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Why two years? What will happen after two years when a grant-maintained school may need a youth service, a careers service, a music, library or museum service? They are, I think, supposed to appear by magic from the private sector. But what if they are expensive or second-rate—or non-existent? And what if surviving LEAs, because they have had to devolve so much central funding and because they will be disallowed from selling services to grant-maintained schools, cannot afford to offer them any longer to their own schools?
There is much anxiety in regard to music teaching, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said. Over the years the musical achievements of our maintained schools have been quite outstanding. That standard has been achieved because of the ability of local education authorities to supply highly qualified peripatetic instrument teachers to the schools within their authority. What guarantee is there that such services will remain affordable when the system is broken up?
There is also much anxiety in regard to outdoor education. That is an important element in the national curriculum PE programme and has been provided by residential outdoor education centres, a majority of which are supported by LEAs. A quarter of a million young people each year have gone through that experience, which involves outdoor exploration and adventure, research and observation of the environment and personal and social development. The Association of Heads of Outdoor Education is worried that, with the fragmentation of

183
the system, LEAs and school heads will be unable to pay for the centres of excellence which are staffed by highly trained, experienced and responsible people providing an educational experience which, I understand, is particularly helpful to disaffected youngsters who might otherwise become a menace to society. How much more intelligent it would be to fund ventures such as that than to build new prisons.
In Part III the Bill concerns itself with special needs. Much of what is proposed will indeed be helpful, but there are two main areas of anxiety. One is overall planning for children with special needs. Clause 157 makes it the responsibility of LEAs—at least for the care of individual children. But how easy will it be for LEAs to plan strategically for children in grant-maintained schools? I merely ask the question. What authority will they have to say what grant-maintained schools shall or shall not do in that regard?
The other area of anxiety is resourcing: it always has been. I highlight what I mean by giving one example. A couple of weeks ago I was in a school in south London. The head, newly appointed, has been making valiant efforts to raise the standard and reputation of the school. He has been extremely successful. But he and his head of special needs are faced with a problem. They work in the borough of Lambeth and that council is pursuing determinedly the provisions of the 1981 Act on integration into mainstream schooling of children with special needs. Accordingly, the school is being pressed to accept six boys who have been excluded from every other school in the borough. They exhibit what is euphemistically called nowadays, "challenging behaviour". That means that they are disruptive and violent.
I know what it is like having such boys in a school. It requires only one. Their presence can create absolute mayhem. The headmaster had to exclude one boy recently who had caused a girl to have six stitches in her forehead. What is he to do? On the one hand he wants his school to have a good reputation. On the other, he too would no doubt like to fulfil the spirit of the 1981 Act. His answer is that it could conceivably be done. The boys, one, two or three of them, could be admitted if they had the exclusive attention of a special member of staff. But how is that to be paid for?
There is another problem. The school has a little girl in a wheelchair. I am not sure what her complaint is but I am afraid that she will never be out of the wheelchair. The council provided the wheelchair but has not provided any other facilities. It is therefore extremely difficult transporting her from one floor to another. I know that the headmaster, the head of special needs and the deputy are extremely worried as to what would happen in the case of fire. That is another case of adequate resourcing not being available. The problems of special needs can only be solved if LEAs remain in effective strategic control and if sufficient central funding can be ring-fenced to put into practice the principles of the 1981 Act.
I am sure that many noble Lords will have received distraught letters from school teachers and parents on the subject of nursery schooling. Nursery schooling in this country is no longer statutory. It ceased to be so
184
in 1979. However, a number of local authorities have been able to offer the service for three or four year-olds if they felt that they could afford to. The service has been of a high standard, with highly trained teachers and nursery nurses. But only around 25 per cent. of the country's children have been able to benefit from it. The figure in France and Belgium is 95 per cent.
With the coming fragmentation it seems that that precious resource may be lost and the Bill gives no assurance of funding. I know that for many overworked and distraught mothers it will be a terrible blow. There is evidence that early education of a high quality produces excellent results and gives children marked advantages. They do better not only in primary schools, but also American research has apparently shown that the effects are still in evidence when children reach their teens. There are fewer referrals to special education; less tendency to delinquency; and fewer unwanted teenage pregnancies. It was calculated that for every dollar spent on pre-school education, four dollars were saved later. I have no means of checking those figures.
I hope that I have given some idea of why we do not believe that the Bill tackles the real problems. It contains nothing to boost teacher morale; nothing such as the Secretary of State being given powers to set up a general teaching council. There is nothing in it about small classes. It gives no reassurance about resourcing adequately in certain vital areas such as LEA services and special needs. It says nothing about an early start. Instead it seems to me that we have the maximum disruption to produce what looks like being an extremely confused situation. Why can we not build on what we have rather than dismantling the whole framework and jeopardising the smooth running of the system, which only needs modification and adjustment, while we give our attention to the key issues of which I have spoken? We on these Benches will do our best to improve the Bill, but it will be a tough job.

The Police Service
4.9 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I now repeat a Statement on the police which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"The present framework for the management of the police service in England and Wales is based on the Police Act 1964. This has enabled us to deliver by and large a first-class police service over the past 30 years—a police service of which we are justly proud. However, 30 years is a long time. Society has changed in its attitudes and in its expectations. Crime has increased in absolute terms and in terms of its sophistication. In order to strengthen the ability of our police forces to respond to today's demands, I have undertaken a review of the existing

185
system. I should like to outline to the House in broad terms how I propose to improve the police service.
"We all want the police to be able to provide the best possible service—no one more so than police officers themselves. We want the police to protect the public, to prevent crime and to tackle it effectively when it occurs. The police must respond to the needs of local communities and of the victims of crime and use to maximum effect the £6 billion which they spend every year. What we need are the conditions in which the men and women of the police service can give of their best. That means: giving police authorities and police forces greater freedom to decide for themselves how best to spend their money; creating more powerful and business-slike police authorities which will give more leadership to the local police service and ensure that money is spent more effectively; and creating a new police authority for the Metropolitan Police in line with the new national pattern, thereby strengthening local accountability in the capital.
"It also means setting key national objectives for police activity, complementing local objectives agreed by the police authority; measuring performance against these objectives and publishing the results so that the public know what their force has delivered and how well their police force is doing compared with others; reforming the funding arrangements to get the best out of the money spent on policing; and simplifying the procedures for forces to be amalgamated when the time is right.
"I am sure that the House will agree that the principle of operational independence must remain. No Home Secretary and no police authority must be able to direct a chief constable in the conduct of any investigation or in the handling of an operation.
"While maintaining this principle, we need to make a fundamental shift in the relationship between the Home Office and local police forces. I have always believed that organisations run better when responsibility is devolved to local managers. The current financial arrangements shackle police Forces. Far too often decisions that could and should be taken locally are referred upwards.
"Chief constables will in future have greater freedom to manage their resources. In consultation with their local police authority they will be able to decide on the right mix of manpower and equipment needed to meet local needs. They may need more constables on the beat or more civilian staff to free police officers from administrative paperwork. They may need police cars or computers. The choice will be theirs. The current Home Office controls on police manpower will cease. So will those on all but the largest capital projects.
"At the same time I propose to strengthen local police authorities and give them greater autonomy. They will have responsibility for the performance of their force, and I will hold them to account for the results. Their job will be to ensure that policing
186
responds to local needs and concerns. I will expect police authorities to build on their existing statutory responsibility to consult local people in setting the local policing agenda.
"Police authorities need to change to fulfil their new responsibilities. Police authorities should have many fewer members and be more businesslike bodies. There should be broader local representation in their membership, including local people with relevant management experience. I propose that half of the membership should he elected local councillors. The remaining half should be partly local magistrates and partly local people nominated by the Home Secretary on the basis of their knowledge and experience. The chairman of the police authority will be nominated by the Home Secretary from among the overall membership.
"I have also re-examined the role of the Home Secretary in relation to the Metropolitan Police. I propose to establish for the first time a police authority for the Metropolitan Police on the new national model separate from the Home Office and with essentially the same tasks as police authorities elsewhere.
"Greater freedom to manage must go hand in hand with clearer means of calling police: authorities and police forces to account. I propose' to take a power to prescribe national objectives for the police service. I will also expect police authorities to set local performance targets. The results will be published so that comparisons can be made between forces. This will build on the current drive within the police service for better quality of service.
"The present funding arrangements for the police are unsatisfactory. They are cumbersome without giving any effective control of overall expenditure. The present system encourages the increase of police rather than civilian manpower, and there are no incentives to ensure that the best use is made of resources.
"I propose to continue with a joint funding arrangement, with central and local government meeting police authority costs broadly in the same proportions as they do now. All police authorities will in future be constituted as free-standing precepting bodies. The central government contribution will be set at the level necessary to secure an effective police service. It will in future be cash limited. The local contribution will be subject to the overall controls on local expenditure.
"One of my principal objectives behind these structural changes is to encourage devolution of responsibility within police forces to local police units which will be directly accountable to their local communities. Half the forces in the country, including the Metropolitan Police, are already cutting out unnecessary headquarters and management tiers and giving more responsibility to local commanders. As the focus of policing is increasingly shifted from headquarters to local units the role of the force headquarters will change.

187
They should become co-ordinators and supporters of local activity rather than the commanders of local policing.
"As a result we may no longer need 43 separate headquarters maintaining 43 parallel organisations. I have no fixed views about what the right number of forces should be and I have no plans to use the powers in the 1964 Act to amalgamate forces. But I propose that the statutory procedures, which are unduly cumbersome, should be simplified to allow for amalgamations when the time is right.
"The House will be aware of the inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir Patrick Sheehy which is examining police rank structure, pay and conditions of service and is expected to report in May. I will also be issuing shortly a separate consultation document on radical changes to the disciplinary system. Shift systems and training are being overhauled throughout the service. These and the other changes I have announced today extend the principles of The Citizen's Charter through the police service and will complement the wider reforms to police structure and organisation. Together they will constitute the most important reform of the police service for 30 years.
"Over the next few months I will be developing my proposals in more detail. During this period we will be happy to continue to listen to all views. I will then publish a White Paper and legislate when parliamentary time allows.
"My aim, above all, will be to help the police service help us to build a safer and securer society. We must ask what difference we intend our reforms to make to the ordinary man in the street. The answer must be to make his street safer. I commend that objective and the means to achieve it to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
4.19 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I must apologise to those of my noble friends and others who are deeply concerned with the Education Bill, as indeed I am, for the interruption in those proceedings. However, in a sense, oddly and sadly, the Statement just made echoes many of the centralising tendencies which are evident in the Education Bill. I shall come back to that point in a moment.
I start by saying that there are quite a number of elements in the Statement and in the Government's proposals with which we are in agreement. I should like to indicate those in order to make it clear that in our view there need be no party political element in the discussion of the best way to provide policing services in this country. First, we are delighted to hear that the Government have at least agreed to give way to the pressure which there has been from these Benches, from the Labour Party and others for many years for a police authority in London rather than direct control of the Metropolitan Police by the Home Secretary. That is clearly a step forward, although it is
188
not, as will become clear when we consider the new policing arrangements, as great a step forward as it would have been in a time of democratic accountability.
Secondly, we support the view that the Secretary of State should set key national objectives for police activities and that local performance targets should be set for police forces in accordance with those key national objectives. We support the Government's statement that there should be greater operational autonomy for police forces and that Home Office controls on manpower and most capital projects will come to an end.
The Government say in their Statement that the aim is to respond to the needs of the local community and to give greater freedom to police forces to decide for themselves how best to spend their money. Unfortunately, however, in the very next sentence the Statement says,
"authorities … will give more leadership to the local police service",
which appears to contradict the idea that the chief constables—the leaders of the police service—will have the greater autonomy which is expected.
We welcome the affirmation and the strengthening of the responsibility of the police service to consult local people. We welcome, above all I suppose, the fact that no change is proposed in the funding of the police service and that it will continue to receive a mixture of central and local government funding. But —and this is where we come to the problem—although local people will continue to contribute to the funding of the police service (through the local government finance system), they will no longer have any authority over that spending because local authority representation on police authorities is to be reduced to 50 per cent. The remainder will comprise partly magistrates, as now, and partly local people with relevant management experience to produce a businesslike authority.
Surely it has got through to the Government by now that the police alone cannot tackle crime—that the police in the community and with the collaboration of the community are what is necessary if we are to tackle the increase in crime that we have been experiencing. It is not simply or even largely a matter of management experience. The people whom we need to be represented on police authorities are those who are personally and deeply involved in the issues with which the police are concerned: parents, teachers, the youth service, the community and voluntary sector and religious organisations. All of those people should have a voice in the running of our police, yet the Government have chosen only one criterion, "relevant management experience". Admittedly those involved will be local people, but that is not a substitute either for the democratic control which is given by the majority of local authority representation or for the access which that local authority representation gives to all those community groups to which I have referred.
We are not opposed to many of the detailed changes that are suggested, such as the changes in disciplinary procedures, although we shall have to

189
listen carefully to what they are. From what we know of the advanced leaks of Sir Patrick Sheehy's report, any moves to reduce the rigid hierarchical structures in the police will be welcomed. Above all, however, it is the control over local autonomy, the control over the police force and the centralisation of decision-making about police authorities which cause us the greatest concern.
We note that the Government have drawn back from their rumoured proposals to carry out drastic reductions in the number of police forces. That is wise. In the absence of evidence that smaller police forces have a higher crime rate or a lower clear-up rate, it would clearly have been foolhardy to proceed with some of the proposed amalgamations. Indeed, there are strong arguments for saying that smaller police forces might be more efficient and better represent the needs of local communities, understanding the patterns of work needed in local communities, than some of our larger forces, just as in Scotland police authorities, which are composed entirely of local authorities (without even magistrates), have a higher clear-up rate. We wait with interest to see what the Secretary of State ultimately proposes on the size of police forces. We wait with interest and trepidation if he proposes larger police forces but a smaller number of them.
I return to the central point. What is proposed is increased power in the hands of the Home Secretary and the Home Office who will nominate a very high proportion of the members of the local police authorities. We believe that for both financial responsibility and the effective fighting of crime the role of the local authorities in the police service should not be diminished. Any proposals to diminish it as a result of this Statement will be fiercely resisted.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. It is important and we shall want to reflect on its contents over the next few weeks. It would, however, be appropriate to make a few initial observations. First, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I welcome the proposal to establish a police authority for London. That is highly desirable. I do not think that any significant body of criticism will be directed against that. However, I should like to ask the noble Earl what the position will be of the various specialist elements within the Metropolitan Police which undertake responsibilities for the entire police service. He will be aware that Special Branch and the Royalty and Diplomatic Protection Group have certain responsibilities. Will those units be responsible, like the rest of the Metropolitan Police service, to a London police authority or will special arrangements be made for them?
I welcome the idea that police authorities and chief officers will have greater freedom to determine how to spend their own money. I am sure that it is right that the detailed controls that the Home Office currently exercises over police manpower should be withdrawn. It is absurd for the Home Office to have to decide how many chief superintendents or superintendents there should be in any particular police force. Again, I welcome that.
190
Secondly, I fear that I must express considerable anxiety about the Home Secretary's suggestion that when he decides to amalgamate forces, the procedures for carrying that through should be "simplified"—that was the Home Secretary's word. I fear that he is being a little economical with the facts. The Statement does not explain the significance of that change. At present, the procedure is as laid down in the Police Act 1964 and was set out in that Act as a result of the recommendations of the Willink Royal Commission. The facts at the moment are that, if it is proposed to amalgamate forces, there must be an opportunity of a local public inquiry under an inspector. The "simplification" is that the right of the local community to protest at an amalgamation of forces will be withdrawn. In reality, that is what the Statement means and I think that it is most regrettable.
When my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead introduced a proposal for amalgamation in 1966–67 which led to the reduction in the number of forces from over 120 to the present 43, local authorities had the right to protest and to have their views heard by a local inquiry. I should be grateful to hear from the noble Earl why that right is to be withdrawn. I assume that that is what "simplification" means. If I am wrong, I should be delighted to be corrected by the noble Earl, but I suspect that in reality that is what "simplification" means.
Thirdly, the Home Secretary is suggesting that the proportion of locally elected representatives on the new police authorities should be reduced from the present two-thirds to one-half. Why? What is the justification for that? At the moment, as the noble Earl will be aware, one-third of the representatives on a police authority have to be magistrates. What will that proportion be in the future?
Now we hear of this new group referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. This is a group of people including what are described as "local people with relevant management experience". These local people, including business people of course, will apparently be chosen by the Home Secretary. I believe that we have come to a very sad state when we are giving still more patronage to a Minister of the Crown, particularly when it comes to the highly sensitive area of local policing. This is a profound mistake, and I deeply regret that it is contained within this Statement.
Fourthly, we are told about performance measurement. Most sensible people think that there is nothing wrong about performance measurement and its publication. But we have also been told through many of our newspapers that there will be some sort of league table as between the forces which have—just taking one test—high arrest rates and those which have low arrest rates. I put it to the noble Earl that that is a perilous course indeed. The risk is that, if forces are to be compared on that basis, there will be a tremendous effort made, for wholly understandable reasons, to ensure that your force does not come out at the bottom of the league table. The way in which

191
you ensure that is to take police officers away from all the duties which do not give you points on the league table.
If I may take one example, local crime prevention initiatives will not score so far as the league table is concerned. Are we really contemplating a situation where officers doing extremely valuable work in schools and elsewhere are at risk of being taken away from those duties so that forces will not find themselves exposed to substantial local and sometimes ill-informed criticism as a result of the fact that they appear to be doing less well than other forces?
Lastly, I believe that it is quite wrong for the chairman of every police authority to be appointed by a Minister of the Crown. He will be seen as a representative not of the local community but of a politician in London. How can it be right to have a situation where, when there may be criticism of the local police authority and the chairman appears before the press or on television, he is seen not as a representative of the local community but as a representative of the person who happens to be Home Secretary at that particular time? Whenever there is a change of government we shall have a change in the chairmanship of every police authority in the country. How can that possibly be sensible?
As Mr. Clarke rightly said, this is the most important change in the police service for 30 years. Speaking for myself, I welcome some of the changes, but in my view this represents yet another major movement away from local democratic accountability towards power exercised by ministerial representatives.
4.33 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Harris of Greenwich, for those parts of their contribution which favoured the Statement. Of course I realise that not all of them did. I was enormously surprised—and it was a trap that I expected the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to fall into but not the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich—that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the proposed changes gave the Home Secretary increased power to nominate a high proportion of people on police authorities.
The whole point of the Statement and the emphasis behind it is to do precisely the reverse. It is to devolve the power which at the moment resides so largely in the Home Office down to police authorities. The whole principle behind my noble friend's Statement is to give the localities local policing and to give the responsibility of looking after the money to the police authorities.
At present the Home Office determines what amount of manpower a police authority should have, and much of its expenditure. Now, the money will be cash limited to police authorities and they will be able to decide whether to spend it on policemen, on motor cars or on capital goods. So I do not understand the reaction of the noble Lords, who said that this is in fact the Home Secretary drawing more power to the centre.
192
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the Metropolitan Police and he said that he was glad that we were coming round to the Labour Party's view. The existing arrangements for the Metropolitan Police have been in place since 1829 and I think that they have suited Londoners very well. It would not have been sensible to have applied the old police authority arrangements to London but the new police authority arrangements are wholly desirable to be put into a new set of arrangements for a new police authority to look after the Metropolitan Police.
Both noble Lords referred to amalgamations, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that smaller was sometimes better. The proposals as to the amalgamations will be set out in the White Paper. We need procedures for compulsory amalgamations which provide an adequate opportunity for local views to be expressed and considered without necessarily requiring the expense, delay and prolonged uncertainty of a public inquiry.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked why we were taking away the rights which people held at present. I think that he is being slightly premature. Perhaps I may suggest that he waits until the new proposals are announced. There may well be rights which may be expedited, but the fact is that any amalgamation that takes place now is open to a public inquiry, as the noble Lord quite rightly pointed out, but this can carry on for 18 months before any decision is taken. That creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty. It is that process which we wish to see simplified.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, also referred to the special responsibilities which the Metropolitan Police have. I accept that there are special national and capital responsibilities which devolve upon the Metropolitan Police, and exactly how those will be fitted into the new system has yet to be considered in detail. The noble Lord is quite right that it is a very important part.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, also referred to the local authority representatives on police authorities being cut down from two-thirds to one half, and he asked why. If the police authorities are to be responsible now in a way in which they have not been in the past for the control of large sums of money, my right honourable friend feels that it is absolutely right that there should be local authority representation. He also thinks that it is right that there should be magistrates' representation and business experience as well. He also believes that the authorities themselves should be smaller in nature. Therefore, the system which my right honourable friend proposes is that the number of local authority representatives should be reduced from two-thirds to half, with the remaining half being made up of magistrates and people with more business experience.
The noble Lord also referred to targets and performance indicators, and he said that it would be a pity if officers were taken away from schools. The point about this is that my right honourable friend thinks it is right that the people who have a tremendous interest in what their police are doing should have some measure of whether they are being successful or not. If there are national performance

193
targets showing what police authorities ought to be able to try to do, and you have indicators to show how they have done, then people in the locality can compare and see whether their police forces are doing what they should be doing as well as possible. If for one reason a police authority is not doing as well as another, it is up to that authority to explain to the people in its locality why it is not doing so well, and there may be very good reasons for it. Again that provides for accountability.
As I explained in the Statement, my right honourable friend's proposals are now subject to comment and so forth. A White Paper will he published before any legislation is brought forward. There will be an opportunity to comment upon the White Paper as there is on my right honourable friend's Statement.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend say a little more about what is to happen to the specialist services, such as the anti-terrorism and various other highly expert branches, at present managed by the Metropolitan Police. Will they all be automatically transferred to the new London Police Authority? If not, what will happen to them? Will my noble friend clarify that point? The services are of the greatest importance, especially in present circumstances with terrorism and so on.
Secondly, will my noble friend give some idea about the Government's thinking as to the number of police authorities which will remain? I am aware that he said that the Government have no firm ideas at the moment—if he will allow me to say so, that is right —but they must have given some thought to the approximate number of authorities which it is hoped will emerge from the present discussions. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, many of us had doubts about having the large number of police authorities that we now have, and some of us therefore hope that the number will be reduced somewhat. It would be helpful to have the Government's thinking on that point.
Finally, in view of the enormous importance of the matter—this is one of the most important Statements I have heard in the House for some time—and the variety of experience on these subjects that exists in the House, will my noble friend, now perhaps in his capacity as Deputy Leader of the House, give some indication that your Lordships' House will be given a chance to debate the whole issue in a full day's debate?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the first of my noble friend's three questions referred to special services. My noble friend is correct; the services are important. There is every intention that they will be continued. As I explained, I think in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, certain elements of the Metropolitan Police have national as well as capital responsibilities. How those responsibilities will be carried out will be subject to detailed consultation. I can assure my noble friend that they will be afforded the importance that they now have and will continue to be carried out with the expertise with which they are
194
now carried out. I cannot tell him at the moment how that will be done with respect to the Metropolitan Police.
In his second question my noble friend asked how many police authorities the Government think we should have. My right honourable friend has no fixed view on that matter. He is anxious to get local policing right. The whole emphasis of the Statement is designed to give responsibility to the local police authorities for local policing in their areas. When that is done it may turn out that we do not need 43 police headquarters and 43 chief constables. That is stage two. The important thing is to get the local policing correct. So I cannot give my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter a figure that the Government believe to be right because at the moment the Government have an open mind.
The one thing I do know is that., whatever the Government come up with, there will be a most unholy row. If they come up with nothing and say that we should keep on as we are, people will say that they should amalgamate forces. If we amalgamate forces, everyone will become fussed because there are territorial loyalties, and rightly so, as we have discovered this afternoon, between local police forces and local communities. Local accountability must be balanced with the structure needed to run a large police force efficiently.
In my noble friend's last question he asked whether, as Deputy Leader of the House, I would be able to initiate a debate. The Deputy Leader has very few responsibilities in the House, and that one belongs to the usual channels. I shall see that that thought goes through to them.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I notice that the Statement praises the Police Act 1964. That leads me to say what a pity it is that the Statement, leading to a White Paper, was not based, as was that Act, upon a Royal Commission which could look into the problems in greater detail. If that were done, when the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked proper questions about what is to happen to the anti-terrorist squad and the Special Branch—the Metropolitan Police Special Branch has responsibilities outside London—they would not receive the reply that that matter is one for future discussions. Those are matters for detailed investigation now. A Royal Commission would have helped greatly in our deliberations and would do so in the future.
I wish to ask a question on one flatter only. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, who served at the Home Office when I was there, asked a proper question about nominations and centralisation. Surely, if police authority chairmen are to be nominated by the Home Office that, ipso facto, leads to greater centralisation. They will do as they are told. From where will the list come? I raise this issue merely to point out one matter. The great success of the West Yorkshire Police in dealing with problems that arose in mining areas during the miners' strike was due to the fact that the chairman of the police authority knew his area. He knew the mining villages. He was able to talk to the people in that area. A person appointed from outside

195
will not be able to do that. Management on the police authority matters, but management should come from the police themselves and from the civil servants—if that is the correct description—who work with them. The glory of our police force is its local roots. The centralisation smell of the Statement leaves me greatly concerned about the future.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, asks why we did not have a Royal Commission. That was of course one option, but there is a limit to how many Royal Commissions we can have. They tend to take a long time. We thought it correct for my right honourable friend to come forward with proposals and for us then to have them subjected to consideration and discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, chivvied me for not giving a complete answer to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I told them that the services about which they were asking were essential and important and would continue. What I said was open to detailed analysis was the Home Secretary's role as the total arbiter, which he is now because he is the police authority, and the role of the new police authority.
There have been a great many discussions recently in the newspapers about police reform. My right honourable friend has been castigated for not consulting. If I were to come to your Lordships' House and tell your Lordships what was going to happen., and that your Lordships could like it or not, you would then have said that we had not consulted. When I give your Lordships a view about what my right honourable friend proposes and tell your Lordships that his proposals are open to consultation, you then sometimes say that my right honourable friend has no fixed view.
The proposals are as I have described them. They are open to consultation. Of course we want to get the matter right. We do not want to have party political involvement over something as essential as running the police service. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, says about the patronage—he did not use that word; it was used by the noble Lord, Lord Harris—exercised by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I would only say to the noble Lord that I agree that local chairmanship is important, but the person who will be chosen will not be, as he said, from outside; he will be from within the authority.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend two questions. First, a great deal of anxiety has been expressed in some areas, especially in Wales, that we may have too many police amalgamations. Will the Home Secretary look carefully, and consult locally, before reaching firm decisions on that issue? My second question—and my noble friend pretty well satisfied me with his last answer—relates to the appointment of the chairmen of the local police authorities. There was a great deal in what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. I am satisfied by my noble friend's comment that a local person will normally take the chair.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot conceive of a situation in which my right honourable friend will suggest that two police authorities should merge without any form of local consultation. The idea is almost unthinkable. My right honourable friend's only concern is that the present system is too protracted and he wishes to see it shortened. Therefore, if amalgamations need to take place the process can be dealt with quickly.
My noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt referred to the chairman of the local police authority. Some of the local police authorities are large and two-thirds of their members are local councillors. In future there will be fewer members—some 16—half of whom will be representatives from local authorities. Of the other half, some will be magistrates and some will be local people with business experience. All members of the police authority will therefore be drawn from the locality and the chairman will be appointed from that number.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many local councillors have business and management experience? The Government always appear to assume that that is not the case. I spent 11 years on a local council and I was manager of a company. Therefore, I had some business experience. Surely any amalgamation should await the outcome of the local government reorganisation because some of us believe that some of the city forces could be reinstated.
Furthermore, I suggest that the people of this country want to see the return of the village bobby and the overnight manning of their local police station. That suggests that representation from parish and town councils will be valuable to the future police authority.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that many people have business experience. In no way does my right honourable friend's Statement suggest that that is not the case. My right honourable friend is anxious to draw in a wide field of experience. The authorities may already be made up of many local councillors with business experience and in future it will be possible to tap other fields.
There will be a great deal to be said about amalgamations following the local boundary commission's report. That is why my right honourable friend has no preconceived ideas about what amalgamations there should be or, indeed, whether there should be any. I return to the point that I made to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that the whole emphasis of the Statement is to get local policing right. When that is done it may be possible to determine whether we need 43 police forces. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, was right in saying that local policing requires local men on the beat. That requires an interaction between the police and the community, which we hope to achieve by the decentralisation of effort and responsibility from the Home Office to the local police authorities and thereafter to local authorities.
Lord Elton: My Lords, community confidence in the police is desirable for two reasons. The first is that living in a community which does not have confidence in the police is a frightening and unpleasant experience. The second reason is that confidence in the police generates efficiency in the police, as noble Lords opposite have said. I believe that the devolution of power down to what I take to be commander level will tend to create local control and confidence. However, one wishes to be sure of the effectiveness of that control. My noble friend referred to an inquiry into the disciplinary system in the police force. Noble Lords will want to know more about that as the means by which local commanders ensure that their police conduct themselves as they should.
As regards police forces in general, I should be glad if my noble friend would comment about the future role of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. I understand that there are to be changes in its composition. A boost to the public's confidence in the police, which is not always as great as is your Lordships', would be the existence of an effective complaints system. Will my right honourable friend consider the effectiveness of the complaints system together with the question of reorganisation?
Finally, in dealing with the question of size, I hope that my noble friend will not forget to look at Coventry and Warwickshire where there is an anomaly.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that Coventry and Warwickshire will be considered before any amalgamations are proposed. I agree with my noble friend that confidence in the police generates efficiency, which is what we want to see. I have said in shorthand terms that we shall now have police authorities running as plcs, such as Kent Constabulary plc, where they have their own money which will be cash limited. They will be told, "Now run your authority and run it well, but you will be responsible to the Home Secretary for standards".
My right honourable friend is considering an inquiry into disciplinary procedures. He will announce the conclusion when that is reached. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary will still have an important role to play not only in ensuring that constabularies keep up to the mark in efficiency and competence but in guiding them into new ways. There will be a certain amount of change within the inspectorate in so far as some people who have not been professional police officers will be appointed to it.
My right honourable friend is concerned in particular about the adequacy of the complaints procedure. He wishes to ensure that it is fair to the complainant and to the police officer and that it is expeditious, which at present it is not.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I echo the remark that this is one of the most important Statements to be made in this House. For that reason I very much regret the procedure that has been followed. The noble Earl has such an elegant manner of expression that it is bad luck he should have been saddled with such an inadequate Statement as that
198
which he has made today. The Statement is inadequate in content and the noble Earl is inadequate in his capacity to answer questions about it. That is because the Home Secretary is rushing ahead instead of following the procedure which was wisely followed by the Conservative Government in 1960. Mr. Henry Brooke then set up, in the form of a Royal Commission, the Henry Willink Inquiry to take a detailed view of the service. Proposals came not only from the Home Office but from each body. It considered the matter for two years and came forward with detailed proposals on which the Home Secretary could adjudicate.
The present Home Secretary is proposing to conduct the inquiry himself. Mr. Clarke is an able politician, although I am not sure that I should give him the same marks for objectivity that I should give a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Willink, with Professor Goodhart and others of that calibre as members. I sincerely ask Mr. Clarke to think again about the manner in which he is proposing to go ahead. The issues raised in the Statement are most important and a number have been touched on already. We need a proper basis for settling the future of the police force for the next 20 or 30 years, if the reforms are to last as long as the Willink reforms. All that is being done at present is to create maximum uncertainty in the police service without doing anything to improve the clear-up rate of crime, which is what the public are interested in.
I raise only one additional issue because we are reaching the 20 minute point. The Home Secretary must think carefully about the independent people whom he is to nominate. It will be an extremely sad day if it is thought in this country that a government's nominees on a matter of this importance are of a party character, as might easily be alleged and, indeed, might even be true on occasions. It seems to me important that such nominations should be safeguarded in every way.
I can see that there is a clear case for elected councillors who have responsibilities and a very clear case for magistrates who are selected in a particular way and who come from the local community. However, I urge the Government to think again about their proposal to add this third element of people who will be completely under the patronage of the Home Secretary.
Finally, I heard the noble Earl say that the chairman of the authority would be drawn from the local community. I ask the noble Earl to go one step further and to say that the chairman will be drawn from the members of the local authority that is, from the magistrates and councillors of the local police authority. That would at least ensure that they would not necessarily be under the patronage of the Home Secretary of the day.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in answering the noble Lord's questions rather briefly, I mean no disrespect to him. However, a time limit is imposed upon us. He said that my right honourable friend is rushing ahead. He has tried not to do that. There has been speculation about reorganisation in the press, in the public mind and in the police service for a long time. That is why

199
the Home Secretary made the Statement today saying what are, in his view, the lines which should be followed and on which there will be opportunity for consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, is anxious about the clear-up rate of crime; so is my right honourable friend. That is why he wishes to push the responsibility down to the local authorities.
As regards the chairmanship of the authority, the chairman will be drawn from the whole authority. That will include those people who are nominated as well as those from the local authority. I cannot give the specific answer requested by the noble Lord.

Education Bill
5.2 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, we return to the Education Bill although, after the discussion on the Statement, it may be worth commenting that it comes before us at a time when, by accident or providence, there is anxiety about where our society is and where it is heading. The appalling murder of a young child in the North West crystallised a general fear that there is a breakdown in morality as well as a rise in juvenile crime.
We must not exaggerate the situation, still less be stampeded into a panic reaction. Yet there is anxiety about our society and therefore about what knowledge and values are being encouraged in our schools. In response to that, we need a consensus, a coming together, of interested groups to make common cause in pursuit of acknowledged goals in education. That is surely one of the key endeavours in the formation of young people.
The Church of England has been part of the education system of the country ever since a national pattern emerged. Today some three-quarters of a million children are in Church of England schools and there are almost as many in Roman Catholic schools. We are in partnership with the state and are concerned not just for church schools but for the whole system. We are concerned not just for religious education but for all education. The Church of England wants to work with others in laying foundations for the future pattern of education.
The Government have helped by setting in hand over recent years a number of reforms which have clarified our objectives in education. It is not for me to state the aims of the education policy of Her Majesty's Government; yet, as an interested participant, I perceive the steady opening up of the education system within a firm national framework.
There is a national curriculum while schools have greater autonomy in financial and staffing management. Schools are required to publish more information about both their aims and their achievements in order that parents can make a more informed choice. There is greater emphasis on moral and spiritual values and a recognition of the contribution of religious education. There is also firm
200
movement towards encouraging more 16 to 19 year-olds to remain in full-time education. Surely those are some of the primary and commendable objectives of current educational policy.
It has been said that the Bill lays the foundations for the next 25 years just as the 1944 Act has served us for the past 50 years. The foundations of the 1944 Act were firmly laid over many years after painstaking debate. Today we need to work together for equally secure foundations for the future.
People come to education from different angles and in so doing indicate different perceptions. Those responsible for the national curriculum might see education as the imparting of knowledge. Local education authorities might see education as a community responsibility. Parents might see education as a means of achievement leading to qualifications. Teachers trained in the child-centred approach might see education as a way of developing the individual. Sponsored governors might see education as equipping young people for employment. In the present climate, governing bodies might see education as a financial enterprise where cost-effectiveness is a priority. Those approaches—of course, I have simplified and stylised them—are not necessarily right or wrong nor are they necessarily incompatible. They are indications of the diverse approaches which need to be held together, each making its contribution.
What concerns me is that the Government obviously have not worked for common agreement. In preparing the Education Bill they have set themselves a timescale which jeopardised consultation and fragmented opinion rather than consolidated it. They set a short and awkward consultation period. They failed signally to fulfil their own pledge given at the end of the White Paper:
"The Department for Education and the Welsh Office will take account of the views of interested parties in these proposals in preparing the legislation".
In fact, the legislation was published at the end of the consultation period and all views and representations had to be worked in, if at all, on the hoof by amendment.
The way in which the Government handled the process has tragically worked against consultative agreement. Even now the Churches are awaiting sight of amendments which might or might not meet the anxieties which we expressed at the end of the consultation period. More explicitly, the White Paper tended to put teachers, parents and administrators at loggerheads. The White Paper stated:
"Parents know best the needs of their children—certainly better than educational theorists or administrators, better even than our mostly excellent teachers".
However, parents, teachers and administrators should not be set against one another. They need each other and they look for encouragement to work together. Education without the good will and expertise of the teaching profession is a lost cause. Therefore, I shall support an amendment that will enable the setting up of a general teaching council. That could provide a forum for different groups to work together to improve quality in the teaching profession.

201
The General Synod of the Church of England recently debated the Education Bill. Amid anxieties about small schools, religious education and the shortage of governors of adequate calibre, the greatest apprehension centred around grant-maintained status, not just for church schools but for the pattern as a whole. I have to say that, as yet, I find no consensus in the Church of England for grant-maintained status. In due time, we in the Church shall have to decide whether we can recommend church schools to go grant-maintained. We await the final shape of the Bill and the extent of clarification and assurance offered by the Government. So far as we are concerned, on the particular matter of grant-maintained status the jury is still out.
Education surely is the responsibility of the community, both nationally and locally. The Government have to their credit liberated schools and given them greater freedom to manage their own affairs. Parents have more say, and more choice. Governors have more power and more scope. But what about the local community? Governing bodies may now have sponsored governors, and they may forge better links with the local community. Today's parents may have more say in the status of the school, although the decision of today's parents may limit the choice of tomorrow's parents. But the removal of the local authority from direct responsibility for schools weakens the link between school and community.
Local education authorities have not all been impeccable nor beyond criticism. But many of them (and I speak from local knowledge) have been imaginative, socially concerned and reliable. To run them down so that their staff will inevitably be of a lower calibre will diminish their support for schools in the less "successful" areas and will weaken links between school and community. A further concern is that reduction in the responsibility of LEAs could be the first step—deliberate or accidental, I do not know—in weakening local democracy. I listened with acute interest to the debate on the future of the police. I have heard it said that one Cabinet Minister sought to reassure critics by saying that we are "redefining local democracy". Well, if that be so, we need to see what the new definition is before we go much further. Parliamentary democracy is dependent upon a democratic infrastructure. If local democracy is weak, Parliament will be less secure and credible. So, on those general and far-reaching grounds, I am anxious about the diminution of local authorities. But more immediately, I am concerned about the direct impact on education of reducing the role of the local authority.
The gradual removal from the LEA of any strategic role in education means that education will increasingly be run by a centralised funding agency dealing direct with 23,000 schools. There is no provision for any intermediate body to co-ordinate hopes and concerns in each area. Co-operation is left to chance and to hope. That will not do, and I guess that it will not work.
Competition is healthy and necessary. It should be harnessed and used to help the system forward. But there is also the need for co-operation. Human beings,
202
in the understanding of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, are both competitive and interdependent—each person of infinite value and every one of us dependent on others. Any system which fails to do justice to those two interlocking aspects of humanity will falter. If LEAs are effectively to be cut out of strategic planning, then we shall have to create informal unofficial bodies to express the minds and aspirations of local communities. Otherwise the system will fracture and fragment. It is a risk to shrivel the local education authority without providing in its place any clear means for the expression of co-ordinated local aspirations, covering an area wider than each separate school.
There has long been a partnership between the voluntary sector and the state. Church and county schools have worked alongside one another. The Government have expressed their appreciation of the voluntary sector. I think that I can with justice say that most church schools are popular and successful. We are proud of that, as we are glad of the Government's appreciation. But I am anxious for the future.
The Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church as providers of schools have representatives on every local education committee. As there is no longer to be a requirement to have such a committee, so the Churches' position in the structures will steadily disappear. Hitherto, we have been able to engage with others at the planning stage, before opinions and recommendations for schools have set firm. With the new arrangements, that begins to go. To ensure that the Churches continue to have a presence in the formal structures as providers of a significant proportion of schools, we have pressed that we should be represented on the funding agency and on SCAA. That has met with a response from the Government, but, I have to say, only a partial response.
At a late stage in the proceedings in another place a new clause, Clause 257, was inserted in the Bill which makes wholly discretionary the grants to the voluntary sector. Some of those grants have long been discretionary but others have been mandatory. The Government are now making all payments to the voluntary sector discretionary; in other words, a future Secretary of State, hostile to the Churches or to the voluntary system as a whole, could overnight cease payment to aided schools which could be forced for financial reasons to become controlled or grant-maintained. Parliament and the Churches will be powerless and the voluntary system wholly at the mercy of a future Secretary of State. Surely that is not right if we are to be sure that church schools are free to continue to make their contribution to the system.
Government officials were in discussion with Church officers about this probable change last summer. To my regret, I did not grasp the significance of the proposals until recently. As soon as I saw the text of the Government's amendment, I made clear my deep anxiety. I have been in touch with the Roman Catholic Bishop of Leeds who tells me that the Roman Catholics are as anxious as we are. I cannot think that it is the nation's wish to put the whole future of the voluntary system so totally at the disposal of a future Secretary of State. Too much by this Bill is left in the

203
unfettered hands of the Secretary of State. That is one instance, but a crucial one, of where that power should be circumscribed.
We welcome the Government's concern to improve the provision of religious education. The Secretary of State recently approached the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Cardinal and the Chief Rabbi about forming at national level model agreed syllabuses for use by local standing advisory councils on religious education. We welcome that initiative. The religious education syllabus should be improved and more closely co-ordinated across the country while allowing freedom to different localities to make their own adjustments in the light of ethnic, cultural and religious factors in the area.
Local SACREs will still have a significant responsibility but our concern is that they will find it increasingly difficult to function effectively. As LEAs have less responsibilities and education committees probably disappear, there will be a reduction in the number and expertise of education staff and probably a decline in their calibre. Therefore the staffing of SACREs will decline. We already have information about LEAs cutting the financial provision for their SACRE. Model RE syllabuses at national level need to be supplemented by well resourced local SACREs; by ensuring a supply of qualified RE specialists; and by making sure that governing bodies employ them.
There are remaining matters of concern to the Churches: the arrangements for small schools; the more flexible use of Section 2 and Section 86 moneys from the sale of redundant schools; property provisions in relation to church schools going grant-maintained; and others. We have made our anxieties on these matters known to the Government. They have responded sympathetically and we await sight of their amendments. But until those are available and we have time to study them, we reserve our position.
There is much in recent legislation and in this Bill which we welcome. Whatever the final shape of the Bill, we shall continue to work in partnership with the state. My hope is that even at this late stage we can move towards greater consensus so that we work together, not anxiously and with reserve, but willingly and in firmer and lasting partnership.
5.21 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I warmly welcome this Bill and congratulate the Government on its principles and on its proposals. I wish to speak briefly today on three themes. First, I wish to identify aspects of previous legislation, on which the Bill builds, which have already begun to bear good fruit. Secondly, I wish to indicate why the measures in the Bill are necessary by highlighting some of the remaining problems in our schools which it seeks to address. Thirdly, I wish to flag up some issues on which it may be desirable to try to improve the Bill as it passes through your Lordships' House.
I must apologise most sincerely as I must leave almost immediately after I have spoken to take a consignment of medical aid to Armenia and to
204
Nagorno-Karabakh, where the situation is still critical. I am sad that I will have to read the rest of the debate rather than hear the speeches. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for that.
I begin by commending the Bill wholeheartedly because I believe it is sound in basic principles and in the measures proposed to put those principles into practice. Every member of your Lordships' House must agree with the Bill's basic aim, which is to ensure that every child receives as good an education as possible. If our education system were already achieving this goal, the Bill would not be necessary. But evidence shows that, for many years, the system has been failing, and is still failing, far too many of our children.
I hasten to emphasise that there are many good schools and many dedicated, excellent teachers. They deserve recognition, appreciation and support. Many of them are now rejoicing in the opportunities provided by earlier legislation; for example they are benefiting from local financial management or working in the thriving new grant-maintained schools. Those are success stories because they have succeeded in devolving power to parents, teachers and governors, enabling key decisions to be made where they can be made most effectively, at the level of the individual school. Those are some of the achievements of recent legislation, as my noble friend the Minister emphasised in her opening speech.
Other provisions from earlier legislation have achieved some improvements in standards. The national curriculum should ensure that every child has a basic education spread across key subjects. The requirement for schools to publish more information about the quality of education they provide has given parents much better sources of information on which to base their choice of school. The policy of open enrolment has turned the principle of choice into a reality for many parents who were previously denied choice by local education authorities bent on protecting less popular and less good schools at the expense of children. There can never be complete freedom of choice but its significant extension has resulted in many more parents obtaining places at their preferred schools and in greater pressures for schools to be responsive to parents' wishes.
So this Government's commitment to fundamental principles has already been demonstrated. There is the principle of greater parental freedom of choice. That freedom has always been enjoyed by the well-off but is too often denied to parents dependent on LEA schools. There is the principle of diversity of provision in which schools can develop their own distinctive characteristics, providing education most appropriate for their pupils and their communities. There is the principle of commitment to quality and to a rounded education which enshrines the spiritual and moral aspects of education, and a curriculum for pupils whose interests may be academic or those with other kinds of abilities and enthusiasms. It was because of those educational principles, the values they represent, and the policies which began to implement them, that I changed my own political allegiance from Labour to Conservative. Many other people have made a similar

205
move because the Labour Party's policies of enforced homogeneity, with the imposition of a monolithic LEA comprehensive system, simply do not work and have failed too many children.
Recent examples of such failure abound. Noble Lords may have read about the profound disillusionment experienced by many parents at the school which was the flagship of Left-wing education policies; namely, the famous Holland Park Comprehensive. In an article entitled "An English education has penalised my son" in the Evening Standard of 9th March, a parent from Eastern Europe described how the school had failed his son. The parent said that he,
"would be embarrassed to return him to a school in Eastern Europe".
The child's dismayed parents blame lax attitudes such as the failure to set and mark homework, the refusal to set regular tests to assess progress and the failure to teach moral or social values.
Another former pupil, from Bangladesh, who attended the same school described how her parents had removed her from that famous comprehensive after four years and sent her back to Bangladesh for a "proper British education." Those specific examples of the failures of one school, which has embodied progressive. Left-wing education ideology for decades, illustrate wider, very disturbing trends in parts of' our state system. They have been proven by systematic research; for example the decline in reading standards and literacy which have stunted the educational progress of many children, documented by Martin Turner, inter alia; the serious underachievement in maths of many British children, compared to youngsters in Germany and Japan demonstrated by Professor Prais; and disturbing increases in truancy shown by Dr. O'Keeffe and Patricia Stoll.
Those are the continuing problems which prove the need for the measures in this Bill. Some of them are already being remedied by previous legislation. But there are still schools giving pupils educational short shrift. There is a need for further measures to bring them to account or to close them down. Hence the provisions in the Bill designed to tackle the problem of failing schools. We cannot allow schools to continue to deprive children of the best education possible. Every child depends on school to provide a precious, once-off opportunity for a good start in life. And, too often, the schools which fail their children are those serving the least well-off communities, with parents least able to articulate their requirements as many do not speak English, who cannot take options available to the better off financially, and who therefore rely on the schools to give their children a good start in life. So, I believe we should welcome the provisions in the Bill which will help to avoid pupils getting the kind of raw deal I have already illustrated.
More positively, the Bill's provisions will help good schools to enjoy greater freedom and autonomy to provide even better education for their pupils. The schools which have already attained grant-maintained status are generally huge success stories and they are thriving with their new-found autonomy. Virtually all are oversubscribed; they are providing excellent education and responding to parents' and pupils'
206
requirements with all the accountability which their freedom to run themselves gives to them. Therefore, the provisions in this Bill which will make it easier for schools to become grant-maintained, and which will limit the amount of money which LEAs can spend on campaigns designed to prevent or hinder processes enabling parents to opt out, are warmly to be welcomed. The amount of money spent by some LEAs in producing propaganda against opting out has been very disturbing.
That brings me to the question of the role and future of LEAs. I must pay tribute to the invaluable contribution which our local authorities have made to the development of education in this country. They have played an historic role in extending education to every child and in fostering local schools to meet local needs. However, times change. In recent years some LEAs have put political ideology before educational excellence. Even though many LEAs are still carrying out their responsibilities extremely well, the time has come for our education system to become more decentralised, with more power devolved to those who provide that education directly in the schools and to parents and pupils who are the prime beneficiaries. That is where accountability should be enshrined. That is what the Bill promotes.
Mention of the decentralisation of power leads me to my final theme: identifying some of the areas where I believe the Bill as it stands is problematic and could be improved. First, there is general concern about Clause 1. It appears to give general powers to the Secretary of State, extending over the entire provision of education, including higher and further education. I welcome my noble friend's reassurances on that point because clearly it is not the purpose of the Bill, which follows a White Paper focusing entirely on school education. It may be desirable to consider an amendment which clarifies that issue.
However, I must dissociate myself from those who argue that the Bill's powers relating to schools are unacceptable in their centralising tendencies. In so far as such tendencies exist, the Bill is designed to enable such powers subsequently to be decentralised. That is the entire thrust of the provisions enabling more schools to become grant-maintained. Once they have attained and enjoyed that autonomy it would be a brave government which subsequently sought to remove their freedom.
I should also like to highlight two other areas of concern: access to grant-maintained status and religious education.
I warmly welcome the Government's commitment to allow new schools to opt into state funding through the grant-maintained system. However, there is a problem relating to the criteria which the Government may use when assessing proposals for a new school. One key indicator for that assessment is whether there are surplus places in the area. If, as is often the case, there are already too many school places in the maintained sector, new school promoters have a problem. I believe that parental preference is crucial here and I wonder whether there should not be a provision which places a duty on the Secretary of State to consider not only the number and distribution of

207
places but also the relative popularity and success of each school in the area and the extent to which it meets parental wishes.
I also fear that some provisions in the Bill may discourage new schools from opting in; in particular, those preventing a promoter of a new or existing school from submitting proposals for funding until 10 per cent. of an area's pupils are in the grant-maintained sector. If a school has already started up and attracted parents those parents have already voted with their feet out of local authority schools.
Your Lordships may have heard me speak on earlier occasions of the John Loughborough School in North London. It is an excellent school, and there are many others like it throughout the country. Those schools satisfy the Government's criteria of high standards, choice and diversity. They have been set up at great personal sacrifice by parents who are not well off but who are so dismayed by the quality of education in their LEA schools that they have acted in despair, establishing their own alternative schools. Those parents have been let down by LEA schools and we owe it to them to enable their children to receive the education which they have chosen, and to which they are entitled, without having to make such great sacrifices. With the recession biting hard, those schools are in desperate need of official recognition and financial assistance. Many of them are new faith community schools; many are new Christian schools. Making them wait until the 10 per cent. trigger point applies could send them under forever.
The Bill as it stands also causes problems for schools which find themselves in sparsely populated areas such as Devon. The excellent Small School in Hartland, Devon, is convinced that if the provisions of the Bill as it now stands are unchanged it will never have the opportunity to opt in. A similar problem confronts parents living on Exmoor who are trying to establish a new school to serve the interests of the local community. If the Government are keen to see the grant-maintained system take off, and parents to have greater choice, those schools should be allowed to opt in as soon as possible.
I turn finally to religious education. There have been many encouraging developments in the teaching of RE since the Education Reform Act 1988. However, the spirit of the law has been implemented less than satisfactorily in a number of ways. For example, many LEAs have not made any attempts to reconsider their agreed syllabuses. Therefore, I ask my noble friend whether the Government might consider placing a duty on LEAs to convene a conference and to draw up a syllabus within, say, 18 months. I appreciate that my noble friend has already made reference to that point.
I also wish to ask my noble friend whether the Government will consider taking action to ensure that agreed syllabuses drawn up after 1988 will be in line with the requirements of that Act. The recent National Curriculum Council report shows that there is not one agreed syllabus which meets legal requirements. That is little short of scandalous. It also demonstrates the problems confronting those who are trying to
208
implement the spirit of the 1988 Act, which was intended to ensure that RE would reflect the fact that Christianity is the main spiritual tradition in this land, to maintain the integrity of Christianity and of other faiths, and to respect the rights of other faith communities.
There is also concern over the efficiency of the RE complaints procedures. For example, some parents have had to wait two to three years for a complaint to be processed. I hope that my noble friend will therefore consider an amendment placing a time limit on the complaints procedure. Also, parents and families have been victimised when they have made a complaint. I therefore hope that my noble friend will consider an amendment enabling parents to make a complaint while remaining anonymous.
I finish where I began, warmly commending the Bill, which is a charter for choice and opportunity. I congratulate the Government. I wish them success in achieving their goals of providing a better education for all children. There can be no more important objective; for young people themselves, for their parents and for the future of our nation. For too long we have allowed too many young people to be deprived of their rightful heritage of a good education. Improvements have been made and are under way. The Bill will continue to remedy the problems which remain and will build on what has been achieved in order to give all children the education which they and the nation need and deserve.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, this Bill, in the main, is a further major step in the degradation of the education system of England and Wales. Since 1988 the Government have introduced three Bills dealing mainly with schools—first, the so-called reform Act; secondly, the infamous Act which instituted lay inspectors; and now this Education Bill—totalling 528 pages, 527 clauses and 36 schedules. That is not a millstone; it is a veritable Everest of bureaucracy laid upon our children and our, schools.
Every minute detail of the education system and how it is to work is now cast in reinforced concrete. But views on education, its content and its methods change. However, there is no room at all for flexibility in the system now. By contrast, the Butler Act of 1944 was flexible, broad, brief, and allowed for four decades of growth, change and development.
That is not the only difference between the legislation introduced by this Government and that introduced by Mr. Butler. There is a fundamental difference which goes to the very heart of our democratic system. The 1944 Act laid upon local authorities the duty to provide sufficient schools to meet the needs of every locality. This Bill removes that duty from local education authorities and places it on the Secretary of State. He may delegate it to the funding council, which is appointed by him. Under Clause 7 he takes the power to give the funding council directives on a wide variety of subjects. He has taken this power, in addition to the power which he took under the Education Reform Act 1988, to determine exactly what is taught in 80 per cent. of school time.

209
The position that we are now in in this country is that a political Minister, sitting in Whitehall in London, will determine the pattern of school provision in Northumberland, Devon, Hampshire and every other area. In addition, he will decide what is taught. If we remind ourselves that education is concerned with the immature minds of children and nothing else, the danger is only too obvious. The dividing line between education and indoctrination is a very delicate one. The noble Baroness is nodding her head. There are already examples of Ministers trying to inject their own reactionary views into the school curriculum. Ministers have lately been telling our excellent teachers how to teach as well as what to teach.
The front page of today's Daily Telegraph contains an article in which Mr. Chris Lowe, head of Prince William School in Northamptonshire, speaks about the Government's test for 14 year-olds. He says:
"They have been devised by a Right wing clique".
Whether that is true, I do not know. But the system which this Government have created is riddled with opportunities for that kind of thing.
In Germany after the war when the allies were reorganising the country they were very careful indeed to put education in the hands of the Länder governments and not those of the federal government. In this country after the war when we were reorganising our affairs Mr. Butler and Mr. Chuter-Ede, in the 1944 Act, dispersed power in the system among the Minister, the local authorities, the school governors and managers and the teachers and no one of those was too powerful. This Government have completely destroyed that dispersal of power.
The noble Baroness said that power is in the hands of the governors. Of course it is not. The two most important factors in education are what is taught and the amount of money available. Have the governors anything to do with those? They have no say whatever in what is taught in their schools. We now have power centralised to a greater degree than ever before in this country. For the first time we have in Britain state schools. We have never had them before; we have had local authority schools and voluntary schools. The centralisation in the education system now is greater than in any other government department. It is greater than in the health service and in the Ministry of Defence. I believe that this is a thoroughly unhealthy, undemocratic state of affairs, based on the idea that the man—I suppose, the woman as well—in Whitehall knows best and better than dedicated local authority members of all parties and teachers who have been doing the job for the past 91 years.
This edifice of bureaucracy which is lying like a dead hand on our schools is the result of two hatreds which have characterised this Government. The first is their hatred of local authorities and local democracy. Ever since they came into office they have pursued a vicious vendetta against local authorities. They have completely destroyed the broad consensus that there used to be between central and local government. That consensus existed under all governments. I am glad to note that the Prime Minister recently held a meeting to try to mend the fences with the local authorities, and
210
about time too! How ironic that he should do that at the very moment when this Bill is going through Parliament. The purpose or the Bill is undoubtedly to phase out local education authorities, or to reduce them to a few residuary functions.
The second hatred of this Government is of the way in which our schools have been run in the past. They coined the phrases "progressive teachers" and "progressive teaching methods" as terms of derision. They were first articulated in the Black Papers which were principally aimed at me 20 years ago. They began talking about bad and inefficient schools. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has left us. Tonight she was pursuing her vendetta against our schools as she has done for many years. Even the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, who looks like a shining liberal compared with the people who followed him, was constantly harping on about bad schools and bad teachers.
This grossly offensive parrot cry has been taken up by all subsequent Ministers in that department, egged on by sleazy, Right-wing education groups who have painted, and are still painting, a completely erroneous picture of education in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, had an article published in the Daily Telegraph at the weekend. I agree with most of it, but he also said:
"The national curriculum started only because of widespread public distrust of teachers and educators, and perception of falling standards … But in primary schools testing has virtually stopped; and the idea that teachers should be accountable to parents and taxpayers met with derision".
That is utter nonsense; it is simply untrue. Anyone who knows our schools knows that to be untrue.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, as I have just been mentioned, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, is it true that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, when Prime Minister, was the first to refer publicly to those very worries and perceptions about declining standards which the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, has just dismissed as completely unfounded?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I apologise to him and to the other noble Lord for not noticing that it was an intervention.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Callaghan instituted a national debate on education, and quite rightly so. What a pity that this Government did not do the same.
Anyone who knows our primary schools knows that they are probably the best in the world. They have a constant succession of visitors from other countries. It is an inspiration to go into our primary schools. I greatly resent the constant attack on our schools and teachers which is based on a completely false view of them.
Our primary schools are good because since the Second World War teachers have used progressive methods which take into account the nature of

211
childhood and do not regard children as little men and women but as children; they believe that childhood has its own perfections. One cannot have a perfect frog before one has a perfect tadpole. That is what our progressive teachers represent. I urge all of them in this country to stand up with pride and be counted; to glory in the title and to wear it with pride, no matter what Ministers, the press or anyone else may say.
These two hatreds have driven this Government to set the clock back to the early years of this century. I started teaching in a colliery school in the North of England 60 years ago this year, so I know what our schools were like then. The standards were appalling. Of course, they knew certain things by rote, but that was nothing compared with today's standards.
We now have a ludicrous system of tests at seven years of age, and half the children who take those tests are six years of age and not seven. Tests now take place for children aged seven, 11 and 14. These are leading simply to learning by rote. The noble Baroness is shaking her head. Perhaps I may tell her about the test for 14 year-olds which was published on Tyneside last year. All the schools were set out in order of their results. The top school was Newcastle Central High School, a girls' public day school trust, an excellent school which has the pick of all the able girls on Tyneside. The next school was one in the lushest suburb of Newcastle, a place called Ponteland, where most of the houses are executive homes. The bottom schools were those in the rundown city areas, of course. I believe that it is absolutely wrong that children should be penalised in this way by having social factors taken into account.
The new tests in our schools are leading to learning by rote. The ability to learn on one's own, the love of reading, the love of finding out things for oneself are all going and being replaced by drilling to do well in the tests. The teachers will teach to the tests; the tests will test what they test and nothing more. Every teacher in the country believes that payment by results is just around the corner, so naturally the teachers, being human, want as many children to do well in the tests as possible.
The National Association of School Masters and Union of Women Teachers held a poll recently. Of the 59,000 of its members who voted, 88 per cent. voted in favour of boycotting the tests. That is what the teachers think about the tests. I watched the noble Baroness being interviewed outside the building on the subject. She was very rude about the 59,000 teachers and about Mr. de Gruchy, the distinguished teachers' leader who has given a lifetime of service to education. She must not try to emulate her boss in this respect. She is much too nice for that.
We now have the publication of results. I cannot imagine anything more grossly unfair to our children than that. It is the latest example of putting the clock back. But this month we have had a further example in the small market town of Penrith in Cumbria. I know the area well because I live in one of the feeder villages for its two schools. The small, happy, integrated town has two secondary schools. The governors of one, which is known as a grammar
212
school although it is not, applied to the Secretary of State to be allowed to make itself selective. The Secretary of State agreed, and that has been done despite widespread opposition.
Perhaps I may read to the noble Baroness from the local paper last week what one of the governors of the grammar school who resigned said:
"All six groups consulted by the grammar school over the proposal had rejected the policy, with only the majority of the school's governors in support.
Mr. Robinson said those who opposed selective entry included the feeder primary school heads, the majority of written responses, the majority of people who attended five public meetings and the local education authority".
Despite that, the noble Baroness or the Secretary of State agreed to the 11-plus being reintroduced there. It will divide the town, a happy town. It will divide each of the feeder villages. It will damage the feeder primary schools, as, of course, it did in the past, and they will be judged on the number of pupils they get into the selective school. So it goes on.
The economy is in tatters, with 3 million unemployed, the biggest balance of payments deficit ever and borrowing of £1 billion a week to balance the budget. All that is going on, and as though it were not sufficient chaos, the Government persist in reducing the education system to chaos as well. At least it will match the economy; one can say that about it.
All that is being done in a service which, as it is concerned with children, should be administered with great sensitivity and great care. The Government have not been like a bull in a china shop. They have been like a herd of bulls in a china shop. They have destroyed everything in sight. They have destroyed the good relations, the good practices and the good will which had been built up over many decades. The result is the lowest morale in the education system that I have known in my lifetime.
Teachers are applying in droves for early retirement and depleting the schools of wisdom and experience. Such is the appalling system that the Government have created that governors welcome early retirements because they can replace those teachers with younger, cheaper teachers.
I have been involved in the education system all my adult life. This all fills me with tremendous sadness and anger. The only consolation I can find is that when the next election comes, there will be a Labour Government, who will, I hope, reverse most of what this lot are doing.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I trust that this time I have not missed an intervention on my blind side! It requires considerable temerity to address your Lordships between the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who are such acknowledged experts on education. I wish to address only one topic: Clause 1 is widely seen to pose a renewed threat of bureaucratic aggrandisement to academic freedom.
However, before I do that perhaps I may mention the business arrangements for this debate. It is accepted throughout your Lordships' House that this is an extremely important measure. Your Lordships'

213
House brings unexampled experience and expertise to bear on it. Noble Lords will hear in due course three former heads of the Department of Education, but there are four others who will not speak and there must be many others who have been put off by the length of the list of speakers. There are 48, and the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, with his command of numeracy, managed to count in addition the number of pages, clauses and schedules. This is a formidable and important measure and yet only one day is given to its debate. Not only that, a Statement which took nearly a full hour was interposed. That is simply not the way to treat your Lordships' House or a measure of this importance. It is not the first time that it has happened; there have been repeated protests from all parts of the House. It is treating your Lordships' House as no more than a sausage machine for processing government legislation.
Having said that, perhaps I may turn to Clause 1, which is seen to threaten academic freedom largely because it is seen as yet a fourth attempt (the three previous ones having failed) to achieve bureaucratic aggrandisement at the expense of academic freedom. The first attempt was in the Education Reform Act 1988. That established the funding councils in place of the former University Grants Committee, to which a notable tribute was paid last week by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff.
There were two very sinister provisions in relation to the funding councils. One enabled the Secretary of State to give directions to the funding councils as to how they should fund the institutions of higher education. The other did the same thing indirectly by allowing the Secretary of State to attach conditions to any grant. That was seen very widely and very strongly to impose a threat to academic freedom. There were loud complaints and the matter came to a head in the other place, when the Government finally gave way on both clauses. A safety catch was fitted to each barrel and it was stipulated by an amendment finally brought in by the Government that neither power would be used institution specifically. That seemed to be the end of the matter—but not a bit of it.
Within a year or two, in relation to the grant for 1991–92, the Secretary of State, or perhaps I should say the department, laid down certain requirements as a condition of the complete grant. Over £20 million of the grant was withheld. The conditions required were bureaucratic conditions only, it is fair to say, although the line between bureaucratic and academic in that field is very difficult to draw. The institutions of higher education were required to improve the deployment of teachers and their use of time and to certify that they had done so. When they certified, then a proportionate part of the grant was released to them. Quite obviously, that was institution specific. Quite obviously it flew in the face of the amendments wrung from the Government. One of the staff teachers' associations challenged that in the High Court. The case came before Mr. Justice Simon Brown. He held in their favour.
But that was not all. The department put forward an argument which, had it been accepted, would have completely nullified the amendment that had been
214
made in 1988. Fortunately, that too was rejected. But the department did not rest on those two reverses. In the Further and Higher Education Bill of last Session they reinstated the original provision of the 1988 Bill. In other words, they sought to withdraw the concessions that had been wrung from the Government. This time the matter came to a climax in this House, with the department fighting bitterly every inch of the way. A compromise was offered: the power to give directions was sacrificed. We were assured that that was all that was necessary. But that left the power to annex conditions to a grant and to be able to do exactly the same thing.
In the end the matter came to a head as late as Third Reading. One amendment which would have completely closed the gap was rejected. The Government opposed it and won a majority of two. Another amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, which almost closed the gap was carried in the teeth of government opposition. That was the third attempt. So is it any surprise that Clause 1 is seen as yet a fourth attempt? It was brought in at. Report stage (a very late stage) in the other place. Noble Lords know that amendments cannot be raised on Third Reading in the other place. So is it any wonder that the universities look askance at this clause?
There has recently been a case before the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House called Pepper v. Hart, which has not yet been fully digested. But it certainly seems to say that the courts can now look at Hansard as well as at the statute. That means that something much more specific is needed than the emollient tones of the noble Baroness or the bland assurances of the Secretary of State in another place. What noble Lords require from the noble Baroness when she replies is that those powers will not in any circumstances be used as institutionally specific; and if possible an assurance in the very words of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, which was carried last Session. In due course, noble Lords will expect a suitable government amendment to Clause 1 to be carried to make it clear that this is not yet another attempt to get what they failed on three occasions—in 1988, before the court and last Session—to achieve and that this is not a further attempt to arrogate the power of the department where it would cause such damage—namely in the universities of this country.
6.7 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Blatch for introducing the Bill. It is one whose principles I support: namely, the desire to achieve quality, diversity, parental choice, autonomy and accountability. The Bill is, I believe, a continuation of the 1988 Education Reform Act. I understand that 50 per cent. of the clauses are re-enactments of that Act. It would be good to think that we might concentrate on new issues. The Bill provides a new framework for schools by encouraging the expansion of grant-maintained schools and establishing the funding council to support them. Clearly there will be much debate on that framework,

215
and it is worth reminding ourselves of the problems that this Bill and its predecessor, the 1988 Act, are intended to address.
The argument was, and I may pick up some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, that too many schools—not all, not even most, but too many—were failing their children. As a nation, our average and less able pupils in maths and science were some two years behind our competitors in Germany and Japan, as my noble friend Lady Cox pointed out. Too many children were ill-equipped to supply the needs of industry, which complained; or to get a job in an increasingly technical and competitive world. Too many left too early and found the education unsatisfactory.
No other country in the Western world had conferred such freedom on teachers. In the past, standards had been upheld by the national examinations boards. They were an adjunct of the 1944 Education Act, which did not specify standards, but maintained the standards, with the freedom given to teachers.
In the 1960s and 1970s particularly bizarre new subjects sprouted up in the curriculum; the range of syllabuses became bewilderingly diverse and course-work was marked more and more by teachers in schools rather than by external examination. Great anxiety was expressed not only by parents but also by employers. That is what lies behind the Bill before us today. It is not some sinister desire by the Government to overturn the 1944 Education Act, let alone destroy local education authorities. It is extremely dispiriting that no speakers from the Opposition Benches have shown any recognition of those weaknesses in the education system which clearly require to be addressed for the sake of the children.
I was interested by what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford regarding consensus. Despite what I have just said, I believe that we are beginning to see a broad consensus over the national curriculum and the need for it and the need for testing and assessment. I am only too well aware—I have received enough letters on the subject—of the difficulties over key stage 3 in the matter of English. But, as I understand it, the problem is not about the principle of testing; it is about the type of test. I am bound to say that I sometimes think that the old adage that the best can frequently be the enemy of the good may well apply in the tests.
There is also a broad consensus of welcome for the local management of schools, which again underlies the Bill and which will be extended by it in that after 1995 local education authorities must delegate 90 per cent. of their budgets to schools. It is good that the HMI report on LMS shows that it is working as was intended. Therefore the whole of Parts I and II of the Bill encourage the growth of grant-maintained schools and the framework for funding them. That will allow greater choice and variety. There are already examples of grant-maintained schools, comprehensives, city technology colleges and some grammar schools operating side by side, thus giving greater power to parents and to governors.
216
We have already seen that standards are beginning to rise. I believe fundamentally that education is a long process and it will be a long time before we see the results uniformly throughout the country that we should like to see. But it is good news that grant-maintained schools are employing more teachers, have a better pupil-teacher ratio and have greatly increased spending on books and equipment. I was interested to hear that of the primary schools that have gone grant-maintained, many would like to add a nursery class. That is something I would welcome.
Part IV of the Bill, by dealing specifically with the problems of truancy and the fact that from 1993 league tables will include statistics on truancy, should deal with that serious problem. I am sure that we all agree that children out of school are children that are likely to get into trouble. The provisions on moral and religious education are of the greatest importance and are strengthened following the working of the 1988 Act.
I am sure that we will devote much time to Part III of the Bill on special needs. But I believe that the Government have gone a long way to deal with the problems that have arisen under the 1981 Act. I recall clearly as a Minister taking that Act through your Lordships' House. I am glad to see that the Government are extending parental choice by giving parents a better right to appeal, placing a duty on governors of special schools to admit statemented pupils and many other matters. They are much to be welcomed.
But there will be debate on how the new framework will work. It must be recognised that the role of local education authorities is changing rapidly. The development of local management of schools, which has been widely welcomed, and the continual growth of grant-maintained schools, which is expected to total over 1,000 by April 1994, have completely altered their role. The high turnout at elections for grant-maintained schools shows the great local interest. That success shows local commitment and involvement.
Local education authorities need to recognise the message that the new schools are sending to them week by week. It is the schools which prefer to be free and independent of the local education authority, given the opportunity. I would not in any way subscribe to the view that the Bill is knocking local government. I was involved in local government for 15 years and would not wish in any way to be a party to that. But it is true to say that local education authorities must bear some measure of responsibility for the weaknesses of some of our schools, and, above all, they must recognise the changed situation.
The question then arises: how will the new framework work? It will be essential for the FAS to work closely with the local education authority to make sure that it does not become too bureaucratic and that one set of bureaucracy is not substituted for another. I welcome the fact that the FAS would have only a small number of closely prescribed functions. Both the FAS and the LEA will need to realise that they are concerned with the needs of the pupils. It is essential also that the arrangements for dealing with

217
failing schools are clear and can be activated in good time. I should like to hear more about how that will work and particularly who will be members of an education association should one need to be established.
I would not require a school which is not maintained to vote every year for grant-maintained status. That may well be counter-productive. I realise that there will be much more debate on Clause 265 regarding local authority services. But I can see the argument that local education authorities should trade on level terms with outside suppliers. I am confident enough in head teachers to believe that they will not be taken in by the unscrupulous.
We need to be clear also about the situation that would arise were a local education authority to fail in its duties. That said, I warmly welcome the main thrust of the Bill. In view of the time, I shall touch briefly on three specific issues. First, I should like to thank my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my noble friend for amending Clause 256 of the Bill in another place by allowing small boarding schools of 50 or fewer pupils to return to the position they occupied before the passage of the Children Act. They will now cease to be called children's homes, which was singularly inappropriate, and the amendment has been greatly welcomed by the schools concerned.
Secondly, I want to say something in regard to Clause 1. I am grateful for what was said by my noble friend and particularly grateful for the letter that I received from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on the matter. I support what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and hope that we shall be given an assurance by my noble friend on the position of freedom of the university world.
Thirdly, I have been asked—I believe others have too, including my noble friend Lady Carnegy—by the National Association of Head Teachers to table an amendment on a better definition of the relationship between head teachers and chairmen of the boards of governors. It is the most important of relationships in the management of a school and is often a difficult one. However, it is essential for the smooth running of a school and for the maintenance of high standards. I support the view that the head must be responsible for the running of the school. We shall no doubt return to the point. If we wish grant-maintained schools as well as schools with local management to survive and succeed, they must have a clear line of responsibility.
There are many issues I should have liked to raise, but in view of the time and the number of speakers I shall not pursue them this afternoon. We shall undoubtedly return to them at Report stage. I simply reiterate that I welcome the Bill. It is a further move in the right direction to address the real problems of education. It builds on the 1988 Act which is already having a profound effect for the better in our schools; and it addresses the important problem of equipping our children for the world that they will find in the 21st century.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, was it not the novelist L. P. Hartley who said:
"The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there"?
So far as this Bill is concerned, Wales is a foreign country, and they do education differently there. Over 100 years ago we had, in the 1889 Intermediate and Technical Education Act, a statute specific to Wales which gave rise to more than 100 county secondary schools and provided a distinctive structure to the Welsh school system. Every education Act since then has accepted the principle that the local authority has the duty to provide school places. All this is now being deliberately destroyed by the Bill, and the Government should think carefully about how, in Wales, it can possibly be replaced. This Bill shows the Government have determined that, structurally, the Welsh education system shall be a replica of the English system. I have to tell them that that is a dangerous decision to make.
The Government should take careful note that, despite all the persuasive skill and vigour of the Minister of State, whose assiduity can only be admired, grant-maintained schools have not taken off in Wales. I believe I am correct in saying that only two primary schools and five secondary schools in Wales have achieved grant-maintained status. All sorts of inducements and incentives have been suggested. No school is in any doubt about the advantages which might accrue. Yet only seven have taker the bait. The Government should ask why this is so.
I can tell them that the reasons are many and complex and that they have their roots in history and in the nature of communities. Welsh historians, educators and patriots have not forgotten the infamous report of the Commission on Education in Wales, set up in 1846, which published its report in 1847 in blue covered books. "Brad y llyfrau gleision" —the treachery of the blue books—is a phrase still well known, almost as well known as Iechyd Da throughout Wales. The report is still remembered as one which damned the Welsh as an illiterate, immoral, inferior and foreign bunch. It stated:
"The Welsh language is a vast drawback to Wales and a manifold barrier to the moral progress and commercial prosperity of the people".
That has never been forgotten, especially by those who were determined to reverse the decline in the use of the Welsh language in the years after 1945 and saw that the schools were vital to their struggle. Add to that the close liaison which has existed for the past century between the schools and the local authorities, and it is not hard to see why this English-based Bill, which says and does absolutely nothing about Welsh medium education, and offers to replace the local education authorities by a distant and unelected quango of nominees so perfectly delineated in Clause 3(3)(a) and (b), has not, to say the least, commended itself in Wales.
I would advise the Government that it will take far more than Sir Wyn Roberts, relentlessly touring Wales on preaching practice like the missionary journeys of St. Paul, to convert the natives to the faith of GMS. It will need a higher level of incentive—I

219
shall not use the word "bribe" though others do—and Welsh parents are likely to be profoundly unimpressed by the funding levels suggested so far. The best first step would be to agree most of the many amendments which will be proposed at Committee stage in your Lordships' House, though, if the record of this Bill's progress in another place is anything to go by, we have small cause for optimism about that.
The partnership between schools and LEAs is probably stronger and more fruitful in Wales than in most other parts of the United Kingdom because of the importance of the Welsh language at all levels of education. But this differs markedly from Gwynedd to Gwent. It is no use force-feeding the citizens of Monmouth with the works of Dafydd ap Gwilym, though that diet might, on the other hand, be welcomed and found to be nourishing in Aberystwyth. These sensitive perceptions, palpations of the local mood, are exactly what local authorities excel at, and no Schools Funding Council for Wales can ever match them.
Let me take one example. In West Wales one education authority has set up language centres, or Canolfannau Iaith, to give children, often those children of incoming families from England, intensive courses in Welsh. They last about six or eight weeks. They equip a child to go to a Welsh primary school and receive at least part of his or her education through the medium of Welsh. The same authority provides a network of teachers who teach locally—known as the athrawon bro or neighbourhood teachers —who are mostly peripatetic and teach Welsh as a second language in primary schools and train other teachers to do the same. Does anyone seriously believe that those services could be provided by anyone other than local education authorities? Can anyone envisage little private companies competing for the contract to teach Welsh to the toddlers of Tenby? And even if they did, could they possibly provide a better service than the one we already have, staffed by skilled and devoted teachers who believe profoundly in what they are doing and provide the highest possible value for money?
The deliberate removal of power from elected local authorities to a central body accountable to no one but the Secretary of State would be a difficult concept to market in Wales at the very best of times. But to propose it at precisely the moment when the Government plan to introduce a wholesale reorganisation of local government, dissolving the counties and districts and replacing them with some 21 new unitary authorities whose responsibilities will include education—or bits of education—seems almost ludicrously bad timing. The Society of Education Officers in Wales, a highly responsible professional body not given to rash rhetoric, has looked at this clash, and said that it,
"does not believe that it will be possible to provide a high quality public education service in Wales given the fragmentation of responsibility which will inevitably result from the combination of both pieces of prospective legislation. The sharing of responsibility between small LEAs, 'lead' authorities, joint committees … and a possible future Schools Funding Council is a recipe for confusion and instability".
220
Your Lordships may be interested in noticing one particularly ripe example of confusion and instability caused by this clash of competing efforts at reformation. It is to be found in the debate on this Bill in another place on 3rd March 1993, 20 days ago. It makes a very good read, especially when honourable Members were discussing what is now Clause 265. Your Lordships will recall that this relates to the provision of goods and services for grant-maintained schools by local education authorities, and lays down that this may take place only in the authority's area or a contiguous area and is permitted for only two years.
It was argued that this would be particularly disadvantageous to Wales after local government reorganisation, because with the 21 unitary authorities instead of eight counties, many fewer of them would be contiguous with each other. It is true if you work it out. An English authority which bordered Wales would be able to sell services to schools in Powys, Monmouthshire, Wrexham and Flintshire, but most of the Welsh authorities would not be able to do so because they were not contiguous. Anglesey could not sell services to Denbighshire, Bridgend could not sell services to Caerphilly, and so on. And if they could, it would be for only two years, and there seems to be no real certainty as to when that period of two years would begin.
The debate which followed that argument has to be read to be believed. It seems to hinge on the non-existence of private sector suppliers in particular areas and on the necessity of proof that one is,
"trading at the margin of capacity",
though in the discussions no one seemed either anxious or, indeed, able to define that peculiar term. I mention this only as an example of the total confusion, the inability to win through to any clear understanding, which results from the impact of this Bill on the proposals for local government restructuring in Wales.
In the final flourish of his speech on 9th November 1992, the Minister (Sir Wyn Roberts) said:
"It has again become clear to me during the debate that the Labour party stands firmly for the status quo in this, as in everything else".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/92; col. 716.]
I do not know about "everything else" but in this certainly a bit of status quo would be a very good idea. The relentless rage for change, for greater powers for the Secretary of State, for yet more centralisation, all this has brought about a sense of battle fatigue in the world of education at every level, from the primary school to the university, and nowhere more than in Wales.
On Monday 8th February 1993, 11 Welsh organisations combined in a press release. They included highly prestigious bodies such as the Parent Teacher Associations of Wales, representing parents; the National Association of Headteachers in Wales; the Welsh League of Youth (Urdd Gobaith Cymru); and the Welsh Joint Education Committee, which is one of the most trusted, respected and experienced institutions in Wales. They said the following, which I excerpt from the press release:
"We register our deep concern that the Education Bill makes no reference to Welsh medium education. Indeed, the Bill is

221
essentially about change in the structure of the provision of education, rather than about the nature and quality of education.
We foresee a confused situation where various bodies will have authority, the boundaries of which will not he clearly defined. This will create a situation of crisis for Welsh medium education… we believe that education in Wales generally is an afterthought in the Bill. Willy-nilly, education in Wales is to be viewed in exactly the same manner as education in England… our educational system needs a period of stability to implement changes already required by statute. Fatigue is setting in, not only amongst school staffs but also amongst governors to whom we as a body provide a considerable number.
We are gravely concerned at the proposal to transfer so many powers from LEAs to the Secretary of State, and the concentration of responsibilities to yet another quango".
That sums it up; that says it all. I can only endorse it, from my experience of my own primary and secondary education, all of which took place in Wales. Indeed, I think I may say without fear of successful contradiction that I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who was taught, and caned, by that ferocious wielder of the stick who went on to become the Speaker of the House of Commons and the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. I miss him here today.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, time is short and I do not wish to pick over the details of the 276 clauses and 18 schedules of the Bill. Instead, I should like to look a little bit behind the legalistic prose at two broad issues which the Education Bill is designed to affect and to concentrate within them on two aspects—one of omission and one of commission. This is in no way to diminish the importance of the issues of governance, structures, funding mechanisms, class sizes, resources and so on. The Bill itself constitutes an index —a catalogue—of those mechanistic details.
The Bill deals with schools of all types in England and Wales, how they are to be governed and funded, how children are to be admitted and examined, how what is to be taught shall be determined and assessed and so on. These are all matters which concern those in this country (and they are the vast majority) who wish that our school education should be of the highest quality.
To my simple mind, a high quality school education can be easily specified in four simple principles. First, it should ensure that the latent powers of intellect and personality of every pupil shall be identified and developed to the full. Secondly, it should ensure that each pupil shall acquire the skills and knowledge which will enable him or her to be an effective and fulfilled member of society, both economically and socially, and so contribute not only to individual well-being but also to the collective success of this nation. Thirdly, because the world is changing rapidly each pupil must be given an attractive invitation to learn by him or herself so as to be able after leaving school to adapt to new circumstances, to tackle new problems as they arise but which cannot be foreseen now and thereby be enabled to be an effective citizen throughout life. Fourthly, and lastly, because as the poet said,
"No man is an island, entire of itself",
222
and because we wish to live in a harmonious, just and civilised society, each future citizen while at school must be made aware of and learn to subscribe to and to observe in daily living certain moral precepts.
Of course, the home and the parents have an enormous part to play in achieving these ends, but school is a great—some would say the greatest—influence in trying to ensure that young citizens become capable, adaptable and socially responsible. One may ask: Who are the key players in school in that enterprise? They are the teachers whom we are in danger of forgetting entirely in the legalistic prose of the Bill. It is they alone who have to make judgments as to how the Johns or Marys in front of them, each highly individualistic, can be taught the skills and knowledge that they need so that on leaving school they are able to think and work for themselves, to analyse and to solve problems, to be open-minded., to work well with others and to understand their rights and, I emphasise, their duties as citizens.
This is a tremendously difficult task which we put upon our teachers and it also makes very great demands on them. It cannot be done by mere "instruction", by which I mean the feeding of students with a kind of predigested pabulum of a detailed national curriculum and by coaching them to succeed in equally detailed testing and assessment procedures. To be of the greatest help to their pupils, teachers must have the training for, and be given the responsibility to adapt their teaching to achieve what they judge to be in the best interests of the individual John or Mary. Teachers have a duty to deliver the best possible service to their pupils in exactly the same way as the doctor has to his patient, the lawyer to his client, the priest to his parishioner, and so forth. In a word, the teachers have to be—and we seem to be forgetting this —true professionals bearing heavy responsibilities from which they must not flinch. To accomplish this, they must be allowed autonomy and discretion to act in the best interests of their pupils, to acknowledge their diversity and to be encouraged to act as partners with government in shaping and delivering the national curriculum and in formulating assessment procedures rather than being (as the Bill implies to some degree) merely the passive conduits of what is handed down through detailed and prescriptive Acts of Parliament and regulations.
Legislative changes during the past few years have established an entirely new educational framework, the twin planks of which are, on the one hand, the principle of autonomy for schools in a competitive market place and, on the other, the national curriculum and testing. These two alone are not enough to make a successful school education system. We also need the active and enthusiastic involvement of good teachers.
I believe that we now have many good teachers. I have noticed that, as compared with 20 or 30 years ago when there was a rapid expansion of the number of teachers to cope with the much enlarged pupil enrolment, the teachers today are better educated and trained and anxious to serve. Just like the members of all major professions, today's teachers are ready and willing to take responsibility for their profession's

223
development and for the determination and maintenance of its standards and codes of conduct. If this self-regulation were to be permitted, I believe that there would be a significant and extremely valuable enhancement of teachers' commitment to their jobs. It has been my experience throughout my time in education that giving responsibility invariably liberates new energies and ingenuity on the part of the recipient.
None of what I have said is new. The Scots, mindful as ever of the value of good education, have always accorded a high respect to the dominie. Some years ago they established a Scottish Teaching Council, the performance and value of which have attracted high praise from the Scottish Education Department. We need something in England and Wales which builds on that Scottish experience. There is nothing in the Bill along those lines, and that omission should be remedied. Here I am at one with the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Guildford. I hope that the improvement will come about during the later stages of the progress of the Bill through your Lordships' House.
That is the matter of omission. Now I turn to the matter of commission, which is my final point. In her opening statement the Minister said that nothing in this Bill confers additional powers on the Secretary of State concerning the universities compared with those he has under the 1992 Act. If that is the case, rather than giving the simple assurance which we have heard this evening, can it not be made explicit in Clause 1(2), where it says:
"In particular he shall exercise for that purpose his powers in respect of those bodies in receipt of public funds",
by adding the phrase,
"with the exception of the higher education funding councils for England and Wales"?
That would make the matter absolutely explicit beyond doubt of any kind. I am bound to say that here I admire the way in which we have had this exegesis of the past history of trying to maintain academic freedom which was given to us so eloquently by the and learned noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: In rising to commend this Bill, I should like to stress above all its coherence. Despite its 276 clauses and 18 schedules, it has a clear primary function, which is to facilitate the establishment of self-governing grant-maintained schools where the parents wish this.
The clauses for the funding agency for schools of Part I and the provisions of Part II are devoted to that end. The next three Parts of the Bill devote themselves constructively to special educational needs, to truancy and to schools failing to give an acceptable standard of education. The sixth and final part of the Bill, dealing with other matters, includes reference to the curriculum and to the institution of the school curriculum and assessment authority to replace the NCC and SEAC.
In his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, surprised me by suggesting that he felt the Bill was lacking in ideals. I should like to remind him and your
224
Lordships, if that is necessary, that it was the Education Reform Act of 1988 which introduced many ideals with the institution of the national curriculum. The national curriculum has been much maligned of late, certainly in the Sunday press last weekend. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, dismissed it in pejorative terms as an act of centralisation, and the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, waxed gloomy—that is the most favourable way in which one could describe of his words—on the subject of the national curriculum.
I feel that there is a serious misunderstanding here. I was in agreement with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said about the active role of teachers. Certainly, it is clear that the quality of education in our schools depends upon the quality of teachers, the quality of their teaching, and the extent to which they are free to teach in an effective manner. But I believe that the national curriculum is very often confused by its critics with a detailed syllabus. The national curriculum sets goals and targets and areas where knowledge is expected to be acquired, but it does not specify how that knowledge is to be conveyed. In good schools—indeed, I think in most schools—the headmasters and headmistresses make it their business to ensure that teachers teach subjects in a syllabus which they themselves construct collectively within the school in an effective manner.
I had the very good fortune to observe that when I had the privilege of being chairman of the national curriculum working party on art. We went round a number of schools, and I was very impressed by the teaching of art and also the extent to which art teachers welcomed the forthcoming national curriculum, which we were in the process of trying to propose and construct for the subject, and the extent to which they wanted a more coherent structure in the subject, as well as an updating which they felt an up-to-date national curriculum in art would provide.
Sometimes art emphasises making and the aspects of knowing or understanding art, the aspects of observing and understanding where creative elements enter in. These factors have not always been clearly stressed in some traditional teaching methods. So I would emphasise that the national curriculum, certainly in that subject—because we completed our work, although I have to say in parenthesis that I was not impressed by the modifications introduced by the National Curriculum Council—was well received by teachers; and in their work they have been able to carry through some of the aspirations they expressed to us. It may be that art gives more flexibility than other subjects, but during the course of our enterprise I had occasion to read the national curriculum provisions for all subjects and I certainly wish that I had been taught maths at school in the manner which the national curriculum makes possible today.
I would say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton—I did agree with most of his remarks—that in most schools most of his aspirations are open to fulfilment by the good teachers who are given the freedom in good schools to operate in the creative manner which he was indicating.

225
The present Bill rests squarely on the Education Reform Act 1988, both as relates to the curriculum and to assessment. I have been astonished at the hostility expressed by some noble Lords opposite to the principle of assessment at the end of the various key stages, at ages seven, 11, 14 and 16. I well understand that the introduction of assessment has not been without difficulties, and that it imposes a burden on teachers. As my noble friend Lady Young said, the best is the enemy of the good, and, if there are very brief and quick assessment tests, that tends towards learning by rote, but, if there are fuller assessment tests, which perhaps give a more sensitive assessment of the position, that takes more time and imposes a burden on teachers. I would remind noble Lords opposite, and two of them who, alas, are not in their places who on the Education (Schools) Bill waxed eloquent on the principle of value added—I do not like the phrase, but it is their phrase and I will use it since it is they who, by implication, I am criticising now—that, if we are to assess value added, we have to assess at various stages. There is no point in merely assessing at ages 14 and 16. We have to assess at ages 7 and 11 and so on, to monitor the progress in the school. We should accept that assessments are often imperfect, and as has been implied correctly, they often apply constraints on teaching which are not always welcome, but that is the price one has to pay. The skill—this is no doubt the difficulty we are going through now to administer—is to strike the right balance, and perhaps we do not have it right this time.
The other element upon which the Bill rests is the Education (Schools) Act 1992, which provides for the regular publication of reports, for inspections and for the publication of inspectors' reports. It is thus that the multiplicity of self-governing grant-maintained schools will have a coherence which they might otherwise lack, parents will be able to monitor and choose, and governors will be able to govern and regulate more effectively.
I am afraid that, like other noble Lords, I have one reservation. It is the new Clause 1. I address myself here to my noble friend the Minister and to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I must say that I had thought that this was a Bill about schools. There is little in it that does not relate in one way or another to schools. So I was surprised to read in Hansard on 2nd March the Secretary of State say in another place of the provisions of the clause that it also covers the colleges of further education, the Further Education Funding Council, the Higher Education Funding Council and the universities.
Why on earth would a Bill about schools cover those provinces? I do not understand that. My noble friend Lady Blatch offered soothing words with almost her customary conviction, but, if it is not intended that the clause should affect the universities, I hope that we may have government amendments in Committee—I owe the suggestion to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—to modify the title from Education Bill to Education (Schools) Bill. That would describe the general intentions of the Bill accurately and would perhaps make those aspects of Clause 1 otiose.
226
So long as this is an Education (Schools) Bill, I hope that it will have the significant and, if possible, full support of the House. It is well-founded upon the Education Reform Act 1988 in a coherent and effective manner.
6.52 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, unlike noble Lords opposite I view the Bill with anger and concern. That the Secretary of State could have the arrogance to compare it with the 1944 Act amazes me. With that Act, there was proper consultation over two to three years with all interested parties. With this monstrosity there was barely two months, and summer months at that. The Bill proposes the creation of a system which will cause more confusion, uncertainty and instability than it resolves. It is of the planning aspect that I wish to speak first.
The Bill envisages that the Funding Agency for Schools will have responsibilities in two main areas. First, it will be the agency that channels grant to individual grant-maintained schools. Secondly, it will have a substantial planning responsibility, duplicating LEA responsibility while the proportion of pupils in GM schools in the primary or secondary sector—they are separate for this purpose—is between 10 per cent. and 75 per cent. and becoming solely responsible beyond 75 per cent.
The two functions are essentially separate. No one disputes that a mechanism is needed to administer the grant arrangements for a growing number of GM schools. The issue for the House is whether the planning responsibilities for the funding agency proposed in the Bill make legal, operational or constitutional sense. I should like to explore each of those aspects further.
We must have laws that can be seen to be made to stick. There must be a remedy before the courts in cases where a public body fails to discharge adequately a duty placed upon it by Parliament. It seems to me that there is an immediate difficulty where the same duty is placed upon two bodies. Which is to be pursued if there is default? Would legal challenge to either be complicated by the fact that precisely the same duty rested upon another which had not taken action? Ministers tend to describe the proposal as a shared responsibility. I do not see it in that light. The Bill proposes identical duties—not powers—for the LEA and the funding agency with no requirement as to how those duties are to be shared, and no arrangement for resolving differences between them. I cannot imagine that that will prove satisfactory in implementation.
I move now to the operational implications of the proposals. In most areas, for the foreseeable future, a mixed economy will prevail with between 10 per cent. and 75 per cent. of pupils being educated in GM schools. On that scenario, the LEA will be responsible for planning the shape of the school system for the area, for establishing new schools, for rationalising surplus places and so on. The FAS will have the same duty. The Bill is a recipe for competing and expensive bureaucracies. In some cases there may be complete harmony. However, the law must provide against the

227
possibility that there will not be harmony. Sixth form provision in schools will be the responsibility of both the LEA and the FAS; sixth form provision in sixth form colleges will be the responsibility of the new further education funding council. Add in the possibility of education associations operating in some areas, and many of us believe that there will be altogether too many cooks in that kitchen. A simple line of ultimate accountability is needed. I hope that the House will amend the Bill to secure just that.
It is tempting to think that that dilemma might be solved by the adoption of a simple hand-over point of, say, 50 per cent. The planning responsibility would then rest with the LEA until half or more of the pupils in the primary or secondary sector were being educated in GM schools when the planning responsibility would pass to the FAS. That would solve the difficulty of parallel duty, but, in my view, would still not provide a sensible longer term mechanism for planning school provision. We need to think about just what is involved in that simple phrase. At the most basic level, new schools need to open in areas of growing population, and seriously undersubscribed schools may need to be closed in areas of declining population.
Proposals of the first kind seldom raise major controversy. Proposals of the second kind almost always do. Many noble Lords will have had experience of strongly argued local campaigns to keep open much loved, although seriously undersubscribed, schools. That is especially true in rural areas. Are we to imagine that closure decisions are to be taken by an appointed agency based in London, or even by regional outposts of such an agency? How are they to understand the views of the local community? How will they know whether, in an individual case, the brutal logic of numbers and finance needs to be tempered by the views of the local community which is willing to bear some modest additional cost to keep its preferred pattern of local schools?
Even in the usually uncontroversial case of a new school being established, how is a remote agency to understand what the community wants? New schools have to be planned years ahead to meet expected demographic change. The planning and organisation would take five years at least, Sir Peter Newsam told the meeting held last Tuesday with the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. Size and location have to fit in with other schools in the area. Sites have to be bought; buildings commissioned; staff appointed; and so on. Can any of that be sensibly done from a great distance? I do not think so.
I suggest that it is a fit, proper and sufficient role for the funding agency to be responsible for channelling grant to grant-maintained schools and for contributing to proposals for the distribution of schools in each area. It is a right and proper responsibility for an elected, accountable local authority to develop proposals for change in concert with the funding agency, local schools and the community and to present those to the Secretary of State for decision. It has long been and should remain the Secretary of States responsibility to decide on proposals presented
228
to him by the LEAs. There should be significant moderation of the powers currently proposed for the FAS and we shall work in Committee to that end.
I turn now to Part III of the Bill dealing with special education. That has had a better reception than most other parts. It seeks to set out the vital principle that special needs pupils should be educated if possible in ordinary schools. Clause 152 introduces an unconditional right for parents to veto that but we understand that that is not the Government's intention. The right not to be segregated is surely a basic human right. Certainly for children with special needs socialising with other children is a crucial part of their education. But it is just as important for the education of ordinary children. With segregation, disability can easily be seen as alien, alarming or inferior. Professionals should be able to identify an integrated place as a special educational need for statemented pupils. Let us remember that the Audit Commission pointed out that mainstream education as well as being morally and educationally desirable is also cheaper.
But there is anxiety that the introduction of the funding agency will fragment responsibility and that the effect of that will be damaging to the education of those children. It is also likely to have a disproportionate effect on those with learning difficulties but without a statement; that is 18 per cent. of the school population. It has been good practice in many LEAs to make a range of services available to teachers and children well before there is any question of full statutory assessment and the possibility of a statement.
Under the proposals in the Bill the LEA will continue to have responsibility for providing additional resources to children with statements in mainstream schools, whether grant-maintained or local authority run. It is not clear, however, that LEAs will continue to have funds for non-statemented children with special needs, nor who will be responsible for providing the additional resources which those children require. When we consider admissions, those children are likely to have a raw deal from schools anxious about their standing in the league tables.
I have the gravest doubts about the wisdom of allowing special schools to opt out. It is not clear whether parents have the right to vote on that and perhaps the Minister will tell us. The organisation of the many support services which special schools need demands local attention and knowledge.
I should like the Minister to clear up one matter for me; I hope that someone will give her the information. It is the position of the 16 to 19 year-olds who have not been treated well in the past. Clause 148(5) states that,
"'child' includes any person who has not attained the age of nineteen years and is a registered pupil at a school".
Presumably that excludes pupils at sixth-form and further education colleges. However, in Clause 157(3) an LEA is responsible for a child if he is in its area and,
"he is not a registered pupil at a school … or over compulsory school age".
That phrase occurs again in Schedule 8. We need to know what is planned for that age group. I hope that I am not just confused by double negatives.

229
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is certain to stress the need for there to be a duty on health, social services, the funding agency, and other LEAs to assist the LEA in meeting its duties under Part III set out along the lines of Section 27 of the Children Act. I would strongly support her in that.
I had hoped to speak of failing schools, of the need to have a "whole school" approach to behaviour, of the need to listen to children's views, of Clause 265 and of a general teaching council, but I shall be merciful. I want to give warning that there will he a cross-party amendment to finish the job of abolishing corporal punishment in this country. Parents in independent schools can still pay to have their children beaten.
There will be a great deal to be done on the Bill in Committee if a viable and fair education service is to be available to all children in this country. The vast interest in this House is shown by the large number of speakers today. I agree with other noble Lords that it is ridiculous that we are not having a two-day debate as we did on the 1988 Bill, which was shorter.
7.5 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, when we were discussing the Education (Schools) Bill in your Lordships' House last spring I remember referring to some of its provisions as elephantine. Here before us we have another elephant. What are the nature and colour of this beast?
I think that the noble Baroness the Minister, who is not in her place, would be surprised if, with my background of teaching in schools and working in local education authorities, I were filled with any great enthusiasm for the Bill. Regardless of one's background, however, there are aspects of its gestation which must give cause for concern. I shall not labour further the points about consultation and drafting, which were so ably made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and other speakers except to emphasise that more than 300 amendments and 20 new clauses had to be added by the Government during the Bill's passage in another place. That does not inspire confidence, especially where something as important as Clause 1 —the former "Clause Zero"—was among the afterthoughts.
Clause 1, of course, has deep constitutional significance. At a stroke, as we have been shown, the old partnership in education between central and local government is to be written out. Where the Butler Act of 1944 gave an express role to local authorities we now read that:
"The Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales".
At a time when the trend in some other European countries is against the concentration of educational power at the political centre, we seem to be going the other way with a host of new powers to the Secretary of State. That was not referred to by the Minister in her otherwise clear and comprehensive introduction. If LEAs wither, as the Government clearly hope they will, the balance will be further tilted against local accountability. I make no apology for repeating those
230
points which the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Ritchie of Dundee, highlighted, because their effects are profound. And they have nowhere been debated. The old checks and balances are going fast.
Viewed educationally, the Bill before your Lordships is largely about opting out; or, to put it another way, it is about the abandonment of the concept of a community of schools. So convinced are the Government of the merits of competition in all spheres of public life that they are prepared to apply the philosophy of devil-take-the-hindmost to the nation's children. It is a theory that has not been tested in this area, and it has not so far found the favour that the Government hoped it would, despite the optimistic pronouncements of the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Some 2 per cent. of eligible schools have so far opted out. That, I imagine, must lie behind the many places in the Bill where the playing field is tilted in favour of the grant-maintained school.
The Government have so far failed to persuade schools on the merits of the case. They have lacked the conviction to legislate en bloc, and so they step up the inducements and the nudges. The financial playing field, as we all know, has never been a level one. The same is true of admissions criteria. Schools can opt out but they cannot opt in again. Why not? There is an assumption in the Bill that no grant-maintained school will be bad enough to require the attentions of an education association. Why? And why, when an education association goes into a local school, should it be able to force it to go grant-maintained without a ballot? Why should LEAs and no one else be restricted in putting their case at the time of a ballot? Why should a special school go grant-maintained without a ballot? Why should governing bodies need a statutory nudge to hold a ballot on opting out every year, if not to ensure that they get the right result in the end? As for the proposed restriction on LEAs providing services to opted-out schools, which so many of them are on record as wanting—Clause 265 —I very much expect your Lordships will hear more of that in Committee. Another issue for Committee stage will surely be the messy arrangements for the interim sharing of responsibility between the funding agency and the LEAs.
One must accept—or at least I accept—that the Government are not just playing politics but that they genuinely believe that these are the right measures to secure a high quality of education in schools, an aim on which we are all agreed. Nor do I believe that everything in this and previous Bills is bad. But two underlying features of this Bill concern me as an educationalist.
One of them struck me as I went through the Bill for the first time. I noted that the first part was about an FAS; the second dealt with GM issues, and later we had the new EAs and then the creation of an SCAA. Unfortunately, there is no mention of a GTC, though we may hear more of that later. I thought, "This Bill is about initials". It is not about children in classrooms, but about structures. Therefore, it suffers from the same defect that has afflicted much of this Government's other legislation on this subject. We have had massive upheavals—change that has driven

231
the education service almost to the point of breakdown—but they have been mostly directed at systems. I really believe—and I hope that I am wrong —that very little of what the Government are doing is likely to improve the quality of children's learning overall.
The second thing that disturbs me I have mentioned on previous occasions. It is the anti-LEA bias which is so evident in the Government's thinking. Whether or not you believe that that particular manifestation of local democracy is beyond redemption, as the Government clearly feel, it is unsettling to find the sheer animus against LEAs per se in so many key places, and it cannot make for sound legislation.
This is not the time or place for a full-blown defence of LEAs. But they do do some things well. There are the county music centres. There are the outdoor centres. There are the grounds staff. There is the strategic oversight of admissions, special needs, school planning, governor training and so on, all of which bring order into sensitive places. If this Bill goes through unamended, it is doubtful whether much of that will survive.
Above all, there is the accumulation of expertise which the present Government prize so lightly. When I moved from teaching in an old-fashioned public school to a suburban comprehensive I found it a breath of fresh air to mix with fellow subject teachers at the local teachers' centre, to attend local courses and later, as an LEA officer, to see something of nursery education in France. I believe it made me a better professional. The new culture will not be as friendly to professional development.
We come back to the concept of a community of schools. In that regard I agree wholeheartedly with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. If there is no such thing as society, then there is no merit in a system of schools. But if there is any sense in which we are part of one another, then it is no bad thing to have some locally accountable agency which can hold the ring and see that the weak get a fair deal, that resources are well distributed, that valued services are not lost and that, for example, a struggling school can be quietly sorted out, and followed up, without the need to send in a demolition squad. Perhaps it is because they recognise these things, and because most LEAs behave reasonably, that the vast majority of schools and parents have shown little interest in what the Government are proposing. I hope that in our later deliberations we can make this into a less dogmatic, educationally sounder Bill.
7.14 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, what high hopes we had for the 1944 Act and afterwards for the comprehensive revolution. Now we have a third major change—grant-maintained schools. I hope that it will be third time lucky, but it will be difficult.
The 1944 Act, which I had something to do with in the early stages, started well. The war had drawn us all together. Both sides of the House—Mr. R. A. Butler and Mr. Chuter Ede—shared in the design of the tripartite system. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of
232
Potterhill, gave the local education authorities a masterly lead and Sir Ronald Gould did the same at the NUT.
The political consensus behind the 1944 Act began to end. It ended because the grammar schools and the 11-plus were under continual attack. At that time I thought, "Well, we'd better give the comprehensive schools a fair trial" and I authorised 150 of them. However, I said as clearly as I could that I was doubtful whether enough teachers who had both the scholastic ability and the administrative experience would be found who could make a success of schools with a staff of 100 and 2,000 pupils. Of course, Shirley Williams was not as cautious as I was. The grammar schools were swept away and replaced by a local authority-controlled network of comprehensives. The results of that have been very patchy and, as regards the less able children, we all know that they have been extremely poor. That is why this Bill is before us today.
There are still some very good comprehensives and especially very good sixth forms, but the quality of teaching did not meet the requirements of the children. Apart from the mistakes of putting political ideology before matching the available teaching to the different capacities of the children—that is what went wrong —we learned from the comprehensive revolution that if a system of schools is turned upside down, whether for good or bad reasons, it takes a long time for the new system to show whether it is worse or better than the old system. I shall return later to that point.
I turn to grant-maintained schools. The aim of the Bill appears to be to persuade all schools to opt out and, in doing so, radically but, as many noble Lords have indicated, clumsily to reduce the powers of the local authorities. I salute the new policy, which aims at improving choice and recognising parents' wishes; that is good. However, the real question is not whether it is good but whether it is attainable, given the terms of the Bill and the declared policies of the department. I doubt that.
I share the views of many of my noble friends that Clause 1 must be amended in order to protect the academic freedom of the universities. However, I shall confine my remarks to schools.
The Secretary of State takes on himself responsibility for education in England and Wales. That is a total commitment to the children and, from my experience, I believe that it will not work unless it is accompanied by an equally firm commitment to the teachers. Of course, the commitment to teachers cannot appear in the Bill. But we expect to see it in the day-to-day actions of the department. After all, in the classrooms throughout the country, who carries out changes in the methods and content of education? It is not the Secretary of State, it is not the noble Baroness who introduced the Bill earlier and it is not the civil servants in Elizabeth House or their clever advisors, whose tidy minds so often fail to take account of the weaknesses of human nature and the differences between one part of the country and another. None of them does the donkey work.
If a considerable number of teachers are either unable or unwilling to teach the national curriculum

233
and be tested or cannot really be expected to handle the behaviour and the background of their pupils, which is very much the case, then we are in for another disappointment such as that which we have experienced twice already. Ministers may say that teachers are now selected, trained and rewarded better than at any time in the past. They may say that they are doing all they can to persuade teachers to back the national curriculum and the Bill. But, for someone like myself with long memories of schools, it appears to me that the Secretary of State is pushing hard in a number of very good directions but is not taking enough trouble to assess the capacity and secure the goodwill of the teachers.
In that connection, I wish that I had time to talk about the local authorities and the schools at risk. But I must end by reminding your Lordships that to implement a major reform takes longer than two Parliaments. Inevitably, therefore, the scheme comes to grief if there is no political consensus behind it. What is the position today? Well, from what we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Judd—and I believe that the same sort of aggressive tone was adopted in another place—if the Labour Party was ever returned to power, it would destroy the grant-maintained schools and, I suppose, return the remains to the local authorities or manage them directly from Whitehall. That would be a recipe for chaos.
One thing we really have learned is that, when you suddenly overturn a system of schools, you put back for a whole generation the raising of standards of education for children. I ask your Lordships to consider the effects of reversing this particular major scheme. I have in mind the effects on the British economy. The Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, and my own party all have very different programmes for dealing with unemployment, investing in infrastructure, encouraging exports, and so on. But each and every one of those programmes depends for its success on the very same thing; namely, the quality of British education in comparison with that of our competitors. Well, we are not winning that race today. But we have to win it.
It will not be possible to provide the vital piece of equipment in this world wide economic war in which we are engaged unless we get a really good form of education backed by everyone. I think that the public would welcome education being taken out of politics. We politicians have plenty of other issues to quarrel about besides education. We all have the same vested interest in getting the schools right. Therefore I look around and ask, "Is it possible to find a consensus today?" I believe that some remarks made by noble Lords in this Chamber and those made in another place prove that it is. An example was given of local authority schools where 80 or 90 per cent. of the budget has been delegated to the head teacher and the governors. That brings them not so far from the position of maintained schools.
In this transitional period, it is essential to have a constructive alliance with the authorities. The Secretary of State may be taking too much power for himself and he may be taking away too many powers from the local authorities. I certainly think that the
234
planning powers of the local authorities and local knowledge are important. You must have knowledge of the locality if you are to plan the school.
Who should take the lead in trying to find a consensus? Without a consensus, we shall be beaten in the economic war in which we are engaged. I think that my party ought to do it because they are in government. There could be much give and take during the Committee stage of the Bill. We shall all suffer if we fight each other over the issue rather than putting the interests of the children first.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, there have already been so many excellent speeches on the general principles underlying the Bill that I shall restrict myself to one limited but important issue. I refer to the future of hospital schools and home tuition. I should first declare an interest as I am chairman of a body called the Open School which provides some services for invalid children. I was concerned with the issue much earlier when, as president of the Consumers' Association, its very critical report entitled Children in Hospital was published. I should also like to express my concern today for the National Standing Conference of Hospital Teachers—a body which includes home tutors—and the Inner London Hospital Head Teachers' Association.
Members of those bodies want the Bill to make it clear that the educational needs of invalid and sick children should be safeguarded. They are not being safeguarded by the Bill in its present form, nor, by the way things are going, are they being safeguarded on the ground. Many of the 200 or so hospital schools in the country and many local home tuition systems are being cut back because of the squeeze on local authority education funds. Moreover, in some parts of the country there is no service at all.
The issue matters because the numbers of children involved are so substantial. In its report published this year on children in hospitals, the Audit Commission estimated that children comprise 16 per cent. of all hospital in-patient admissions. In one recent year, 600,000 children of compulsory school age were discharged from hospital. So the numbers are large.
The issue also matters because if a child's education is interrupted that can be harmful. Being sick is bad enough, but the injury can be compounded if the children are not able to keep up with their schoolmates while they are away from school. Children can fall behind and be unable to catch up with the requirements of the national curriculum. A lifetime's harm can even be done if, for instance, a child is taken sick in the year in which he or she is to take examinations such as GCSE or A-levels. Children may fail examinations partly because they have been away from school at a crucial period.
The need in this area is so great that the teachers of invalid children of whom I have been talking were generally relieved by the White Paper and its proposal that LEAs, instead of having a power to provide education for children not at school, should be placed under a duty to provide it. I believe the teachers will

235
also be pleased by what the Minister said today in opening this debate as regards taking up the proposal in the White Paper. However, the Minister put the emphasis on children excluded from school. Invalid children should not, in my submission, be lumped together with truants but provided for in the Bill as a category on their own.
Invalid and sick children have not been excluded from school for any misbehaviour or the like but have excluded themselves because they were ill. It is surely high time that hospital schools and home tutors should be recognised in legislation as an important part of the education service. Cutting back the expenditure of LEAs is putting all hospital schools and home tutors in difficulties. The only decent way out is for hospital schools and home tutors to join together in a new type of school which should be recognised as a type of its own, alongside and together with special schools generally. They could be called hospital schools as long as it was understood that each such school should have enough home tutors on its staff to look after its young patients after they have gone home.
But whatever legislation states, it will come to nothing without the necessary resources. Many hospital and home teachers would prefer that such new and comprehensive hospital schools should be part of the LEA service. But the fact has to be faced that LEAs will not have the resources to do that. If that is so, many people in the hospital schools would rather be starved to death than seek to become grant-maintained schools. However, if that is to happen, the Government need to accept that it would not make sense for each of 200 hospital schools, with their attendant home tutors, to apply on their own. Some hospital schools will need to come together in federations and there needs to be a general plan or framework which will delineate the areas which different hospital schools will serve.
There needs to be a new relationship between hospital schools, home tutors and the taxpayer if something very precious is to be preserved and maintained; that is, the educational supplement which children receive in addition to the care they receive from the health service when they are taken sick or suffer some grave setback to their health. I hope the Minister in her winding-up speech will be able to say something sympathetic on this subject of hospital schools as that will certainly go down well with the people who are under great difficulties in trying to keep the service going in hospitals and in the home tuition services of this country.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I am extraordinarily grateful for the most generous words spoken by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, at the beginning of this afternoon. I feel therefore all the more churlish when I say that I regard this as a disappointing Bill. However, I must say that.
The Bill bears the marks of haste and a determination to move headlong in a centralist direction which may in the end, I fear, be harmful to
236
the very standards that it hopes to improve. I wish to draw the attention of noble Lords to just a few of the unclarities and omissions in the Bill. Here I am bound to repeat points that have been made already but I do so without apology because there are features of this Bill which have caused widespread anxiety.
There is for one thing considerable confusion in the Bill as it now stands, despite the reassurances of the Minister, about the role of local education authorities. We have heard quite different and conflicting messages about this during the course of the debate. It is far from clear how they will interact with the new funding council, but at any rate there are some matters which I believe it is essential to leave in the control of local education authorities. Those are matters where the policies of individual, autonomous schools, however well-intentioned, are simply not relevant to the needs of a whole area and where therefore co-ordinating, overarching and, above all, local planning are essential.
I shall mention just two of these matters with which I personally have been very much involved. Other matters have already been mentioned in this context. One is the provision of specialist music teaching (that is, instrumental teaching) and such teaching as talented children need if they are to have a chance to become professional musicians, if that is their wish. That kind of teaching simply cannot be managed school by school. Many schools, of course, have good classroom music teaching. Many may employ peripatetic instrumental teachers and many have school orchestras, choirs and bands. Schools can even come together for these purposes with neighbouring schools. But that is different from the long-term and continuous organisation of music which has for more than 25 years been the glory of good local education authorities. Under them a store of instruments has been held to be borrowed or hired. Saturday morning orchestras have been organised and composition workshops have been held. Children have been individually supported and known individually to the local education authority.
As a result, British orchestras are now the best in Europe and the pre-eminence of young British instrumentalists has been positively embarrassing to those selecting players for the European Youth Orchestra. All that depended on the commitment and the resources of local authorities. What was most important of all, no talented child was excluded through poverty from being part of that great musical renaissance. It would be wicked—I can think of no other word—to throw all that away. Incidentally, I would add that specialist music in my experience is a great exemplar of both standards and discipline in schools. Music imposes its own discipline and young musicians are seldom disruptive as they are far too busy and far too committed to improving their own standards and those of their fellows to be disruptive.
My second example of an area over which LEAs must be able to exercise overarching authority—I emphasise that—planning and control is special needs.
That is partially recognised in the Bill, but the issue is still fudged. LEAs are said to be responsible for

237
providing places for children with special needs, and individual schools, whatever their status, are bound to publish their policies with regard to such children. However, there is no clear indication in the Bill as to how the local education authority is to ensure that those policies are implemented.
In any case, individual schools cannot possibly be expected to formulate policies to cover the full range of special needs. A local education authority must ensure placements not only for children with the common types of special needs such as slow learning and disruptive behaviour but for the fewer children with profound, multiple and rare disabilities. No individual school can possibly know the incidence of various disabilities overall in its locality. There must be a planning authority with the responsibility and the resources to ensure that all children with special needs are educated in an effective as well as a cost-effective way.
It seems to me that it is essential that such an authority is local. It must be accountable to its electorate. It must have the feel of the local community. It must know its own sister organisations, its local social services, its own police force and its own health authority. It must be accessible geographically to the parents of the children concerned.
I should like for a moment to pursue the issue of children with special needs. I shall be brief, but I cannot promise to be as brief when we return after Easter. The greatest disappointment concerning the Bill is that it was brought out in such haste that there has been no time for more than a superficial update of the 1981 Act, which now stands as Part III of the present Bill. Therefore, the distinction between children with special needs and those whose special needs merit a statement, placing the local authority under an obligation to make the provision specified in that statement, remains enshrined in the new Bill. That distinction has been reinforced. In 1978 we thought that the distinction was justified, and I shall not go into the question of whether we were right then. However, I am convinced that now the division between two categories of children with special needs is positively harmful to those very children who are the most numerous and who could be best helped.
In the Bill new powers have been given to parents to challenge statements or the non-issue of statements. New tribunals are to be set up where such cases are to be heard. However, the rights of parents with regard to the special needs of their children seem to be identified solely in the context of statements. There is extraordinarily little in the Bill about those other, more numerous children, who have special needs, and who have been assessed as having special needs, and who are therefore also the responsibility of local education authorities but for whom a statement has not been issued and ought not to be issued.
I am afraid that those children, most of them in mainstream schools, will simply disappear from view. They undoubtedly require extra provision and extra support, but their needs are not central to the Bill. We know nothing whatever about the resources that will be available to local education authorities to help them It is far from clear how local education
238
authorities within whose responsibility they fall can ensure that individual schools, with their own separate policies, carry out their obligations to those children. Perhaps we may learn more about that when the code of practice is formulated. I hope so.
It is of the utmost importance that school inspections should take account of the existence of those children with assessed special needs but no statements. We speak sometimes of their constituting 18 per cent. of all children in schools. I suppose that that figure has been plucked from our 1978 report. The figure was originally thought up out of our own heads. We have to remember that in some schools the numbers will be greater than 18 per cent: as many as 40 per cent. of children may be assessed as having special needs at any one time.
Finally, perhaps I may become philosophical for the moment. I believe that since 1981 our view of the educational needs of children has gradually changed. It is, after all, a long time and, as we have heard, education moves on and our view of society changes. Since 1981 there has been a considerable change. That is why I so bitterly regret that no time has been allowed to rethink the ideas of 1981. It is all very well to receive nice compliments on our 1978 report, but nobody likes to be stuck with ideas which they thought up 10 or 20 years ago. The best compliment to a good idea is to develop it rather than to hold on to it for ever. Therefore, I deeply regret that we are stuck with the ideas of 1981.
We are now less inclined than we were then to think of an educational need as something to be identified in isolation and tackled in a particular context, rather as a medical condition may often be treated in the context of hospitals. After all, again and again in the past few months we have had perforce to recognise that the commonest cause of failure at school is failure, disaster, neglect and violence at home. That points to the essential part which early educational intervention can play in saving children from continuing violence and disaster. I truly believe that nothing but early education can save those children who have been the victims of neglect and violence at home.
It is a thousand pities that there is nothing about that aspect in the Bill. The new vision is not a vision of children but one of power, as the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, said. It is a power which teachers must obey and subject to which education authorities must prepare for their own funerals. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has given us a very chilly preview of their obituary notices.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, regretted that he will be absent at the end of this debate and warned your Lordships against a central funding power. I regret that I must he present at the end of this debate, given note of the hour, and I must tell your Lordships that central funding is not so bad as all that.
I spent five of my teaching years at a direct-grant grammar school. It was an admirable institution and the fact that it got its money direct from central

239
government in no way hampered either its independence or its interaction with the local community. It will be rightly argued that the direct-grant grammar schools were the cream of the system. It will also be argued that because they were selective they necessarily throve at other people's expense. I do not accept that, because it it quite evidently not necessary.
But that said, I have immediately to add that one of my most painful duties as Minister for Education in Northern Ireland, where selection was maintained after 1979, was to adjudicate in appeals against refusals to admit children to grammar schools following their 11-plus exam. Both parents and children regarded entry into the grammar sector as the passport to respectability and admission to the other as a badge of failure.
The assumption that academic ability was and is the only yardstick of a child's worth, was and is both wrong and damaging. I hold a torch for grammar schools but nonetheless I ask Her Majesty's Government this question: if the result of the new order of things is an increase in selection, for which there are many arguments, and which may well come to pass, will they ensure that non-selective schools get both the treatment and the resources to ensure their excellence and to secure their proper place in public esteem?
Their pupils are just as much people; just as much the children and the citizens of this country; just as essential to our nation's welfare and every bit as precious to us as those selected, because of their academic ability, for one kind of schooling. If there is a single thing which can be done to bring about the classless society aspired to by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, it is surely a general recognition of that fact and no government can be better placed to start it than the one of which he is the leader.
For the sake of brevity, I shall only refer to religious education by saying that I agree in substance with what my noble friend Lady Cox said in the paragraphs of her speech which related to that. I go on to remind your Lordships that about five years ago a small number of very violent incidents in our schools gave rise to a great deal of public anxiety. As a result, Kenneth Baker, then the Secretary of State for Education, asked me to chair a committee of inquiry into discipline in schools. He agreed that discipline, for that purpose, should be taken to mean everything that tended to make a school work effectively. That was very convenient for our work, but not so convenient for our definitions afterwards.
We mounted the biggest survey ever of the experience and opinions of teachers in England and Wales. We visited a number of training institutions in this country; many schools both here and abroad, and interviewed a great many witnesses. In the process I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, that we did come across thoroughly bad schools in lush suburbs and thoroughly good schools in run-down inner city centres. It was the schools which counted more than the environment.
A number of other things became clear. One of
240
them was that society will no longer do the teachers' job for them when it comes to good manners and discipline. It became clear also that a school works properly only if everyone in it understands its purpose and contributes to achieving it. That obviously goes far beyond the academic staff and I illustrate. We discovered that one of the peak times for disruptive behaviour was just after the dinner break when one might have expected the pupils to be replete and docile as at any time of day. So we looked at what was going on in the dinner hour and what we found was, quite often, mayhem.
Dinner ladies have a critical contribution to make to the running of a school. They are often looking after large numbers of pupils. They have to be able to manage their behaviour. They must therefore be in the confidence of the academic staff and understand the school's policy about that behaviour. That goes for the caretaker and the groundsman as well, if there is one. How does one expect a behaviour policy to work if the school is continually saying one thing and the parents another? We quickly confirmed the enormous importance of home-school links and of parental understanding and endorsement of that policy. Naturally, the governors have a direct interest and responsibility for the effectiveness of their school.
Finally, we looked at the way in which pupils themselves saw school rules and reacted to them. Two things became obvious. Clarity and simplicity were essential if they were to work. Much the most successful were those rules which the pupils themselves had a hand in drafting. Some of the very best conducted schools we saw had rules actually worked out by staff together with the pupils. These, being the property of the pupils themselves, were very effectively enforced by them. Seeing the school as actually their own school, and not that of the staff or the local authority, also made them proud and careful of its appearance. Windows and flower beds were safer there than in other sorts of schools and the graffiti artist and his spray can were public enemies. I believe that it is also possible to identify and deal with bullying a good deal more easily in schools run on those lines.
We concluded that imposed school rules were not the answer. The answer lay in a whole school behaviour policy contributed to, understood by, and supported by all those involved, and simple rules worked up with pupils' support and understanding.
Teachers and pupils from five schools which have adopted whole school behaviour policies on those lines will be coming to tell Members of the parliamentary all-party children's group about the results of doing so tomorrow morning. If the account is as I expect it to be, I hope that the Minister will consider accepting an amendment to encourage other schools to take similar steps.
Before we leave the subject, I should add that, like my noble friend Lady Young, I have been approached by the National Association of Head Teachers. I share the concern of some head teachers for a clearer demarcation of their own and their governors' powers and duties. We shall need to look at that in Committee.

241
Another area of concern centres on exclusions. The Government's understandable desire to harness openness and competition to the drive for higher standards focuses attention on the high achievers among our pupils. It is by their achievement that schools will be judged and low achievers will detract from it.
Low achievers tend also to be despondent, frustrated and often rebellious. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has spoken eloquently of that. Very often good teaching, and a disproportionate amount of staff effort, can discover the potential of such pupils and enable them to achieve too, though not in a way that will do much for the league table position. I am gratified that the Bill gives attention to the needs of those children. Their school days represent the only opportunity the state has to break into the cycle of deprivation and poor parenting in which many of them revolve for generation after generation. Schools should be encouraged to discover the latent ability of difficult pupils rather than offloading them. Can my noble friend say what thought has been given to attaching a financial benefit to such pupils, either statemented or otherwise, which would encourage and enable schools to keep them and teach them rather than passing them on?
We shall need to look closely at the Bill's provisions for exclusions and at the likelihood that, wherever possible, excluded pupils can be rapidly reintegrated into mainstream education, and at the provision for appeals. We should also look at the policy for readmissions and the need for some sort of home-school contract as a criterion or condition for it. In connection with readmissions, I remind those of your Lordships who want to see an end to indefinite exclusions that they are the one instrument a head teacher has to secure the space in which to work out a suitable agreement with parents on how, and on what terms, readmission shall take place.
Our discussions of exclusions generally will be very much more constructive if the Government's response to their consultation paper on exclusions is published in the next few days. Can my noble friend assure the House that it will be known well ahead of the Committee stage as I gather that comments were due by the end of January? Some pupils exclude themselves by playing truant. If they are difficult and disruptive, there may well be a tendency for schools not to be too eager to get them back. Among our 138 recommendations—all but two of which were accepted—was one addressed to the Government proposing an increase to a significant level of fines for people employing children illegally, especially during school hours. Such legislation would sit well with Part IV of the Bill even if not included in the Bill itself. It would be helpful if my noble friend could tell us whether such legislation is either in place or in prospect.
If the Bill can achieve a more flexible, more responsive and more effective education for our children, it will be widely welcomed. But while Parliament can legislate, Ministers can implement, officials can administer and funds can be provided by
242
one agency or another, it is only teachers who can teach. Most of the responsibility and almost all the work will rest with them, whatever we do.
If I saw the paper correctly, today's headline announced the head teachers' boycott of a standard test. I shall not spend time on the merits of the case, but we must recognise that it is a symptom of something that has to be put right if any system is to work. It must be put right by a partnership between the Government and the teaching profession.
We cannot now have a debate about the nature of that profession, but we must be aware, as background to our discussion of the Bill, that it has changed greatly in the past 50 years, partly because of a large and necessary, but over-rapid expansion of education in the after-war years; partly because of the way in which successive negotiations about its members' salaries were conducted; partly, as a consequence of that, because it came to be regarded and to behave increasingly like a trade, not a profession, notably in the teachers' strike.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of that stake (and there were things to be said on both sides) it revealed a willingness in some teachers to put their interests ahead of those of their pupils. That did enormous damage not only to their status but to that of all their colleagues. It altered the way people saw the profession. But the massive, overwhelming, reassuring majority of teachers remain devoted to their work and dedicated to their children. They have been burdened and battered by a succession of changes and they will read my noble friend's assurance that the Bill represents "the last great step" in the process with huge relief. However, it will take much to restore the standing of the profession, and acts of statesmanship on both sides to restore the sense of partnership in education.
In whatever form the Bill emerges from the House, let the Government's policy be to encourage that partnership and both draw strength from it and give strength through it to the teachers' professional associations. They could do worse than re-read what we said about how to develop an effective whole school behaviour policy. Much of it is relevant to how to develop an effective all schools policy as well.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, of the many fine phrases which have been used by the Government—and we have heard more today—I fear that few will bring about the higher standards of education which we all desire. I begin with a matter, referred to by the Secretary of State himself as a "core" issue—he has used the word on a number of occasions—of this huge Bill of 276 clauses and 18 schedules. It is that the schools should become grant-maintained or, to use the common phrase, opt out of LEA control. The philosophy is that the governors know what is best for the school.
I have dealt with many governing bodies. In every case, without exception there was no doubt about their enthusiasm, dedication and determination to do what was best for their children. As an officer myself, it was always a great joy to take the meetings and see

243
those qualities manifested during the course of the meeting. I am sure that that was and is the case in all parts of the country.
I have also had considerable experience of dealing with LEA education committees. I found the same attitude in relation to boards of governors among the LEA committee members. They too were equally determined to do what was best for their children and I am sure that that attitude applied and still applies throughout the country.
There is no question of one being better than the other, to my mind. But the Government's case is that one is better than the other. I submit, therefore, that the basic proposal is fundamentally flawed. There are at least two differences. Education committees see a number of schools at work. They have a wider picture. They see schools with different structures, different procedures, different organisations and different ideas. I believe that noble Lords agree that variety in educational approaches is extremely valuable, not only for schools but for the benefit that committee members derive from it. Two speakers have referred to the great importance of the planning function of LEAs in their area.
The other difference is in some ways perhaps even more important. Noble Lords may have anticipated what I shall say. Education committee members are elected and therefore accountable and in our democratic society presumably that counts for something. The Government regularly inform us how much they believe in democracy and in the field of education it could hardly be more important. I believe that the present system of governors working in conjunction with LEAs has served us very well indeed.
The lack of democratic control runs throughout the Bill. Who controls the funding councils? There is the lack of a requirement for a ballot for special schools to become grant-maintained and there is no opportunity for schools to opt back from grant-maintained status. There is the nature of education associations and many other matters. Those restrictions are, in my view, little short of scandalous.
It would be helpful if the Minister, when replying to the debate, would tell us—this has been referred to on a number of occasions already—how many additional powers the Secretary of State accrues to himself under the Bill. I assure the noble Baroness that it is a genuine inquiry. We heard the figure of 44, and I have heard it put at up to 100. Many noble Lords have so far correctly talked about how power is now accruing to the centre and to the Secretary of State. Had there been four powers accruing to the Secretary of State, it would have been an important matter. If there are about 44, we are in dangerous waters. It is hardly the forward march of democracy to which the Government pay so much lip service.
To remove education from local government is not only a huge step away from local democracy but also a fundamental change in what has been a basic constitutional balance in this country for many years. All of us have been proud of the notion of partnership in most forms of educational practice in our country. It has stood the test of time. The reluctance to change
244
that balance is surely one reason why there has been such a poor response from schools to become grant-maintained despite the incentives provided by the Government to opt out.
The Bill is far removed from the realities of parental concern. Parents' anxieties are not with the bureaucratic nonsense contained in much of the Bill. Parents are worried about oversize classes, lack of books and equipment, the physical state of our schools, the provision of nursery education and similar matters which must hit the Secretary of State and any Minister between the eyes every time they enter a school.
There is an overwhelming reason why the Bill should not have been introduced. Our teachers are sick to death of the many changes constantly being thrust upon them. Time and time again when talking to teachers, we are told—I am sure this is the experience of every noble Lord—"For heaven's sake, let us settle down to a few of the changes we are asked to make before giving us another dozen to cope with."
It can give no pleasure to any of us to witness the low morale of teachers. Among many other factors, teachers resent the lack of consultation, not least in the preparation of this Bill. The Secretary of State praises the work of the teachers occasionally, but I have the clear impression that for some of the time it is lip service. I say that because the Secretary of State is so quick on many other occasions to criticise the profession. The Department for Education, I suspect, will not have received many letters from teachers praising the Bill.
If the Government had any real respect for teachers, they could have demonstrated it in an important way with the Bill. They could have proposed a general teaching council, or whatever they preferred to call it, to compare with parallel professional organisations. Such a body would not only raise the status of the teaching profession in the eyes of the public and parents; it would raise the standards and the morale of teachers themselves.
A number of us in this House and in another place —I know that my noble friend Lord Glenamara has done so—have raised the matter on a number of occasions. The Government's reply has been, "It should come from the teachers themselves." That is a demonstration of the lack of interest of the Government. The noble Baroness shakes her head. I was about to say that the feeling has built up in recent months. I believe that she would agree. The proposal now comes from the teachers themselves. We shall see how the Government respond. There is a strong feeling for such a body among teachers. If the Government were to agree to meetings very soon, I predict that a general teaching council would be established within a matter of months. For once, let the Government take the initiative in the matter.
Perhaps the most bizarre part of the Bill is that which establishes education associations, bodies which can take over so-called failing schools. "Take over" includes the power to close schools. The first question to be asked is: who is to decide when a school fails? And associated with that question is another. Exactly what constitutes a failure? Presumably the

245
privatised inspectorate will have a say in deciding, and that does not inspire confidence. It may be a strong comment to make, but all schools fail in some way at some time. Failure can be caused by lack of teaching staff, lack of specialist teachers, lack of facilities or for a number of other reasons. Designating a school as a failure requires the most careful examination; and to establish a new body with the powers proposed in the Bill cannot he justified. An education association can either close a school or change it into a grant-maintained school without a parental ballot. So much for the much vaunted importance of parental ballots. What local accountability will there be? How will the staff be transferred? Will the LEA be given an opportunity to improve a school before an education association is brought in? I am glad to see that the Minister nods. It is a fundamental matter and I am pleased that we have some information and agreement on it. Those are only a few of the many questions to be answered before such a drastic step is taken.
It is important that something be said about parental choice, not least because the Government place such importance on it. It is important. Choice should be met whenever possible. But the Government deliberately raise false hopes. It is never possible to meet the wishes of all parents. It is an organisational problem involving quite heavy additional expenditure which simply cannot be met. The Government know that, and they should not give the impression that it can be achieved. The Government exacerbate the position by their constant repetition that they are to get rid of surplus places. Having surplus places in our schools is a real problem. It can lead to the closure of schools. The Government frequently say—they said it very recently—that they will not hesitate to close schools where they think it necessary. My understanding is that the Government wish to remove 1.5 million surplus places. If that figure is incorrect, I hope that the Minister will give an accurate one, because reconciling that figure with an extension of parental choice would be a most interesting exercise. I say to the Government: let us have less hypocrisy in the matter. They know that there are real and considerable restraints in parental choice. It does no good either to parents or to their children to pretend otherwise.
I said earlier that the Bill did not deal with the realities of education today. That is a major criticism of the Government's thinking. But equally important are the missed opportunities which are so blatant. Think of what could have been said and done about nursery education. We have all received lots of letters about nursery education. We welcome them, although we did not need them; we know the importance of it. Think of what could have been done about adult education, particularly with 3 million unemployed; about teacher education and training; about strengthening and developing partnerships instead of the divisive proposals in the Bill; and about the progress required in special educational needs, about which we have very properly heard so much in the debate.
Where would the money come from for those important issues? First, from the millions wasted on
246
the bureaucratic structures to be set up in the Bill's proposals. That would form a useful debate in itself. Secondly, by the Government deciding, as a matter of fundamental political philosophy, to devote more resources to education. In real terms, spending on education each year since 1979 has been less than that of other government departments. If the Government were to spend the same percentage as was spent in 1979, an additional £1.5 billion would have been spent on education in the last year alone. I believe that a heavy price will be paid for those missed opportunities. The Government are in the process of establishing an expensive and unbalanced structure which will not meet the needs of individuals or of the country in the coming years.
If the traditions of this House were such that we could vote against this measure tonight, there would never be more justification for going into the Lobby. In the circumstances, we can only earnestly hope that the Government will listen seriously to what will be said in the remaining stages of the Bill and change the ill thought-out parts of this pedestrian, divisive and completely inadequate measure. George Bernard Shaw said that you can get used to anything, so you have to be very careful what you get used to. Truer words were never spoken. I feel optimistic that the people of this country will not allow themselves to get used to the mish-mash which has been presented here today and that change cannot come too soon.
8.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Emperor Charles V, giving advice to his son told him:
"You yourself know how sadly the present Pope lacks all zeal for Christendom. Nevertheless, respect his office".
In dealing with the Secretary of State for Education, I think that we ought to reverse that maxim. The Secretary of State for Education enjoys a considerable and deserved reputation as a scholar. Since his field is within shouting distance of my own, I think I can say that with reasonable confidence. But, though we respect his scholarship, nevertheless, restrict his office. And I say that with the authority of the Secretary of State himself.
The Secretary of State, in his Swinton Lecture in 1991, argued that it was the duty of Parliament to control the Executive. If he gets his Bill through this House substantially unamended, he will have succeeded in refuting his own Swinton Lecture.
We too on these Benches, quite as much as the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, on his, see this as a centralising Bill. It puzzles us very deeply that there seem to be some people opposite who do not see it in the same way. The confusion deepens when we get to the point of discussing compromise, which at some stage in any Bill we must do. It helps to understand the underlying objectives of the other side. Practically none of us can make sense of the underlying objectives of grant-maintained schools. Ever since 1988, I have listened long and hard. I beg the noble Baroness to take on board that this is a genuine inability to understand. I listened to the phrases that the noble Baroness used today: "extending parental power" and "control of their own affairs". But it seems to me that

247
the schools are still answerable to the funding authority, and they only have those powers provided they do what the Secretary of State wants.
Looking at this Bill, it is perfectly clear that it is designed to increase pressure on schools to opt out. In fact, there is a power to choose, provided they choose the right thing. Clause 28(1) (g) brought that home to me particularly clearly. It gives the Secretary of State power to declare a ballot void if the result is brought about by information appearing to the Secretary of State to be,
"to a material extent false or misleading".
I have no love for misleading information. If it were to be declared misleading by the courts, I should be perfectly happy. But the noble Baroness knows as well as I that in a heated political debate each side comes out of the Chamber accusing the other of having put forward misleading and inaccurate information. We have heard that outside this Chamber many times after a hot debate. In my view, that one side and not the other should have power to ban information which it regards as inaccurate and misleading is profoundly undemocratic.
Like many other noble Lords, I am surprised that the Secretary of State can say that he believes in freedom of choice when there is no provision for opting back. It makes the Secretary of State sound a little like Uncle in Ruthless Rhymes:
"Gloomy, gloomy, was the day
When poor Aunt Bertha ran away;
But Uncle finds today more black,
Aunt Bertha's threatening to run back".
I shall not run through the other clauses. Other people have dwelt on them already. But I feel that the Secretary of State cannot claim to be in favour of freedom of choice until he changes his name by deed poll to Hobson. I also have considerable doubt about how the funding council will obtain the information to deal with and assess school needs in every corner of the country. I share those doubts with others. Mrs. Thatcher, as she then was, giving an interview to the Sunday Times on 5th June 1988, said,
"The department of education and science could not make all the decisions with regard to schools. It would just not be possible. They would not know the circumstances".
NALGO agreed, and when NALGO agrees with the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, something remarkable is going on. NALGO pointed out that, to assess needs for school places, one does not need only educational information. One needs to know about likely building of future housing; one needs to know about likely future employment; about which factory may be in danger of closing down. I have yet to be convinced that there is any mechanism in place to enable the funding councils to know those things.
Like others, I am extremely bewildered by the system of dual control between the Secretary of State and the funding councils, when we are in the stage between 10 per cent. opted out and 75 per cent. I can think of only one similar previous system in recorded history and that is the consuls in the Roman Republic. I once visited the site of the battle of Cannae, the most disastrous defeat the Roman Republic suffered. I was surprised to find that they fought the battle from a well-chosen defensive position. I checked what had
248
happened and found that they chose the position on the day when the good consul was in charge and fought the battle on the day when the bad consul was in charge. I wonder whether this dual control will lead to an arrangement rather like that. When I look at Clause 17 of the Bill I find once again that we are back with Hobson's consul, because any dispute will be resolved by the Secretary of State.
The basic purpose of the Bill is to introduce the funding council system. Some of the briefing argued that that system is new, but for anyone in a university of course it is not. We have had five years of it. The words which introduce the funding councils are copied almost directly from the words setting out the Universities Funding Council in 1988, with all the same faults, including the inability of the funding council to give advice in public—with one significant difference. The universities funding council had an academic representation. I do not see why there is no provision for a representation of teachers on the funding authority for schools. That is something we may address later.
What was that system for? First, it was to introduce a system of accountability. Nobody objects to accountability, but the Government's appetite for accountability and the level to which they take it are remarkable. I am reminded of one of my neighbours when I was a boy, who was an old soldier with a collection of First World War cartoons. In one of them a soldier was cowering in a dugout with shells exploding all around him holding a shaking field telephone to his ear from which a voice was emerging saying, "Colonel Fitzshrapnel orders you to indent immediately for 15 jars of raspberry jam received on 17th ult". It was hardly the man's top priority and his expletives were deleted from the cartoon.
In thinking of that, I cannot help thinking that the Government have been rather unlucky in their public service professions. They remind me indeed of King Henry VIII, after executing his fifth wife, complaining of his misfortune in meeting such ill-conditioned wives!
The funding council was concerned with efficiency. I shall not say any more about efficiency, except that, if we have any more efficiency, things will not work at all. It is extremely difficult to hold a funding council accountable. One can talk to members of the funding council but all one finds out is that such-and-such a thing is policy. They do not appear to believe that they themselves are in any position to alter it. It is quite difficult to question Ministers in this House. They simply say that it is a matter for the funding council. How we hold a funding council to account, therefore, is something about which I am not awfully sure.
Believe me, funding councils are not infallible any more than anyone else. In fact, they seem to operate as the Secretary of State wishes. I am reminded of the Member for Newcastle in the Reformation Parliament, who said that free speech in Parliament was of very little use because at the end of the day, "Whatsoever Cromwell says is right, and none but that". I think we all know how he felt.
I listened with great interest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on Clause 1.

249
I listened with care to the reassurances of the noble Baroness on that subject. I was relieved to hear her say that the Bill introduces no new powers in relation to the universities. In that case I want to ask the noble Baroness why it is necessary to have a clause in the Bill that covers universities. I will not enter into an argument about the autonomy of the universities. This is not the place to do so and my prime contention is that the Bill is not an appropriate vehicle to change the law in relation to universities. If that is to be done I hope that we will have a proper Bill introduced to do it and then we can discuss it.
I am concerned also about the treatment of "at risk" schools. I will say to the noble Baroness what I once said to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, when we were discussing the Further and Higher Education Bill. "Do not mistake poverty for mismanagement". I hope that she will respond as sympathetically as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, did. Management is not the only reason for which a school may fail. In some cases, such as the London Borough of Brent where I live, local authorities may leave a school so short of money that they are practically forcing failure upon it. I do not want to see that become a machiavellian route for forcing opting out.
It is particularly unfortunate that we deal with raw data of a school's performance and not in weighted data. This may make it easy to miss neighbourhood reasons for the school's failure. In the ward next door to my own, Carlton ward, Kilburn, 37 per cent. of the population are on means tested social security benefits. I cannot believe that that has no influence on the performance of the school and I should like to see this taken into account before a school is found to be at risk.
It is very difficult to get these things through. I am left thinking of the verdict that one of my academic colleagues passed on a former Lord Deputy of Ireland:
"His object was to produce an administration entirely unresponsive to its local environment".
This is perhaps a case of E.M. Forster's law—it is the tragedy of life that one gets what one wants.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Earl made a number of important points. I agree with some of them but not with others. He spoke entrancingly and I am sure that all noble Lords greatly enjoyed his speech. This does not apply to the noble Earl's speech but, having listened to a number of speakers in the debate, I believe that we should keep reminding ourselves that this Bill is about moving from the present to the future. It is not about the past. Some of the measures are new but the majority are follow-up proposals carrying forward changes which date from 1988 and are now beginning to develop.
Big decisions for schools in England and Wales were then put in place. The vision was established that there should be a national curriculum, that the user-friendliness of schools and the job satisfaction of teachers had to be enhanced, that it should be done by local management and by devolving the budget away from local politicians and their officials to schools, and
250
that there should be the opportunity to go even further and apply, if schools wanted to do so, to leave the local authority altogether. That was all settled in 1988. There was a great fuss at the time and some noble Lords seem to want to relive the debate all over again. It was decided then. It is now happening and beginning to work and to show considerable benefits to schools and their pupils.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, identified, as only he can, what it is that young people need from schools and what makes for active and involved teachers. He spoke of the advantages of self-regulation of the teaching profession. As a Scot, and from experience, I agree with him. But the noble Lord must be pleased, as must other noble Lords, by the recent report of Her Majesty's inspectors on the effects so far of devolving budgets to schools. The inspectors tell us that local management of schools is sharply management focused and staff are participating more fully in forward planning for their schools. They report that there is more spending on books, equipment and materials and, most importantly, that there is a positive effect on morale at every level in schools. That must be good news for young people and their parents.
On the opportunity to leave local authority control altogether, we have heard that some 1,500 schools, including the majority of secondary schools, seem likely to be self-governing by April next year, and so the trend goes on. The Grant-Maintained Schools Centre states that more than 80 per cent. of its member schools report increased pupil numbers already. All primary schools and nearly 80 per cent. of secondary schools are employing more teachers. The majority of schools have better pupil-teacher ratios than before, have introduced new subjects and have increased spending on books and equipment. That must be good news for the children in those schools.
The national curriculum has won broad acceptance. My noble friend Lord Renfrew spoke about that and I shall not reiterate his remarks. It is all beginning to happen and now procedures have to be set in place to carry the process forward. I hope that this House will not continue to look backwards but will fulfil its traditional and most important role and look constructively and pragmatically at the Bill's proposals and do all it can to ensure that they are workable and practical.
The setting up of funding bodies for self-governing state schools is not optional. It is absolutely essential. What other way could there be? I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, who was critical, can think of one, and I certainly hope that it will not be too clumsy an elephant. It will be a system a little like the system for university funding and the system agreed in 1992 for further education colleges. I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that not many of the former polytechnics or further education colleges would want to return to working under local authorities.
There are special problems to be met by this part of the Bill and the noble Baroness, Lady David, identified some of them. The new funding bodies will need to cope with a growing number of schools and at

251
the same time the old funding bodies—the local authorities—will be catering for a falling number of schools. There are not only problems but enormous opportunities offered by the change. It is interesting that the teachers pay review body has pointed out that under the present system local authority discretion in allocating its resources between education and other services and the associated interaction between central and local government contribute considerably to the fog which surrounds the flow of funding to schools. It suggests that much greater transparency of funding and greater clarity for schools about how their total funding has been decided upon would greatly help them to manage better and make better use of the money for their pupils.
We will need to ensure that the Bill minimises the problems and maximises the potential benefits and opportunities for local authorities and the new funding bodies. We shall need to look at the effect of schools remaining within local education authority control and whether the increase next month to 90 per cent. of the proportion of the budget devolved to schools will be enough to ensure that the benefit of local management is preserved for them. The Association of County Councils is naturally and rightly anxious about that. The House must pay attention to it.
We shall need to look at the balance of advantage of the limit to two years of the period during which self-governing schools can purchase services from local authorities. One noble Lord has already mentioned that point. It is causing anxiety to local authorities and also to the National Association of Head Teachers. We shall need to look at the phasing the Bill proposes for the changeover of responsibility for ensuring that adequate numbers of school places are locally available and, extremely importantly, we shall need to consider the question raised by the National Association of Head Teachers, and already mentioned by my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Elton, as to whether the Bill should not contain a clear definition of the role of the head teacher of a self-governing school in relation to the role of the governors. The evidence is that such clarification would not only greatly help the effectiveness of head teachers as leaders and managers, as chief executives responsible to the governors, but it would also, very importantly, help schools to attract the kind of governors they need. I shall hope to join in putting down amendments to that end. There are many important proposals in the Bill, but I shall not go on. I look forward to a fascinating Committee stage.
8.39 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, if I can secure the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, I should like to tell her that I have six Scottish grandchildren. But that hardly equips me to reply to her speech. Now that she has been liberated from the attentions of her noble friend, perhaps I may proceed along my own line.
Members of your Lordships' House will no doubt have read Tom Brown's School-Days and will
252
remember the question that Tom Brown's father asked himself when Tom was being sent to Rugby for the first time. It was, "Shall I tell Tom to say his prayers?" Then he thought, "If he won't say them for his mother's sake, he won't say them for mine." I therefore leave religious education almost entirely to other authorities.
We heard an authoritative statement from the right reverend Prelate giving the view of the Church of England, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, will no doubt honour us with his presence in due course. I have complete confidence even in his absence that he will speak with authority about the position of the Catholic Church. Who knows? Perhaps he is receiving last minute briefing from the cardinal.
I have been advised by Catholic experts that there is much to be worried about in the Bill. The director of religious education in the Westminster diocese sent me some correspondence between the cardinal and the Minister in which the cardinal expresses some grave anxieties. The director of education in the diocese of Birmingham has pointed out his great anxieties also. Therefore, although I feel a duty to say something on the subject, I shall leave it to the noble Duke. If, however, he has been taken ill, I shall have to say something about it myself. Assuming that the noble Duke is in good health, he will speak with all authority from the point of view of the Catholic Church when he returns to the Chamber. He has returned—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Longford: I was hoping that the noble Duke would take his place and would give me an imprimatur. I must leave these great matters of religious education to the right reverend Prelate and to the leader of the Catholic community, the noble Duke.
I shall speak about one issue and do so only briefly. I refer to the question of how to improve the moral condition of this country. Many grave anxieties have been expressed about the alleged moral decline. Although I shall not go into the reasons why—certain appalling crimes probably triggered it off—that concern is widely expressed. I do not want anyone to suppose that I am one of those old gentlemen who thinks that the whole place has gone to the dogs since my time. In some ways this country is better, but in other ways it is much worse, than when I was growing up. In the 1930s the old age pension was 10 shillings a week. However one multiplies that to allow for inflation, it is still an appalling amount by modern standards. Many of my noble friends sitting around me at the moment know the North East coast and do not need me to tell them that many of the unemployed were close to starvation in the 1930s. In those respects, therefore, we are a much better and more compassionate society today.
On the other hand, however, when I started prison visiting in Oxford in that same period of the 1930s there were 10,000 people in prison. The figure rose to 50,000 at one point but is now slightly less. At any rate there are now more than four times as many people in prison than there were in those days. If one asks for an explanation, one hears that it is because crime has greatly increased. It has increased steadily by about 5

253
per cent. per year not only here but in other Western countries also. One must take note of that. There are also more broken homes than in former times. It is therefore difficult to say that this country is better. However, I would not go so far as to say that it is worse. At any rate, let us agree that a real opportunity has arisen, through public concern, to do something about the moral condition of this country.
I do not believe anyone would dispute my submission that the moral education provided in schools has a great influence on the moral state of the country later on. Various governments have been in power, and we know that they have a great responsibility for the social conditions prevailing. The home is also a great influence. However, tonight we are discussing education. I do not believe that anyone could disagree with the proposition that the moral education provided in schools has a profound, long-term and ineradicable effect on the moral state of the country.
So what do I propose? My recommendation is simple and should appeal to both the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and to my eloquent and noble friend Lord Judd. It is a return to Christian morality. More emphasis should be placed on Christian morality. I am not talking about religious education but about Christian moral teaching. I leave out the question of religious education, considered in the narrow sense, tonight. We want a return to the Gospels.
Where do we begin? Still on the ethical side, surely every child should be taught that he or she must love his or her neighbour like himself or herself. The Chief Rabbi will tell me that that comes from Leviticus so we do not heed to have any difference with our Jewish friends on that point. That is only a beginning, but emphasis must be laid upon it. If I may say so, the trouble with humanists (using the term in its widest sense) is that they have no sacred books. Although Marxists have sacred books, I do not think that at this time of the day any of us would want to start searching for moral truths in Karl Marx. Let us, therefore, approach the matter from the point of view of the Gospels.
Before concluding, I should like to mention two other aspects of Christian teaching which are very relevant to the moral life of the country. One is purity and the other is forgiveness. Christian teaching (and, I believe, Jewish teaching) is that all sex outside marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is sinful. How many political or religious leaders are saying that loud and strong today? But if they do not say it loud and strong, there will not be fidelity in marriage, and fornication before marriage will lead to adultery afterwards. We will then have plenty of broken homes and plenty of crime in the next generation. That is why I say that the insistence on purity should be proclaimed afresh although I know that that is a harsh saying in the eyes of the younger generation, and perhaps of the older generation also.
Christian forgiveness is fundamental to forgiveness. One could argue with the Chief Rabbi about to what extent the concept of forgiveness can be discovered in the Old Testament and the Talmud. At any rate, the
254
concept of Christian forgiveness can certainly be discovered in the Gospels. Christ said to the woman taken in adultery:
"Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more".
In the end, everyone will be forgiven if we follow His words on the Cross:
"Father, forgive them, they know not what they do".
When we present a harsh doctrine, let us never forget other Christian messages. I do not know where this comes from (perhaps some more learned person will be able to tell me) but we must hate the sin but love the sinner. Christianity is a message of law, but above all, it is a message of love.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and I happen to share many interests and views and it is a singular privilege to follow his appreciation of the moral state of the country, religious education, a return to the Gospels and everything else that he said, with which I agree without any hint of reservation.
If the heart of education lies in the art of the calling of the teacher, as was expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, in a memorable speech which I for one shall never forget, to interest and inspire each pupil to learn according to his ability, then assuredly the new regime proposed by Part III of the Bill, of which your Lordships' House is the progenitor, enhances that art for the benefit of that vulnerable group of pupils with a learning disability, because Part III serves to establish an entirely new sense of partnership between all concerned with the educational welfare of those pupils. It defers also to parental authority. I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Longford, would agree with me on that. It reflects a depth of consultation not previously afforded. I can speak to that from my own knowledge and experience in my dealings with my noble friend Lady Blatch. It avoids the disparity of treatment which obtains under the existing regime, the Act of 1981, which cannot be said to have served its intended purpose. On that I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, would agree.
The code of practice—one has to speak in almost telegraphic messages now—will provide the essential implementing machinery. It will make provision for the procedure and time-scale under which the LEAs are to make assessments and then, if appropriate, statements of special educational needs. It will make provision for annual reports from schools to parents on implementation of their policies, for early identification of special educational needs, for a sound framework of LEA implementation with adequate support services, and I hope for expert representation on the funding councils. It will make representation on matters of concern to your Lordships expressed in a Private Member's Bill but which do not call for repetition at this hour. Perhaps, too, the hope is that it will make provision for the setting up of an informal complaints procedure by each LEA, which is a way whereby the parents can informally air their grievances without invoking the formal jurisdiction of the new tribunal.

255
The status of the code, according to Clause 149 of the Bill —this is a matter of considerable importance —is to give practical guidance in respect of the discharge by LEAs of their functions under Part III of the Bill, and then a duty is imposed on the LEAs or any other person exercising functions for that purpose,
"to have regard to the provisions of the code".
The status of the code, which must always be enshrined in primary legislation and, if not, can never be changed other than by primary legislation, is not only advisory and for guidance; it also imposes a duty of compliance which, having regard to the new statutory appellate machinery, the new tribunal, has a measure of legal efficacy.
The duty to take into account and implement a positive, clear, categoric duty instead of a wishy-washy "have regard to" which is relevant only to the advisory type of code, which this is not, would be appropriate. I take great comfort from a superior and totally independent judgment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, because I thought that I might have got it wrong. If the noble and learned Lord thinks I have got it right, that is a comfort. This is something that has gone wrong by mistake. I am not criticising the Government. What has happened is that they have used the traditional form for the advisory code, which is perfectly right, but this is not just an advisory code because it involves duties which import legal efficacy. Therefore, we must not use the type of trigger clause which is appropriate for an advisory code. It sounds very technical but it is desperately important when we come to see how the legislation is to be enforced under the new appellate machinery.
I only ask that my noble friend the Minister takes this and the all but sub silentio assent of my noble and learned friend into account and seeks to take advice on the matter, because at one remove, if an amendment along these lines were to be introduced, this would in effect clarify and render wholly effective the appellate jurisdiction under the new independent tribunal to which parents have direct access along the lines originally proposed in what have been called the Cavendish papers, which were, as your Lordships will inevitably have forgotten because it was so long ago, the first proposal for the Private Member's Bill which was not at all acceptable to the Government.
In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords who attended the debates on the Private Member's Bill. I thank my noble friend Lady Blatch who announced the intention of government to legislate. I thank all noble Lords for the advice they gave me to stay my hand and withdraw the Bill. It is not easy when you get stuck into something to pull out, but I am grateful to them. In particular, my noble friend Lord Elton was the decisive voice on that.
I also wish to thank and acknowledge publicly my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who stood unobserved at the Bar of your Lordships' House for great periods of time to listen to the argument. How often, I ask, does that happen in your Lordships' House? Finally, and it comes rather strangely from
256
me, so it must be true, I wish to thank the officials in the department and the draftsmen of Part III of the Bill who have devised a legislative framework which is vastly superior to the extant regime under the 1981 Act or, indeed, as was proposed in a certain Private Member's Bill.
9 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, there will be no prizes for guessing that I too will concentrate upon Part III of the Bill and special educational needs. The changes the Government have introduced will be welcomed warmly by parents: the decisive powers of the new tribunal; the additional grounds for appeal against an LEA's decision; and the new right to express a preference for a particular named school will be especially welcomed by parents seeking an integrated placement.
Part III of the Bill, as it stands, goes no further than the 1981 Act towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in mainstream schools, which I would have welcomed, but that was never the Government's intention. The aim was to tighten the nuts and bolts and to ensure that the existing legislation worked more efficiently. It took account of the changing educational scene. I shall leave the broad issues to others tonight and concentrate mainly upon the nuts and bolts, although the words of my noble friend Lady Warnock are ringing in my ears—that the compliment to a good idea is to develop it, not to be stuck with it.
The Minister referred to the constructive contributions by various organisations. I have to say that the Government consulted widely, listened and in turn responded constructively. There were also valuable additions in Committee in the other place. However, some of the nuts and bolts still need to be tightened. For example, there is a need to clarify the specific duties laid upon LEAs under Clause 152; that is, just what is involved when they have to explore whether the conditions specified can be met. Secondly, another example arises when we deal with appeals. There are now six situations in which a parent can appeal against an LEA's decision. That is most welcome, but in only one of those situations (when a statement is first issued) can the parent see all the professional advice at the time of the LEA's decision. That advice will eventually be disclosed at the tribunal. If the Bill were amended to give parents the right to see all professional advice at an early stage, parents could make an informed decision. Indeed, they might even decide not to go to the tribunal, which would save time and trouble.
So much for the nuts and bolts. There is however one aspect of Clause 152(1) which is a withdrawal from the principled position on integration adopted in the 1981 Act. The noble Baroness, Lady David, has already spoken about it, so I shall try to be brief, but I may not be very brief because I wish to highlight my concern.
Under Section 2 of the 1981 Act, an LEA must consider the possibility of a mainstream placement for every child with a statement. There is a balance between the statemented child's right to consideration

257
for a place in a mainstream school, the parents' rights to have their view taken into account after assessment and, ultimately, the LEA's power and responsibility to make a decision in the best interests of the child. Under the 1981 Act, the child's best interests—not the parents' preference—were paramount.
Clause 152, which replaces Section 2 of the 1981 Act, will change all that. A parent will have the power to relieve an LEA of its duty to consider integration as an option for a child, a power which the parent will exercise before assessment and without the benefit of professional advice. If Clause 152 is unamended, we shall be enacting a shift from the position where every statemented child has the right to be considered for integration to one where that will be conditional on the parents' wishes. It would surely be a unique development in education law in this country if parents were given the power to relieve an LEA of a legal duty towards a child—a duty which Parliament under the 1981 Act clearly believed to be of benefit to the child; that is, exploring the possibility of the child's integration. It is a development which should worry not just supporters of children's rights but those who believe that the paramount purpose of special needs legislation is to identify and then secure the provision which is in the child's best interest.
IPSEA (the Independent Panel on Special Education Advice), of which I am a director, has obtained the views of two leading experts in education law: solicitor Peter Liell and barrister John Friel. Both believe that the changes give parents a veto not just on an LEA's duty to consider integration (which the Government apparently intend) but on any actual proposal made by an LEA to provide integrated education for a child with special educational needs. The DFE says that that is not its intention, and does not accept Liell and Friel's opinion on the effect of Clause 152.
I hope that the Government intend neither effect. I hope that, rather than leave it to the courts to interpret Clause 152, we can sort this out in discussion or in Committee. I cannot believe that it is the Government's intention to retreat from the aim of the 1981 Act in that respect, given the many welcome measures they have introduced to ensure the more efficient working of existing legislation for children with special educational needs.
9.6 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, first, I acknowledge with appreciation the Government's willingness to listen to and to meet the points raised by the church bodies during the Bill's passage in another place. The Bill, as introduced in October 1992, has been amended in a number of material ways as a consequence of the Government accepting suggestions made by the Church of England and the Catholic Church. For the Catholic Church, I am obliged to record with gratitude that the due consideration promised on Second Reading by the Secretary of State in another place, in the matter of what is now Clause 220, which originally related to a proposal whereby a local authority might be granted the power to propose a change of character, but not the religious character,
258
of voluntary-aided schools, has resulted in the placing of a government amendment which is broadly acceptable to the Churches.
Elsewhere, the Bill has been amended in response to suggestions made by the Catholic Education Service. That is gratifying evidence of the Government's willingness to listen to, and act upon, the constructive and helpful advice which the Catholic Church's official education agency has provided. Only last week, at a meeting of the Catholic diocesan schools commissioners, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, speaking about the education association said:
"I have been greatly encouraged that it has been possible to reach agreement that voluntary aided schools should be brought within the framework for tackling failing schools. That will be done in close consultation with the relevant churches, whose interests will be fully reflected in the membership of an Education Association".
We are truly most grateful but there are still outstanding one or two items of concern to the Church which have yet to be addressed. We hope that they will be satisfactorily resolved before the measure completes its Committee stage in this House.
It will come as no surprise, I am sure, to my noble friend the Minister to learn that I read the correspondence between her right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. In particular, and this is the first point I wish to air today, is the Cardinal's wish to see included in the Bill some statutory acknowledgment of the overseeing role of the Catholic bishops in the matter of maintained Catholic schools.
The Catholic Church in England and. Wales has made, and continues to make, a significant numerical contribution, apart from the recognised spiritual contribution, to the education provision of the nation's young; indeed, nearly 10 per cent. of all maintained schools are Catholic voluntary-aided, special agreement or grant-maintained establishments. Those schools operate within a diocesan framework, carefully structured by the individual Bishops and overseen by them in their endeavours to meet the known needs of Catholic pa rents and their children.
The Cardinal and the Catholic bishops are most anxious that the Bill should respect that overseeing role; a role which has operated successfully in the dual partnership under the 1944 Act. At the moment there is a perceived fear that there are provisions within the Bill which might well undermine those long-standing and accepted diocesan responsibilities in the very provision and organisation, and, on occasion, necessary reorganisation, of Catholic schools.
Lest your Lordships might erroneously glean from that more than just a hint of special pleading, perhaps I may put the matter into context. As the Cardinal observed in his letter of 18th February to the Secretary of State:
"I hope you will appreciate that in stating these fears so frankly I am not seeking a protected or privileged place for Catholic schools. They should and must be expected to meet the same standards of educational attainment and efficiency as other schools. But they are different, and their distinct identity has been respected for more than 120 years within a fair and workable partnership between Church and state and formalised in the 1944 Act. What I want to see is that

259
mutually beneficial partnership retained. Such a partnership is essential if the Church's contribution is to be strengthened, as you say you wish it to be."
I hope that that key issue will be carefully considered, for I am firmly of the view that due statutory recognition of the responsibilities of the Catholic hierarchy in the diocesan provision of Catholic education will do much to assuage those fears and also those reservations which the Bishops' Conference of November last year publicly addressed, particularly in the matter of grant-maintained status for Catholic schools. Moreover, such recognition would undeniably signal that the Government are, indeed, committed to enhancing and strengthening the partnership between Church and state, which is acknowledged by both parties as being of considerable benefit and, not least, to the greater good of the national education service. That recognition of the position of Bishops and diocese is also needed in the context of the Funding Agency for Schools and its work in dealing with proposals for school development or reorganisation.
I should like to draw attention to another matter which arises in the same context; namely, the need for the funding agency to be guided in its work by the objective of making the provision of schools in an area corresponding as far as possible to the wishes of parents, particularly on the religious character of schools. The House has considered this matter previously in connection with a Bill introduced by my noble friend Lady Cox. It is important to bear in mind that in city areas many of the schools date back to the beginning of the century, or even earlier, and since that time a new population has gone into the area with different preferences as to schools.
Some of the Catholic bishops are not entirely happy about the provision for the inspection of denominational schools contained in the Bill.
I propose to touch upon one other issue; namely, the rather vexed issue of home-to-school transport. For some little time now the Churches have endeavoured to persuade successive Secretaries of State to use the powers of direction clearly provided by Section 55 of the 1944 Act when local education authorities decide to remove free home-to-school transport provision. By their very nature, many Catholic schools—and Catholic secondary schools in particular—serve a wider catchment area than their neighbouring county schools. Moreover, the very siting of those schools was agreed upon only after local education authority agreement to meet home-to-school transport costs.
It was only some 14 years ago that your Lordships' House rejected a government clause in the 1979 Bill which would have permitted local authorities to charge for home-to-school transport. Those of us who were present at that time would no doubt recall the significant masterly contribution in opposition to the clause made by Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. He reminded your Lordships in unequivocal terms of the thinking and rationale behind Section 55. Indeed, I played a minor part in that same debate.
Suffice to say, I am sure that none of us, following the excision of that clause, expected to see in such a
260
relatively short period of time that which we had rejected coming into effect, as it were, by stealth. I hope that the Minister will give those matters serious consideration.
9.16 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, first, I express my gratitude and congratulations to my noble friend Lord Judd on his outstanding speech. It augurs well for the quality of the debate and the moving of amendments during the course of what must be an extensive Committee stage. Indeed, this is an extensive Second Reading. I note that it is now shortly after 9.15 and we are half way through the list of speakers which means that the debate cannot end, unless noble Lords cut out much of what they want to say, until about midnight. Your Lordships should not be asked to deal with issues of such importance in that way. I regret that the Government have not recognised that. I should be surprised if they thought it an uncontroversial Bill for your Lordships to tackle.
I served as a government Minister. We sought consensus whenever possible. It was not always possible but we sought consensus and when the debate had to take place, it took place. My impression of this Government is that they do not want consensus. They enjoy conflict. In fact, because they enjoy conflict, they seek to promote it in relation to all areas of social policy. It is not merely conflict between political parties and special interest groups but conflict inside schools and between schools. The Government have sought to undermine local democracy, which is sometimes good and sometimes had. It is however responsive to the needs and wishes of the people, as this Government appear not to be on almost any issue they tackle. I greatly regret that undermining, not only of local government but also of the status of teachers within the profession. It seems that the Government are always happy to launch into attacks both on local government and on teachers who have a very heavy responsibility for the teaching of children in their classes.
I echo the eloquent appeal made by my noble friend for an expansion of nursery education. That has been mentioned by many speakers. I was very much moved by what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said about the importance of early intervention in the lives of abused children. Tragically, we know only too well now—indeed, more than we did—the degree of abuse of one sort and another within families.
There is wide acceptance of the importance of under-five nursery education. Having said that, the United Kingdom compares very badly with most other countries within the European Community. Services for children under five in the UK are of a very variable quality. The provision made by many different departments and individuals is often uncoordinated. In both respects, the Children Act introduced important new measures which are already bearing fruit. That legislation laid down minimum standards for all voluntary and private sector provision. It introduced a requirement that all services for the under-eights should be reviewed by the social services and education authority collaboratively as

261
part of an overall plan. It also required that all provision should take account of each child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.
There is ample evidence in this country and overseas of the effectiveness of early education. It shows that children who have access to good quality pre-school education are at a very great advantage. When starting school, they score higher at SATs at seven and do better at school at the age of 10 on a variety of scores. Moreover, American research shows that the long-term effect includes a reduced likelihood of delinquency, fewer referrals to special education and fewer unwanted teenage pregnancies.
Yet there is scarcely any reference to nursery education in the Bill. That point was made by other speakers. There is much confusion over the funding policy which the Government are pursuing. The current lack of clarity over that policy is, I think, a matter of great concern which we shall—certainly, from this side of the House—press upon the Government in Committee.
There are three possible ways forward. First, we could earmark funding for services for under-fives at both central and local government level; secondly, we could accept the longer-term need for increased spending on nursery education and reflect this in increased SSAs; and, thirdly, we could make statutory provision or return to the pre-1980 position where local authorities had a duty to provide nursery education with additional resourcing.
The Bill must address those issues. I welcome the proposals put forward by the National Children's Bureau to which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has made such a distinguished contribution over so many years. I very much look forward to hearing her speech. I am also much impressed by the briefing from the Centre for Studies on Integration in Education and from the Royal National Institute for the Blind as both relate to disabled children and those requiring special attention. I strongly support the plea that has come from the RNIB in that respect.
There is a great deal that needs to be done, and there is much that will be done if adequate amendments to the Bill are accepted. We want to see more children with disabilities or learning difficulties included in a diverse educational mainstream. In its present form the Bill gives a further boost to the introduction of market forces into the education system which many of us fear will lead to yet more setbacks for a policy of integration. In addition, a new clause in Part III of the Bill further weakens the integration duty on LEAs by allowing a parental veto on a mainstream placement.
As the Bill makes its way through this part of Parliament, there is widespread concern that selection by ability will form a major part of the educational scene in the coming years. That seems to be turning the clock back and it certainly does not augur well for the policy of integration which at one stage had acceptance across the House and across the political parties. I agree very much with the CSIE which would like to see a new and stronger duty placed on LEAs to
262
make provision for the fullest possible integration of children with special educational needs, and for them to plan for this to come about.
Although the 1981 Act placed a general duty on LEAs to integrate, subject to certain conditions, progress has been slow. We have recognised that. The majority of disabled children are still segregated in separate special schools and between 1988 and 1991 there was even a 2 per cent. rise in the segregation of primary age pupils across England indicating a reversal of the gradual trend towards integration over the past decade. The CSIE fought for the fullest possible integration. It is not intended that every child with a disability or difficulty should be in a mainstream classroom all the time. The CSIE is saying that ordinary schools should accept full responsibility for all children as equally valued members of the school and should strive to make the necessary changes and provisions to meet their needs.
There is much that one could add. I want to ensure that we have a properly integrated system. I want to see provisions made, and funds made available, to ensure that more and more children with learning difficulties can be properly incorporated within the state system. We shall not, through this Bill as it stands at present, see any increase in the opportunities for parental choice. The Royal National Institute for the Blind has referred to a number of anxieties. Its key concerns relate to planning at a local level; the provision of nursery education for the under fives; and the compatibility of the Bill with the provisions of the Children Act. In addition the RNIB is concerned at the limited choice open to parents of children who have special educational needs. As your Lordships will be aware, the Bill restricts choice to maintained schools and therefore excludes non-maintained schools such as those which are run by the RNIB. That cannot be acceptable.
Although for the first time the Bill provides that the parents of children with special needs have the right to state a preference for a named school, as the Bill stands there are severe limitations on the real choices open to parents. Parents' choice is to be restricted to maintained schools. Non-maintained special schools, which in the field of visual impairment are the principal providers of education in most parts of the country, are therefore excluded. The RNIB points out that of the 21 special schools catering for visually impaired pupils in England and Wales, 10 are non-maintained. By omitting such schools from those available for parents to name, choice for severely handicapped children who are seeking residential placement is limited to only one LEA school. Those schools attract LEA funds, although arty such placement would be subject to the efficient use of resources. It cannot be satisfactory to your Lordships that schools which are run so admirably by an institution of the quality of the Royal National Institute for the Blind should be placed at such a disadvantage.
I hope that we shall take the Committee stage extremely seriously. In my view the Bill needs a tremendous amount of amendment if it is not to be a new catastrophe for our educational system. We have

263
to ensure that there is real choice for parents and that there is a proper monitoring system such as the local authorities, which are responsive to the needs of local people, are able to provide. We have a very heavy responsibility in debating this important Bill.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, we must surely welcome a Bill the purpose of which is to provide for an education which develops the full potential of every child in this country.
I believe that the Education Bill should embody the philosophy of the Children Act 1989—namely that the welfare of the child is paramount, that parents bear responsibility for their children and that the statutory, voluntary and private sectors dealing with the education, upbringing and care of children should work in close collaboration with each other. There are areas of the Bill which are at variance with relevant sections of the Children Act 1989.
I was going to make an impassioned plea for nursery education, but that has already been done by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and many others. I shall just make two points. The first is that the best time to establish the special needs of children is when they are under five. Many deaf children are not assessed until much later. Therefore, besides many other positive aspects, nursery education has that important feature.
I have been sent works of art by nursery school children from around the country. They were not solicited. They have been sent by children from the Goadness Primary School, the Bedworth Heath Primary School outside Coventry, the Greenlands Nursery School, the Manor Lodge Primary School and the Kettlebridge Nursery Infant School. Nursery education is being considered deeply by many people in the country.
We have the honour to have the Secretary of State sitting in the Chamber with us. I cannot forbear to say that I visited a nursery in Victoria Street, and as I talked to the children a very intelligent and most attractive little girl spoke up and asked me where I worked. I told her that I worked at Westminster. She said: "My father does too". She was the daughter of the Secretary of State. Therefore he cannot possibly vote against nursery education. I shall leave the question of nursery education at that, but the House will realise how strongly we all feel about the matter.
I should like to make one point about school dinners. I regret bitterly that in the previous Bill we did away with school dinners. I believe that school dinners are good for the health of children and also for their social upbringing.
In relation to non-attendance at school, my noble friend the Minister has said that she will be producing more details. I should like to point out that, in one city in this country on any one day, 7 per cent. of children are not attending school. That city—a great city of the British Isles—has the highest delinquency rate in this country, and indeed in Europe. Therefore we are grateful to my noble friend and the Secretary of State who are going to pursue the question of school non-attendance.
264
The Redcliffe-Maude report on local government recommended unitary authorities. The recommendation was not adopted. Now we are having a second round of local government reorganisation. I worked in a unitary authority where the chief officers worked as a team. Is the Minister really satisfied that the system of planning and the delivery of education is satisfactory? That point was made by many noble Lords including the noble Baroness, Lady David. The local authority has responsibility for schools which have not opted out. The opted-out schools receive funding from the appointed funding authority through the funding agency.
The governors of the opted-out schools are responsible for the quality of education in their schools. I ask the Minister whether in all schools throughout the country all governors understand the teaching skills and what is involved in the precepts of education. The HMIs in OFSTED cannot possibly get round to all the schools in an area. Therefore who is going to maintain consistent standards at the schools both within local authorities and without?
How is the planning going to be done? For argument's sake, those of us who are interested in housing are hoping to see more housing estates built. That being so, who is going to plan the school? Is it going to be planned as an opted-out or as a maintained school? Who is going to do the planning and have the strategy for education in any one area? I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that managerially there is fragmentation and a clear lack of management structure so that people are not quite sure where they have to go and who is responsible.
I hardly dare suggest it, but has the Minister considered asking Coopers & Lybrand to look at the management structure as it is at the moment? I have tried to draw it, but it is not possible to see exactly where responsibility for management and ultimate planning lies. I hope that Coopers & Lybrand are listening to me.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, they are. It is business.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, they are listening. Many of your Lordships have spoken about special needs. I wish to speak on one aspect. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said that since the 1981 Act times have changed and that we have to look at things in the light of modern circumstances. The level of delinquency has risen in this country and many people are concerned about it. In the noble Baroness's report, which resulted in the 1981 Act, integration was recommended for children with special needs into the local community and schools. We all agreed with that and we still do. But there are certain children who perhaps have disrupted homes, personal emotional difficulties, difficulties of delinquency and distress, and who need residential accommodation.
There are many homes in this land that offer these services, and where charity has been prevailed upon to give money for the homes and schools, which have extremely good conditions and, I would submit, good staff. If children with severe emotional difficulties, difficulties of delinquency and with a difficult

265
background are not helped when they are young, they will be a very expensive burden for the state at a later stage. They will be a cost to the state, the social services and the local authorities and, later, to the penal system.
However, those schools are beginning to fail because children are not coming to them: the local authorities say that they cannot afford to send children there. The welfare of the child is paramount. If we do not use the schools and the places for children with special needs and with difficult problems, the welfare of the child is not paramount. What is paramount is the purse of the local authority.
Having been a chief officer in local government, I have sympathy with the treasurer's department. I ask the Minister whether it would be possible—she has already told me that it will not, but I shall ask just the same—to find some other way of funding the children and the schools. I declare an interest, I have to say, because I am chairman of the governors of the Caldecott Community and a governor in another school. I should have liked to spend much longer on special needs, but they have been dealt with aptly by other people and therefore I shall leave the matter.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not take it amiss if I end this inadequate speech by saying that, rather than confrontation, the Warship Warnock, the Frigate Faithfull and the many ships which have set out tonight will hope to sail safely in accord with the Battleship Blatch in an effort to make this a better Bill.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I am sure that we all share the hope that the Navy will come safely into port with the maximum consensus.
I support the broad thrust of the central part of the Bill in relation to grant-maintained schools but with the reservations that have been powerfully expressed by many noble Lords, especially in regard to centralisation and the problem mentioned by the right reverend Prelate of the voluntary sector and aspects such as the need for nursery schools to be brought within the funding structure. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, impressed on us the enormous importance of this stage of education. There are other detailed arrangements—for example, the teaching of musical instruments—on which I look forward to our discussions at the Committee stage.
I wish to open a window in our discussion to the longer term. Sir Karl Popper, perhaps the most distinguished social philosopher alive now, said:
"I don't know a better argument for an optimistic view of mankind than the fact that this devastating system of education has not ruined them".
What he was driving at was that the broad parameters of our present educational system were set 150 years ago, and were based on the practices and understanding of medieval times, going back to Aristotle and Plato. We have preserved those broad parameters. There have been great refinements, great widening and great improvements; but the system as a whole is still the system that was created in Victorian times.
In those days society was relatively stable. Changes
266
occurred, but they occurred slowly. It was not of enormous importance that boys and girls should be brought to acquire the skills and faculties required for dealing with continuous and accelerating change. We all know now that the main feature of our society is change. We have no idea what kind of a society it will be in 25 years. We only know that conditions are changing, not only here but in the rest of Europe and the rest of the world, and changing at an accelerating rate.
What, then, are the new qualities that we require our boys and girls to acquire in order to be able to confront the challenges of change? What do industry and commerce require? What are their needs in dealing with the problems of incessant change? I believe that the answer has been identified. It is necessary that boys and girls should have stronger and more varied powers of thinking—flexibility of mind. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred to the question: what are we educating boys and girls for? It is the central question. Society as a whole needs a firm basis of responsibility in its citizens and the restoration as far as possible of real values.
Many of the functions of thinking have been neglected in schools. I do not suggest that we should throw overboard the traditional skills of literacy, numeracy, analysis, reasoning, critical judgment, and so on. But we have to add to those skills new powers to enable those who will enter industry and commerce and other parts of society to foresee new developments and to have creative imagination, wider understanding, ability to comprehend complexity, and global attitudes. It is interesting that practice in experimental schools has shown that those qualities can be brought out by artificial means; namely, by deliberate teaching.
It is said that a wholesome, innovative curriculum is possible. Anybody who has had anything to do with teaching would no doubt say, "Yes, but where is the time going to come from for adding, new subjects, however desirable?". The answer, I suggest, is that we now know that it is possible to apply new forms of accelerated learning.
In the school for which I share responsibility we have succeeded in saving one-third of the curriculum time. That leaves time for the new and interesting subjects of great social importance which the children love. They take to them like ducks to water; they are fun. We firmly believe that they can be combined with the right standard of traditional skills. They include thinking skills, modelling, mental mapping and all the new disciplines that have been applied largely in management consultancy and industry, which are way ahead of education in those kinds of techniques.
I was interested, as I am sure were other noble Lords, in the appointment by the British Association, supported by the Royal Society, of a National Commission on Education to define the scope of education; to seek to assess the future demands of industry and commerce in society; and to identify what powers should be given to boys and girls to confront continuous change. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, is chairman and the distinguished industrialist, Mr. John Raisman, is vice-chairman. We look

267
forward to their report, which is due in July, and I hope that your Lordships will have an opportunity to debate it.
We do not have a great deal of time—not only tonight, but for the nation as a whole—to get our act together on introducing the new powers for boys and girls to meet the needs of industry and commerce. It is increasingly apparent that this country is not going to remain competitive unless it not only catches up, but also goes ahead. Those skills will enable our boys and girls to get ahead. I hope that this country will pioneer the best kind of education for the western world and the world as a whole for the future.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, I am delighted to speak in this important debate as a vice-president of the British Dyslexia Association. In speaking with a particular eye on the needs of dyslexic children, I believe that I shall be raising issues of common interest spanning many special educational needs. The association was pleased to take part in the special educational needs consortium which has had constructive dialogue with the Government over the Bill. M any of the consortium's concerns and interests are our concerns and interests.
We are starting to see signs that dyslexia is accepted for what it is—a different learning style. It is important that that difference is recognised early and that the enormous talents of the 4 per cent. of the school population that is dyslexic are developed to the full. "Difference" should not mean "handicap". In my experience both as a vice-president and previously as chairman of the BDA, I have encountered far too many cases where that difference has not been recognised or accepted. Over and over again I have seen the blight caused to children as a result.
The situation of a young person of at least average intelligence leaving school at 16 with a reading age of seven or eight has sadly not been unusual to the British Dyslexia Association. I therefore welcome the opportunity provided in Part III of the Bill to remedy some of the shortcomings of the follow-up to the 1981 Act. If Parliament can, through the Bill and its associated codes of practice, deliver faster, fairer and more effective practices in assessment and statementing, it will have done well.
The BDA strives to ensure that every single child with dyslexia receives the appropriate support, whether that be through ordinary classroom teaching, specialist attention, local support activity or some other method. We are concerned not merely on behalf of those severely dyslexic children who need the protection of a statement, but also for the much wider group—the so-called 18 per cent.—who, with properly trained intervention and carefully targeted support, can achieve their full potential.
I hope that in Committee this Chamber can give close attention to the needs of that wider group. In particular, I hope it will look at what might be called "preventive" work and work done before school entry to flag up problems and address them. The cost of such work is matched many times over by the benefits
268
to individuals and saves the potentially huge costs of recovering educational failure subsequently, with all the anti-social implications that such failure means. Accountability, resourcing and co-operation between agencies are, I hope, issues that my noble friend the Minister will consider at later stages of the Bill.
At the more severe end of the spectrum, we look forward to the greater consistency of practice and effectiveness of educational result, promised in the revision of statementing. I have particular hopes, first, that the criteria for statementing can reflect the needs of individuals, bearing in mind their potential. It is important that the criteria allow some attention to an individual's current achievement in relation to his or her potential. Secondly, I hope that the Bill will make sure that the goal of acceleration of assessment and statementing is achieved. The BDA's experience very much bears out the findings of the Audit Commission/HMI report Getting in on the Act in relation to delays in assessment and statementing.
Thirdly, it is most important that all statements are relevant and precise. So many are not. Statements should target a learning outcome and should specify hours of provision relating to specific needs; their accountability should be clear. Above all, the level of expertise should be appropriate. All too often, dyslexic children are given, via their statements, classroom assistants who have no experience of the methods of teaching to which dyslexic children will respond.
My final hope for the Committee stage is that Her Majesty's Government will carefully consider the increasing responsibilities and freedoms of schools. Freedom and autonomy are healthy things for schools to have, but they must be used responsibly. All schools have obligations to children with special educational needs. But such children are often expensive to teach and demanding to look after. I hope that we can look to Her Majesty's's Government to provide protection for them against unfair exclusion, either before admission or while they are at a school. And I hope that the Bill can do all in its scope to enable schools to have access to a stable and good quality supply of expertise to support their own policies and practices on special educational needs.
9.58 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, in view of the length of the list, I shall restrict myself to a few selected issues. First, I should like to make one general point in supporting the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who drew attention to the competition which this country faces. I was recently involved in a business trip to the Far East. I came back completely convinced that we are in great danger of underestimating the competition which this country faces. In terms of educational excellence, we are far behind. The Government are right to make changes, and I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was right in saying that we must all work together to try to make those changes successful.
I should like to talk about the issues connected with opting-in. The current situation is that the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and the Jewish

269
community have a partnership arrangement with the Government in respect of the schools which they own. As your Lordships know, there is pressure from some Moslem communities in this country and from other Christian denominations to be given the same treatment. That pressure will become hard to resist even if one should wish to do so. There are already 12 schools in the state sector in this country with 100 per cent. Moslem pupils and no fewer than 230 schools with 75 per cent. Moslem pupils.
Moslem schools need not be regarded as a threat. I should like to quote from the definition of Islamic education that was adopted at the first World Conference on Islamic Education in Makkah in 1977, which states:
"Education should aim at the balanced growth of the total personality of man, through training of man's spirit, intellect, rational self, feelings and bodily senses, with the ultimate aim of Muslim education lying in the realisation of complete submission to God at the level of the individual, community and humanity at large".
Could the Christian churches find fault with such a definition?
There are, of course, disadvantages and dangers in the proliferation of faith-based schools. There are dangers of separatism, of the development of a ghetto mentality and of fanaticism. I do not anticipate great difficulty in carrying your Lordships with me on the subject of fanaticism, especially fanaticism which promotes hate or prejudice. I do not suppose that any of us would want to see this country's children exposed to an education which encouraged them to believe in the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition or the bigotry that brought Christians to the gallows in earlier centuries—nor do I suspect that any of us are very keen on the kind of fanaticism that we see in Iran today.
I should like to ask the Minister how the Government propose to ensure that religious or political groups which hold views unacceptable to our society will not be able to obtain control over or to influence the ethos and values that are taught in our grant-maintained schools in the future? Will the schools' inspectors make judgments about values or will they simply report what values are being taught? If (as I hope and believe) it is the latter, who will judge what are and what are not acceptable values?
It is worth pointing out that the Government have no control over the values that are taught in independent faith-based schools. There are 26 such Moslem schools and over 90 faith-based Christian schools in this country at present. It is also worth noting that the exclusion of Moslem schools from the maintained sector is encouraging a sense of grievance and rejection. That in itself leads to a sense of separateness and potentially to a ghetto mentality. If, however, such schools were within the maintained sector, they would have to follow the national curriculum and would be subject to inspection, which is both a safeguard and a unifying force.
It is fair to say that neither the RE curriculum nor acts of worship are covered by inspection as the Bill stands, but I am credibly informed that the vast majority of Moslem communities in this country would welcome controls that would enable them to
270
ensure that there is no infiltration of their schools by fanatics. They have suggested to me an agreed curriculum and the licensing of RE teachers, but whether those solutions would be acceptable to other churches is another matter. I suspect that a nice balance needs to be struck between the need to prevent sectarian excesses on the one hand and the understandable desire of the churches on the other hand not to have their religious teaching interfered with by ignorant or antagonistic inspectors.
I should like to mention a few points on diversity and choice which have been raised earlier by other noble Lords. One relates to the 10 per cent. rule under which existing independent or specialist schools will not be allowed to apply to opt in until the 10 per cent. threshold for grant-maintained schools is in place. I would ask the Minister whether this is reasonable.
Even for Church of England, Roman Catholic and Jewish schools parents' choice is severely limited at present by the power of the Secretary of State to refuse to allow the opening of a new school if there is a surplus of places available in the area, even if those places are in schools whose ethos and values are quite unacceptable to the parents. That means in a way that there will be choice for some but not for others. Surely that is not what the Government mean by choice.
There is an issue about the composition of the SACREs. Often they do not reflect the mix of faiths in the area in which they operate. Would it not be reasonable that they should do so?
I should like to look at the purpose of religious education in our secular schools. In faith-based schools, religious education and the act of worship are an education for the practice of a particular faith, a particular way of life, a gateway to understanding what life is all about, a way for each individual to develop in love and in knowledge. That is what religious education is about in a religious school. What is it about in a secular school?
There are those who would like to see a kind of historical, anthropological study of religious beliefs—a superficial overview which would naturally tend to trivialise. The approach which I believe is right is to accept that every child has to make a choice in its life as it grows up: is it going to accept the disciplines and sacrifices necessary to follow a religious faith, or is it going to settle for a materialist or humanist approach, or is it not even going to think much about the subject at all? I believe that the purpose of religious education is to prepare each child to make that decision wisely. All our children should learn that there are alternatives to pure, unadulterated consumerism and that the religious way of life is a realistic and meaningful alternative for them in the 21st century if they want to adopt it.
I would go on to say that I believe that in order to do that religious education must give each child a genuine understanding and experience, not exclusively but mainly, of one religion, and that normally this should be the religion of its parents or, if they have none, I suspect that this House would feel it right that it should be the Christian religion. I believe that this deeper understanding can only be given by teachers

271
who are themselves committed. I do not believe that a true understanding of religion can be given from the outside looking in.
I have two other points unconnected with religious education. I am concerned that the Bill makes no mention of the under-fives, a subject which has been mentioned by many noble Lords already. It is essential to start with the under-fives for two reasons. First, the proper teaching of under-fives makes an important contribution to progress both in primary and in subsequent secondary education. Secondly, proper pastoral care of under-fives gives an opportunity to pick up and deal early with family problems and special educational needs. As your Lordships will know, both those propositions have been conclusively confirmed by recent research.
Finally, the tragedy of James Bulger has drawn public attention to the serious problems within our society of some young people who are emotionally and behaviourally disturbed. In a high percentage of such cases these children suffer from inadequate support at home. Children who are abused or deserted, or who do not have proper support from their families, need pastoral support at school, whether it be by teachers, by Outreach or by social workers. Where problems are identified early enough, pastoral care can often avoid costly statementing, special schools and the subsequent cost of juvenile courts and adult crime. Pastoral care in our schools, especially primary and nursery schools, is at present patchy. Do the Government have plans to put school pastoral care on a sounder footing?
10.10 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, the later the hour, the smaller the appetite for long speeches, so I shall try to keep my remarks succinct. I should like to give the Bill my restrained approval. My reasons for using that phrase will emerge in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, was good enough to call a couple of sentences of mine that he quoted from a recent newspaper article, complete nonsense. I assure your Lordships that my experience of those matters, though much less than that of the noble Lord, is more recent both as a parent and as a current member of the School Examinations and Assessment Council.
The main message I have received from some of tonight's speeches is, "Keep the status quo". The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, was surely right: the world moves on. What is needed is a national framework which allows new life to grow in response to new needs. I believe that the Bill provides that.
It must be remembered that, except in certain circumstances, under the Bill not one school is required to opt out, a point that I do not believe has been made previously. It depends upon parents; 12.5 per cent. of secondary schools have been approved for GM status. That number is sure to grow, but opting out is not compulsory. The good thing about the Bill is that it continues the Government's policy of opening doors without seeking to impose a rigid pattern upon future developments.
272
I welcome in particular those parts of the Bill which make it easier for schools to opt out of local authority control. On balance, it is right to allow that to happen gradually, through parental ballots. The main advantage of the balloting route to GM status is that it creates groups of active citizens, committed to their success and survival. That is why I do not share the fear of my noble friend Lord Eccles that these decisions will be reversed easily by a future Labour Government. It is not so easy to reverse the voice of the people.
If we peer a little further down the evolutionary road, we can see a diverse and exciting pattern of education emerging, ranging from fully independent fee-charging schools to many different kinds of state-funded school, enjoying different degrees of legal independence, practical autonomy and specialisation. The most interesting possibility opened up by the Bill is the emergence of groupings, associations and partnerships of schools. Some might be members of charitable trusts. Others might have a central management running common services. The inspiration for such arrangements could be religious, educational or merely practical.
Why should not we look forward to a situation in which local authorities replace their LEAs by educational trusts into which their self-management schools might be invited to opt? How would the Government regard that proposal? How would the Opposition regard it? Is there anything in the Bill to encourage or prevent such developments? Such developments might meet the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford about the need for intermediate institutions between the individual schools and the state. I am a strong supporter of local government, but I cannot say that I regret deeply the fading out of the LEAs. In my experience they are, in practice, unaccountable, and, I have reason to know, sometimes behave tyrannically.
I believe that we could have seen more distinctly through the fog of 276 clauses and 18 schedules had the Government clearly put forward the view that the state does not have to provide the services it funds; indeed, that there are enormous gains to be had from it not providing them directly but leaving it to competing suppliers to do so. That purchaser/provider split was the main idea behind the health service reforms but it does not appear to have penetrated that far into the Department for Education. In fact, the funding agency and the LEAs are seen as both providers and purchasers and sometimes as managers of schools rather than as buyers of educational services on behalf of parents.
It is for those reasons that my support for the Bill is restrained. It offers no clear view of the role of government in education. It divides responsibilities between central and local government in a way that I find lopsided and illogical. It provides for no local discretion in the funding formula which might be used to help poorer neighbourhoods. It vests the Secretary of State, his funding agency and the new School Curriculum and Assessment Authority with an extraordinary range of powers.

273
I share the disquiet of many noble Lords about the scope of Clause 1. It gives little or no encouragement to private providers to come within the ambit of the state sector. How is it possible to reconcile an ever more rigid national curriculum assessment system with the Secretary of State's claim that diversity has been one of the great themes running through the story of educational change since 1979? How is it possible to reconcile the Government's desire to make parental choice paramount with their vesting of virtually all decisions as to which schools to open or close, expand or contract, in bureaucrats and in politicians?
It is to that question of the management of supply that I wish to turn in the final part of my remarks. An educational system hospitable to new ideas and better practices must be one open to new schools; one into which new schools can easily enter. At present it is almost impossible for new promoters, even voluntary religious bodies, to enter the state educational sector, so onerous are the conditions for entry. So far as I can see, the Bill does little to help matters. I hope that the Government will be willing to amend it in order to make entry easier, as my noble friend Lady Cox suggested.
The main immediate problem is the rule that no new schools can enter the state sector until all surplus capacity in any area has been eliminated. The Secretary of State said that quite clearly in another place. He said that the Government were always willing to consider applications from schools of all sorts for admission to the state sector provided that there were no surplus places in any area. What did he mean by "surplus"? What did he mean by "area"?
I suspect that there has been a failure to distinguish between places which are surplus due to demographic changes —as when an area becomes depopulated—and places which are surplus at unpopular schools only. The counterpart of that may well be a shortage of places at popular schools, whether those are state or private. The remedy for that kind of surplus capacity is not to close down supply but to allow successful schools, or successful types of schools, to expand and less successful ones to contract. Provided that entry
274
conditions are reasonable there are plenty of exciting; opportunities for starting new schools, taking over old schools and developing new kinds of educational agencies and services. The Bill does not see, or at least it sees too dimly, that local or regional imbalances in supply and demand give a wonderful opportunity to liberate the innovating power of the marketing system, to raise standards and to give parents something new and different to choose from.
Contrary to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, this is not an untried theory. It is a genuine principle which has proved itself all over the world in all walks of life. The onus is on the noble Earl to show why market mechanisms have no part to play in education.
We must also challenge the assumption that new schools cost millions of pounds to set up. You can have new schools on old sites. Apart from that, it takes teachers, books, rented or donated space and not much more to set up a new school.
Finally, fears were expressed in another place that the two new quangos set up to control funding and the curriculum would, together with the Secretary of State's new power, be the most potent instruments for the control of education that this country has ever known. That could be so but it need not be. We need assurances from the Minister about the uses to which those powers will be put. Will the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority be told to slim down the national curriculum and simplify the assessment system? Will the funding agency allow funds to follow parental choice? Above all, will the Secretary of State use his authority to loosen the shackles of the bureaucracy that has been set up?
If the answer to those questions is yes, the Secretary of State will have built a framework that can develop and which will last. If the answer is no, he or his successor will have to come back in two years or so to repair or shore up a crumbling structure. What I and many other noble Lords in the House today want from the Minister is an indication as to the spirit in which the proposals will be implemented and the ends that they are intended to serve.
10.22 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I must immediately express my disappointment at the way in which the debate has been managed by the Government. Given the timescale and the amount of parliamentary time available, I see no reason why the Second Reading debate could not have taken place over two days, as was suggested by the noble and learned. Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Your Lordships' House prides itself on the fact that its business is not subject to a guillotine. However, unless noble Lords are prepared to speak at length as they wish—and these important matters should not be trivialised—then the Government are imposing a form of guillotine. That is to be regretted.
I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said in her opening remarks. I wonder what the Bill really is that we have before us. She said that the Government intend to bring forward a substantial number of amendments in Committee. She gave no indication as to what they would be or to which parts of the Bill they relate. She did not say whether they relate to those areas of anxiety which have been referred to by noble Lords on all sides of the House; for example, nursery education and children with special needs. Noble Lords are entitled to know whether there is to be a huge clutch of amendments shoved on the Marshalled List with which we shall have to deal in Committee.
I did not hear the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. However, a noble Lord on the Cross-Benches said that he thought that the Bill could work if we all shared the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles; namely, that we should all work together. However, if the Government behave as they did in another place—and the Minister who handled the Bill there was at the Bar of the House a short time ago—no amendments of substance will be accepted other than their own amendments. My information is that in another place the only amendments which mattered and which the Government accepted were their own. They were totally oblivious and hardened against any points of view other than those put forward by themselves.
We are told that this is the largest and most profound Education Bill that we have had for years. I do not normally speak in education debates because it is not a subject in which I am particularly well read or well versed. My only experience of education comes from the time when I was privileged to be the leader of the local authority in Manchester. We were proud of our education system in the city at the time.
What I find strange is that if the Bill is to install an education system that will last a long time—and I think that I am entitled to draw that inference—are we not entitled to expect the Government to deal with the priorities that are before us as a nation? I am not talking about higher education because that has the strongest political and cross-political lobby of any sector in the country. You only have to listen to a debate in your Lordships' House to understand that quickly.
276
Without a shadow of a doubt—many speakers have referred to this aspect—the two areas of greatest need in the country are nursery education and special needs. But where are we going when a nation like ours cannot guarantee that there will be a place for a child of four or five years of age in a nursery? The Bill does not guarantee that at all.
From my early days in Manchester and as a Member of another place for Leeds, I know that even in some educational areas —I am not talking in the political sense, although some of them are Conservative and some Labour—it depended upon where you lived in the city as to whether your child had a chance of nursery education. In the area of Leeds that I represented, the provision for nursery education was almost nil. But if you crossed the city into the more affluent area there was no waiting list; indeed, they were almost coming around knocking on doors asking people whether they had children to put in the nurseries that were available.
The Bill does not deal with that situation. In my view it is monstrous that today a government who talk about creating an educational path for the foreseeable future in the Bill are not prepared to say that every child in the country should have nursery education by right, irrespective of colour, creed and place of birth —that is, whether it is a slum in the centre of Leeds or Manchester or in the hinterland of the more affluent areas. If we do not put such a provision in the Bill in Committee, we shall be talking nonsense to some of the most underprivileged children in the country.
If you start a child 12 months later in education than one of similar ability, there is no way that the child denied an early start will be able to catch up with the other one. Statistics prove that fact. With children of level intelligence, the one who starts earlier will always achieve higher results. During the Committee stage, I hope that the Government will seriously consider enshrining in the Bill the right of all children to nursery education.
Noble Lords have spoken at great length about special needs. I am not too sure that I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, on the integration of children with special needs into mainstream education. There are degrees of handicap. Many schools, for example, will accept a dyslexic child. However, if a school's financial resources are restricted, that child will not receive the education he deserves, or the education he would receive in a school that is designed to deal with dyslexic pupils.
There may have to be a reappraisal of the matter. It is no use moving children with special needs into mainstream education and expecting teachers to devote their attention to them. It does not work that way because most state funded schools do not have the financial resources to establish measures to deal with children with special needs. We must consider the matter on a non-political basis. I know from my experience in Leeds and Manchester that some senior pupils in some schools develop special relationships with children with special needs in other schools. Those senior pupils realise that some people in society need to be cared for. That experience is of value to them and the children they care for.

277
At the weekend I happened to pick up a copy of the New Mancunian which is the newspaper of the Manchester Grammar School. The newspaper refers to five schools in Manchester that cater for children with special needs: Crosby Meadow, Leacroft, Melland, The Birches and Piper Hill. As I understand the position, Manchester City Council is to reach a decision on the future of those schools. The council has four options but all involve a reduction in the number of establishments and consequently a reduction in the number of places available for children with special needs. That is being considered at a time when, through this Bill, we are supposed to be moving forward in education.
Some noble Lords have referred to existing legislation and to the measures local authorities may take to absorb children with special needs into their education systems. However, it is obvious that teachers at the sharp end in schools have strong anxieties about the effects of such a policy of absorption being carried to its ultimate limit. I do not expect the Minister to reply to my next point tonight. As I understand the position, Manchester will make a decision in early April as regards its options. I would assume Manchester's decision will be taken on the basis of legislation that is already on the statute book.
Perhaps the Minister can write to me to tell me whether the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will override existing legislation. If it does, would it not be possible and sensible, where there is any diminution or change in the programme, for the department to issue guidelines and for there to be a moratorium until the position is sorted out?
I believe that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who said that it would be difficult to finance special needs as such. From my experience in local government I do not believe that that is the case. I know that within local authority grants there were needs elements. I believe that my noble friend Lord McIntosh was also involved in such matters at that time. I do not believe that it is impossible for the Government, if they wish, to tell education authorities that the Government will fund an established figure if the authorities will educate children in need.
That money could be ring-fenced. When it suited the Government to do so they ring-fenced the housing programme viciously to accord with a political ideology. I am not talking about political ideologies. I am speaking on behalf of children who ought to be offered a nursery place, children with special needs whose needs ought to be catered for by us as a nation as a right, not as an afterthought. I should like to think that the Minister will take seriously the point that I have made about the ring-fencing of special needs when and where they are proved.
10.35 p.m.
Lord Rennell: My Lords, this Education Bill builds on the reforms the Government have so bravely and comprehensively tackled since 1979. The scope of the changes have been monumental and, of course, they were needed. It was necessary, for instance, to remove control from a number of irresponsible, ideological and spendthrift Labour-controlled LEAs in which not
278
only vast sums of taxpayers' money allocated to schools were wasted but, worse, the so-called progressive education methods were not working and as a result large numbers of young people were, and still are, leaving school unable to read, write or add up.
Criticism that this Bill and previous Bills were drafted and passed to your Lordships' House too quickly, without enough thought and consultation, should be tempered by the knowledge that our children have only one chance to obtain a good school education and that each year tens of thousands of pupils pass from one age sector to the next. Too many schools are, at present, failing their children. We cannot sit and debate and not take action. As Eliza Doolittle said:
"Don't give me words, show me".
There were bitter arguments over opt out, grant-maintained schools in the Education Reform Act 1988. Yet, despite those forebodings, today schools which have taken that step are, without exception, delighted with the results. The children are happier, exam results have improved, demand for places is up, spending on facilities of every sort has been increased, parents are involved and teachers in those schools have great pride. Applications for GM status are gathering speed and momentum and I am pleased that this Bill will streamline and simplify the procedure for future applications.
Given the success of the GM schools, perhaps all schools should come into GM status sooner rather than later or perhaps, with competition between grant-maintained and well-run LEA schools, create a beneficial, competitive stimulus. In the meantime, I would like to see more emphasis on speeding up in opting-out of the primary school sector. Proper schooling at that age makes or breaks.
I very much welcome the provisions in the Bill which will limit the sums that can be spent by obstructive and destructive LEAs campaigning against schools balloting for GM status. There have been a number of disgraceful episodes on record. I hope that strong measures can be taken to prevent intimidation of one sort or another of teachers, parents and schools who are contemplating opting-out or have already done so. For example, I read in another place of an instance where planning permission on new school buildings has been refused by the local council and of another occasion where parents have been misinformed to the extent that they believed that they would have to pay £50 per term towards school fees if they were to become grant maintained.
I am particularly pleased that failing schools are being given most urgent attention. As often as not, those schools are found in the inner cities and generally deprived areas. Turning those schools around will not only benefit the children but will be a major contribution to the gradual regeneration of the area as a whole. I hope that with league tables, general data and more frequent inspections, failing schools will show up early enough and therefore be able to avoid the necessity of the education association. That is, of course, the aim of the inspections.

279
I understand that approximately 130 schools have been identified and advised that their performance is causing concern and that they will be listed for early inspection. If that is the case, I hope that the action plan can be started now and not wait until September. Again, let us have action and not words.
As regards the new bodies, the education associations, where do we find these rare experts to head them and what is the blueprint for success? Bernard Shaw, who hated school, said:
"What I did learn at school I should have been better without as it was only what a convict learns from his fellow prisoners".
I am not sure that I do not agree with him. There is no golden rule in education. However, I would put my faith in looking for five essential requirements: strong leadership, good teachers, caring parents, firm discipline and a religious ethos.
Hopefully, education associations will bring new ideas and new minds to the legacy inherited from the failed LEA. I hope that they will look to the most successful of other comparable schools to see what makes them tick. I hope that they will look abroad to the countries where education standards are highest.
I should like to give your Lordships examples of two schools. First, Baverstock, which is a Birmingham inner city comprehensive. Ten years ago it was in a desperate plight. It was virtually run by skinhead gangs. It was so bad that few parents wanted their children to go there. Three years ago the school became one of the first to go grant-maintained. Today, that school has been transformed, thanks to a headmaster who has been an inspiration to his teachers, his pupils and their parents. In the final year of local Labour council control three years ago, only 26 local parents had listed Baverstock as first choice for their children. This year, Baverstock is so popular that the school administrator was forced to close the list of applicants after 560 parents had chosen the school as their first choice for the 240 places available.
Secondly, let us look now at Highbury Grove School in the North London borough of Islington. In the 1960s, this was the school that showed that the comprehensive system could work. Under the headmaster, Sir Rhodes Boyson, it was a model of firm discipline, academic endeavour and sporting success. Parents queued up to send their children there. En November last year, two headmasters later, the school was and is in turmoil, with its head teacher suspended, classroom standards under attack and a damning report on how it is being run. It shows some of the worst classroom behaviour ever encountered. The headmaster is more interested in promoting social justice than examination results and absenteeism is at levels unheard of since Red Robbo's day at British Leyland.
The currently suspended headmaster's predecessor, who succeeded Sir Rhodes Boyson, said that there is a far greater degree of informality at the school now. Structures which served the school well for about 20 years were changed. Somehow, grip was lost. The point I wish to make here is that given the right ingredients, or the wrong ones, it does not take long
280
for a school to be turned around, for the better or for the worse. Tackling failing schools will be a daunting but very rewarding task.
Finally, we have heard criticism that the Bill has given the Minister of State too many and too strong powers. It is argued that such powers should only be given in a state of emergency. But when one looks at the desperate plight of inner city schools where reading, writing and arithmetic are often not even taught, one can only come to the conclusion, as my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch has remarked elsewhere, that we are in the midst of an emergency. It has been left, strangely enough, to a Frenchman to show us the value of direct and brave intervention. That, of course, is General Morillon in Yugoslavia. I believe that over the past 15 years the Government have shown considerable bravery and great determination in coming to grips with education in this country. Of course, it will still take time and co-operation from all sides. I think it will succeed and I commend the Bill.
10.47 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, it is getting late and I shall not detain your Lordships long, but there are one or two points I wish to make broadly in favour of the Bill.
The most urgent need in Britain today is for the rediscovery of biblical Christianity in our schools and for the re-establishment of confidence and enthusiasm in its teachers. Many excellent teachers have left the profession, discouraged by falling standards, saying that they are unable to function as they would wish.
The revolution to child-centred education in the 1960s resulted in many improvements. Under the rigid 11-plus system, schools had often concentrated on the academic needs of the top 20 per cent., leaving those not selected with a feeling of failure. With the scrapping of the 11-plus came the insistence that no child should feel labelled a failure. However, with it also came an aversion to words like "standards", "discipline", "order" and "authority". Before long, children of known similar intelligence began arriving at secondary school with very different standards in maths, reading, punctuation, grammar and behaviour.
By 1986, the inspectors' report acknowledged that 30 per cent. of lessons in maintained schools were below an acceptable standard. There was concern also about certain school policies, including the teaching that sex outside marriage and homosexual sex were normal, and about a multi-faith approach to religious education which trivialised Christianity and was depriving children of an awareness of their Christian heritage.
I now turn briefly to religious education, a subject which I believe is of fundamental importance, although it has often received little priority in schools. In 1988 I supported the amendments to the Education Reform Bill which ensured that religious education would be "mainly Christian", with account being taken of the other religious traditions in this country. Those amendments gave a helpful new impetus to the

281
importance of religious education and the need for its content to reflect the Christian traditions on which much of our law and public life has been built.
But many local authorities seem to have been slow to respond to the requirements of the 1988 Act. In the past few weeks a major study has been published by the National Curriculum Council which concluded that:
"no syllabus could be said to be meeting the full requirements for religious education … none specify what proportion of teaching should be based on Christianity".
I am glad that the Government have included in the Bill a provision requiring local authorities which have not yet reviewed their RE syllabuses to do so. But further action is necessary. I believe we need some national monitoring of religious education and local authority syllabuses, not simply through a one-off exercise such as that recently undertaken by the National Curriculum Council but on a regular and continuing basis.
I know that the Secretary of State suggested recently that it might be helpful to have some nationally agreed guidelines on RE which would help in drawing up local syllabuses. That would be most effective if the guidelines were devised by an expert body such as the new School Curriculum and Assessment Authority rather than by some major conference on religious education involving all the representatives of different Churches. Would not such a conference be a recipe for confusion?
Monitoring and guidelines will help. But we also need more resources for the training of good religious education teachers. I am fully aware that religious education on its own cannot somehow change schools completely or change individual pupils' lives. But it can make an effective contribution towards a rounded education. That contribution will be even more effective if the steps I have suggested are taken.
The White Paper upon which the Bill was based included in it a short statement with which I think we all agree; namely:
"There is too much truancy from our schools".
I am deeply concerned that so many children, for whatever reason, do not go to school. I fear that truancy may often be a fertile breeding ground for other social problems such as juvenile crime and drug addiction. I am encouraged that the Government have taken steps in Part IV of the Bill to strengthen the arrangements for dealing with truancy by introducing school attendance orders. It is imperative to bring parents into the picture, as the new orders will do.
However, truancy is not a simple matter, and I am sure that other steps are necessary, including the co-operation of voluntary bodies. I am involved with one such body, Schools Outreach, which exists for the sole purpose of placing high calibre, well trained, skilled, full-time workers alongside young children in schools. That organisation has been particularly successful in overcoming truancy and turbulence in schools. Here I must declare an interest, as I am the chairman of the appeals committee for that charity.
If the Government are really interested in reducing truancy in schools, surely the Department for Education should be able to offer more financial support than is given at present. The sums are
282
absolute peanuts in central government terms. The limited support given to the Berkshire project of Schools Outreach is much appreciated. But what about the rest of the country? Headmasters are crying out for trained workers from Schools Outreach to be put into their schools to overcome truancy and turbulence, and only extra finances are needed to achieve that.
10.55 p.m.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, speaking thirty-fifth in our debate I shall try to be brief. Most of what I might have said has already been said, and indeed much better than I could have said it. But I wish to raise two points and both may, I fear, seem peripheral to the main thrust of the Bill. That thrust—improving our primary and secondary educational provision by the state—can hardly be faulted. Indeed, improvement is probably long overdue. We can be sure from what has already been said that extended disagreement at later stages will occur over the specific organisational changes which are proposed in the Bill, but with the general aim of improvement it is hardly possible to disagree. I listened to the debate and learned a lot, and I look forward to taking some part in later stages.
My first point arises because I have received, as no doubt have many of your Lordships, an unusually large number of letters from parents of young children who are anxious about the future of nursery education. No doubt those letters are to some extent stimulated, but there can be no doubt about the anxiety. Though I know that the Bill is confined to primary and secondary education, I ask the Minister, when he replies to the debate, to touch upon the Government's attitude to the provision of nursery education, if only to dispel as soon as possible the real fear expressed in the letters that, as a result of the proposals, nursery education will have to be discontinued in some places. After all, nursery schooling should not be an optional extra. The younger one is, the more one has to learn and the more able one is to learn. One cannot start too young.
My second anxiety—one already voiced by several noble Lords—is also perhaps beyond the scope of the Bill. I say "perhaps" because, although universities do not appear on the face of the Bill, the Secretary of State for Education said at col. 161 of Hansard of another place on 2nd March, that Clause 1 of the Bill,
"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".
It had been my intention to ask the Minister to tell us, in respect of further and higher education, whether the Bill proposes any powers for the Secretary of State beyond the powers which derive from the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The Minister assured us that the answer is a clear and unequivocal no. We are grateful for that statement. But that leaves me uncertain about the purpose of the Secretary of State's words. In view of the heated debates on the Secretary of State's powers during the passage of the Education Reform Bill and the Further and Higher Education Bill, graphically described by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I am sure that the

283
universities will examine carefully the words of the Secretary of State, the Minister and Clause 1, to ascertain how they may be reconciled and what the actual effect of Clause 1 will be.
An amendment explicitly excluding further and higher education from the operation of Clause 1, as has already been suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, my noble friend Lord Dainton and the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, would be welcomed and I would support it. It would be extremely sad if time better spent on the important details of the present proposals had to be devoted to a third or perhaps even fourth replay of arguments for autonomy in higher education which were successfully maintained in the debates in Parliament on the Education Reform Bill and the Further and Higher Education Bill.
10.59 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it gives me particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Adrian—Oxford and Cambridge for once, rather than Coopers & Lybrand—and I do so with the more enthusiasm since what he has said makes it unnecessary for me to elaborate some points which I should otherwise have had to bring to the attention of my noble friend the Minister.
In spite of the assurances which she gave us in introducing the Bill, I find myself still perplexed by Clause 1. I think that my perplexity can be solved only if she is able to give us an understanding of how this clause came about with the reference to universities, which the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has mentioned. Our anxieties can be removed only if she can tell us that the Government will produce an amendment in due course which will make it clear that universities are excluded from that clause or, failing that, if she will say that the Government will accept an amendment which, with other noble Lords, I shall be tabling tomorrow morning to make that exclusion.
I can only repeat the regrets I expressed last week that the Government are so unwilling to take universities into their confidence. As I understand it—this is all those of us who are not in the confidence of government have to go on—the Bill that is now before us was presented to another place without this clause, that therefore it was never discussed in Committee in another place, that it was introduced only at Report stage and that by the conventions of another place no amendments at that stage were possible. I think it is only proper that those of us who are concerned should be told why it was that this was thought to be necessary.
The Secretary of State had powers under the 1944 Act, which has been referred to a number of times during the course of today's proceedings, for promoting education, which is the duty now imposed on him by the clause, but the 1944 Act went on to say that education was defined as progressing through three stages; primary, secondary and further. So, in the 1944 Act, although by then government were paying considerable sums towards higher education, it
284
was not thought necessary to confer powers on the Secretary of State in that respect. Therefore, there is a question—it is a perfectly fair question—to ask of the Minister. Why was it thought necessary to do this at this very late stage? What lacuna existed in the powers over education available to government which had not been satisfactorily covered by the operative clauses of the Bill, which are, as has been pointed out, numerous enough?
Perhaps I am even more suspicious at this hour of night than in daylight hours but I am somewhat suspicious, and for this reason. Those of your Lordships who are familiar with Victorian melodrama will know that when it is necessary to get rid of some superfluous female she is described as being afflicted with a disease known as "galloping consumption". Looking at the history of education over the past few years, it seems to me that Secretaries of State are also liable to a rather dangerous disease which in the terminology of Victorian medicine I would describe as "galloping megalomania". What does it consist of? It consists of producing year after year enormous bulky Bills that it would test the powers of endurance of a Sherpa to bring into the House. These Bills are not given full consideration in another place and your Lordships are left with a task, which we may or may not enjoy, of putting some rhyme and reason into their provisions. That is why we had the contest, particularly with regard to the universities, to which the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred earlier.
The other aspect of megalomania, if I may so describe it, is an obvious desire to extend wherever possible and into whatever possible realm the authority of the Secretary of State. It may well be - and all the holders of that office whom I can remember are honourable men - that this is not their personal desire; that they have no wish to strut the stage as mini-Napoleons, as someone has put it, but that somewhere in the heart of the department itself there is a resentment on the part of certain civil servants (and, were it not for the conventions of this House, some names might come to mind) that, although they have been able to wreak their will on the school system, the universities have so far established a measure of independence. However, unless we get the amendment which I have suggested to my noble friend the Minister and unless it is made absolutely clear that there was an error and unless an assurance is given that the Secretary of State read out a speech that he had never intended to make (at least, not with those words in it), we are bound to be extremely anxious. We are anxious not so much because of any doubts about the good faith of the Secretary of State, but simply about his capacity now to confront directly the anxieties of the university community in the way in which I enlarged upon in our debate last week.
In the speech in the other place to which the noble Lord, Lord Adrian referred, the Secretary of State talked about the exhilaration that one would feel when visiting the newly enfranchised schools and what he referred to as "independent universities". But the independent universities are only just clinging on. If

285
these provisions were passed, there would not be any independent universities for him to visit, except for the University of Buckingham. Twenty years ago when those who founded that university said, "The state is not a paymaster you can rely upon to keep its hands off forever", we were laughed out of court by pundits such as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, who was formerly in his place, and others. They said that the British system was an absolute guarantee. I did not believe it then and I do not believe it now. I think that it is perfectly reasonable (because the state represents the taxpayer) that those who pay the piper should call the tune. All that we ask for is that the tune should be rather more agreeable.
11.8 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, this courageous and largely excellent Bill seeks to strengthen the powers of parents, head teachers and school governors by encouraging grant-maintained schools. It also seeks to promote religious values in our schools. It is therefore much disliked by our educational establishment, which is largely atheist and which, until recently, has enjoyed a monopoly for more than 40 years. The massive failure of this monopoly is only now becoming widely recognised, thanks to the Government's determination to let some sunlight into its musty rooms. Perhaps the latest nugget of evidence of this monopoly's failure is yesterday's report from the Adult and Basic Skills Unit which finds that some 6 million adults are neither literate nor numerate in this country today. As violence grows in our society, one fears that just as many may now find it difficult to tell the difference between right and wrong.
I need hardly remind your Lordships of the main beneficiaries of the British state education monopoly. They are largely the local education authorities, the teaching unions, the teacher trainers and the Department for Education itself. Of these, this Bill affects the LEAs more than the others and so they have become its greatest natural enemies.
In the Bill's defence, the suggestion made by a number of your Lordships that its provisions may be an attack on local government itself is so clearly a red herring that I do not think I need deal with it further. Local education authorities perhaps bear more blame than anyone else for our present plight and must therefore expect to have their monopoly further eroded.
I wish one could lay the blame entirely at the door of Labour-controlled LEAs but one cannot. Of course, it is the Labour Party which spawned, and which has most enthusiastically espoused, the failed socialist experiment of comprehensivisation which it has promoted while many of our children have failed to learn the five Rs. But I gather that the standards in the comprehensive of, for example, Essex are pretty dismal too. By the same token dishonourable resistance to grant-maintained status has not been confined to Labour local authorities. I understand that Hampshire, Hereford, Worcestershire, East Sussex and indeed West Sussex have been among those authorities using large sums of public money to
286
lobby against grant-maintained status. I very much hope that Part H of the Bill will stop this behaviour in future.
It is not even as though anyone is suggesting that LEAs should disappear. We are just saying that they should earn the trust of parents by putting the interests of their children above the trappings of office and the dead hand of bureaucracy. Those which do that may well survive, as they have in Holland, where I am told that for most of this century some 60 per cent. of schools have been similar to our grant-maintained schools, and 40 per cent. have been under local government control.
I have criticised the Department for Education itself, and I know I must be careful about criticising civil servants who cannot reply publicly. But Schedule 13 to the Bill puts civil servants into play, and so I have to say that in my 10 years on the Council for National Academic Awards, and in my other contacts with our state education system, I have not always found all the civil servants in the Department for Education to be entirely supportive of government policy. Of course, that might be no bad thing if the policy in question was wrong. But I think I detect that this independence of action can be at its most fervent when government policy attempts to weaken the monopoly to which I have referred. Indeed, in view of the acrimonious debate we had on academic freedom last year and during your Lordships' debate on the 1988 Education Act, I would like to join my noble friend Lord Beloff and say that I have my doubts about the quality of the advice which caused Clause 1 to be inserted into the Bill so late in the day.
Lord Campbell of Allowsty: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me? I just wanted to record a protest against the criticism of the civil servants in the Department for Education. For reasons I have already given in a speech which will not have attracted the attention of anybody, I think that that is misconceived and unfair.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am of course grateful for that intervention, but I was just about to say that I hope that these fears are unfounded, and I mention them only because they are germane to the point I am about to make about Schedule 13. I was going to say that in view of these experiences I am fairly sure that the provisions of Schedule 13, which empower civil servants to take part in all meetings of the new School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, are inappropriate. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority is going to be a body of huge power and influence. It ought to be able to meet in private when its members wish to do so, and thus maintain its intended and necessary independence.
I trust that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway will read carefully what I said in Hansard and he may feel that his intervention was not necessary.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I do feel that my intervention was wholly necessary, and the longer this speech goes on the more proud I am to have made it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, without naming names, I do not think that I can go any further with my noble friend, but I am quite happy to do so if he wishes.
I have three further worries about the Bill. First, I join with other noble Lords in wishing to strengthen some aspects of its religious education clauses. For instance, I am advised that there are no safeguards against religious schools receiving hostile inspections from Ofsted as to their moral and spiritual ethos. This is clearly not the Government's intention, and so I trust that we can find a way round the problem.
Secondly, I join my noble friend Lady Cox and others in failing to see the point of the 10 per cent. hurdle which new schools have to jump before they can opt into the GMS system. The explanation that the hurdle demonstrates local commitment to GMS seems weak, especially when one considers that the Bill wisely allows for the clustering of schools across LEA boundaries. So I cannot quite see why a single new school should not cross from an area which does not have 10 per cent. of its schools grant-maintained into one which does. Once that principle has been accepted, I should have thought that the case for the 10 per cent. hurdle collapes.
My third fear is really my most important worry about this Bill, because I am one of the very few of your Lordships to be the parent of a mentally handicapped child, and so I feel that I have a particular duty to comment on the special education needs provisions of the Bill. The politically correct expression "special education needs" covers and confuses a broad range of ability, and so I should make clear that I am talking of the thousands of children like my daughter who are mentally handicapped. It is not helpful to them or to anyone else to describe them otherwise. Certainly we should not describe them as "people with learning disabilities" which is the new politically correct jargon now being espoused by our Department of Health. So I am referring to the effect that this Bill may have on statemented, mentally handicapped children.
I am in general enormously grateful for Clauses 148 to 180 and Schedules 8 to 10 of the Bill in this respect, and would like to join others—I must say our recent exchange makes it a pleasant opportunity for me to do so—and pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for inspiring much of what is contained in them and to the Government for acting upon that inspiration. The new tribunal is, for instance, particularly welcome.
I think that my worry is encapsulated in Clause 152, which seems to contain a presumption against special schools and a presumption in favour of making parents fight to keep their mentally handicapped children out of ordinary schools. I am afraid that Clause 152, as drafted, will extend into education some of the tragically erroneous philosophy of our Community Care policy, and I cannot believe that that is the intention. Indeed, there are signs that Clause 152 is already encouraging local authorities to refuse to fund mentally handicapped children in
288
special schools, using the irrelevant excuse that the school in question does not stick sufficiently closely to the national curriculum.
Of course, I accept that there are many parents of mentally handicapped children who want them to go to ordinary schools. I fear that many of those parents may do so because they may not have been able to withstand the pressures that are put on them to that end by our social workers and SEN enthusiasts. I fear their children will not be very happy in ordinary schools, however good the intentions of those who run them.
Be that as it may, the Bill seems to discriminate against those parents who know that their children are happier among their own kind, away from the natural competitiveness and, dare I say it, cruelty of ordinary children. Mentally handicapped children can suffer quite enough of that in the holidays, and so I hope that the Government will agree to remove the Bill's apparent presumption against special schools in Clause 152.
The hour is late and I have spoken enough. I support the Bill because it continues to break up a monopoly which has done more to damage our culture, our civilisation and our prospects than almost anything else I can think of.
11.20 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, at 11.20 in the evening, after listening to 37 speeches, I propose to say little. I prepared three speeches, one during the weekend and two during the course of today. With the greatest of respect, I propose to say nothing more than that in Committee I intend to try to improve the Bill to the best of my ability.
11.21 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot promise to be quite as short as that. I wish to add my voice to those who welcome this Bill. The Government have done much to improve our education system and they continue to advance on a broad front. This Bill lays the groundwork for further progress in some important areas.
My involvement in state education is a relatively recent one. I was educated in the private system, a system about which I have many reservations. Nonetheless, I chose to educate my children privately because I lived in London. In London I had seen my friends who taught in the state system driven out of it by the destructive influence that it had on them and on the children who they taught. I had seen my poorer friends make extraordinary sacrifices to keep their children out of it. I had seen the low morale and expectations of our local schools, the indiscipline and low achievements of their pupils, and I had employed the products of those schools: the intelligent ones, who should have had A-levels or better, without qualifications and getting their intellectual stimulation from petty crime, and the less capable ones unable to spell, to add or to express themselves; without enthusiasm, courtesy or self-esteem. Of course, I knew

289
that there were good schools in the system, but none was easily available to me, my local school being Holland Park Comprehensive.
Then I moved to Winchester and found a comprehensive stale system in flower like a rose hush at Chelsea, offering an education which is in every way, except for the amount of money spent on it, a match for its neighbouring private schools. I found pupils, courteous and well-disciplined, working studiously even after a long absence by their teacher, lessons so full of enthusiasm and interest that I wished I could be part of them and have another chance to study all those subjects like French, history and geography that I had hated so much, drama, music and practical experience woven into the academic curriculum, giving a breadth to education that I never experienced, the spirit of the schools, the commitment to achievement and excellence, their interest in and openness to parents and, above all, the pastoral care of each individual pupil. My Lords, I was profoundly envious.
But why should there be this vast divergence between the good and the bad in the state system? The best illustration I have come across of what I believe to the the crucial factors is Thomas Telford City Technology College. Of course, Thomas Telford is newly built and well endowed and has yet to show any examination results, and is different from its surrounding schools in many other ways. But its interest to me lies in the fact that it is positively unselective. It draws its children from a primarily industrial catchment and its intake is independently assessed to ensure that it matches the profile of its catchment in ability, social background, race and wealth.
The pupils describe the primary and secondary schools which they came from as being just like my image of London schools, and yet Thomas Telford feels every bit as good as a Winchester school. There is no truancy and it is having to double the size of the sixth form because the staying-on rate seems likely to be closer to 100 per cent. rather than the 50 per cent. that it budgeted for.
Talking to its pupils, three clear themes emerge. First, they appreciate the high expectations and commitment of staff. Secondly, they say that pupils are treated as adults rather than children. Thirdly, they say that both they and their parents have a strong commitment to education. Many noble Lords may recognise the similarities between these themes and the ones which emerge from the report of the HMI visit to Japan in which it was commented that there were "no low achieving pupils", that there was a pervasive and powerful assumption that virtually all children are capable of mastering the curriculum if they work hard enough and receive adequate support from their families, peers and teachers, and that the teachers held the same high expectations of all pupils.
We must rid this country of the pervasive belief that less should be expected of some pupils merely because of their home and social backgrounds. I meet that attitude of talking down all the time. It is immensely destructive of the pupils concerned and is simply not true. The children of bad state schools are, when you
290
get to know them, so obviously educated to well below their potential and so clearly demoralised by what they have been through. In such schools we are educating for unemployment, for criminality, for industrial decline and social disorder. This absolutely must stop.
Our Government have made and continue to make the many changes which are necessary to remedy this situation. At last, in GCSE, we have examinations which document attainment at any level rather than labelling pupils as failures. We have an examination which challenges those going on to higher education while engaging the interest of, and generating confidence in, those for whom GCSE, will be their ultimate achievement. We have the national curriculum and at the same time we have a great broadening of experience with the gradual rise of vocational qualifications and the encouragement of students in further and higher education to mix arts and sciences in their courses.
At least, I thought we were encouraging such mixing until I saw the further education funding councils' first proposals in which the extra financial weighting given for a science A-level course of, say, physics, chemistry and maths of 1.4 times the basic funding level is entirely eliminated if that pupil in addition takes an English A/S-level.
We have more information and, therefore, power and involvement for parents and now we have the new inspection arrangements for schools. Hampshire has been running courses to familiarise us with the system and all of us heads and governors, were left challenged but enthusiastic at the end of the day. We shall undoubtedly see much self-criticism and self-improvement by schools in their determination to get a good report, and even greater efforts o inform and involve parents.
We have seen what I hope will prove t o be a mortal attack on the concept of the teacher's right to teach, a concept that, like the architect's right to build and the surgeon's right to cut, belongs to the bad old days when people treated experts like demigods rather than advisers.
We have LMS, a process which has led to great improvements in both schools and LEAs, and now we have grant-maintained schools. There has never been an idea better calculated to generate commitment from staff, parents and pupils than the GM movement. It was always an excellent idea. It has proved itself in practice and now this Bill now brings it some further momentum.
We have reached the point in the evolution of the GM movement where it must establish its own funding mechanism. We must tread a careful path between centralised bureaucracy and an unrestrained free market. We must find a way of taking into account the local nature of primary and secondary education, with great differences over short distances in the type of intake, the quality of buildings and the availability of alternative schools. Funding that takes little account of the the physical characteristics of a school (such as that presently proposed by the FEFC)

291
or which is based on the social characteristics of an entire LEA (as suggested in the recent consultation paper) may produce substantial local distortions.
We must also beware of the market's tendency to destroy diversity, the tendency for it to produce lots of different kinds of the same thing. American television is a classic example, but for a more local example I counted the toothpastes in Tesco's—62 different kinds, all but one flavoured with mint and the other one was bubblegum. It will be a challenge to develop a mechanism for detecting and remedying undesirable side-effects of the common funding formula without creating an omnipresent bureaucracy, but it will be necessary, particularly as local education authorities fade away.
Even LMS has side effects; for example, a notable increase in long-term sickness claims are rising because teachers with conditions such as multiple sclerosis, who could be looked after within the broad budget of an LEA, cannot be supported in a relatively small school. Perhaps this is another suitable situation for the Rubber Windmill which, as the cognoscenti will be aware, has proved itself over several years as a predictive tool for the effects of NHS reforms and has recently been taken up for higher education by Liverpool John Moores and Leicester Universities. I hope that the Department for Education will take a tilt at it. The Department for Education certainly wishes to take a tilt at failing schools and this is greatly to be welcomed. A school which has resisted all the pressures that come from testing and publishing results, and the best efforts of its LEA, needs extreme and urgent measures to be taken.
The idea of education associations has attracted much criticism, but that is no reason for opposing it. If the Government are right, then to oppose education associations is to oppose the rescuing of tens of thousands of our children. If the Government are wrong, they will be stuck with a hundred of our worst schools on their hands with no one else to blame for their performance but themselves. They will have to save face by pouring in whatever resources and ideas are required to make things go right and again tens of thousands of our children will be rescued. Once we have saved a hundred schools we will know how to improve the rest. What has anyone, except the Government, to lose by this experiment? And is there not much to gain?
There are a few areas, though, where I hope for amendments or clarifications to this Bill. First, I know that we are to see new and more relaxed arrangements for grouping, to include the idea of a secondary school with its primary pyramid. These will be most welcome, provided that they allow each primary school to retain its own governing body while passing some powers up the line to the group: a sort of EEC structure. Sovereignty and subsidiarity are concepts that every Hampshire village holds dear.
Secondly, Clause 265 adds to LEAs' abilities to trade with GM schools but limits this to a two year period. We are rightly assured that that period does not begin until the LEA is no longer trading at the margin—perhaps in many years time—and that
292
commercial suppliers will then be available for all LEA services. But, nonetheless, we in Hampshire have grown used to the excellent services that our LEA provides and its function as a centre of excellence and co-operation. We also have our doubts about how robustly defined "trading at the margin" is, and all this adds to our cautiousness about going grant-maintained. If the Secretary of State would allow his powers to be extended by the lifting of the time limit, our anxieties would be lifted too.
Thirdly, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government intend to lighten the funding agency's burden, while it is finding its feet in its first few years, by exercising the discretion under Clause 10 not to involve the funding agency in planning matters, despite the breaching of the 10 per cent. barrier, where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the LEA is performing well.
Fourthly, I am delighted that we are to see new clauses establishing a system of well funded and well run schools for excluded pupils. Such pupils can do immense damage to the education of other pupils in mainstream schools but can recover their discipline and motivation and become successful students in small specialist units. We owe them a good education as much as any other child with special educational needs. But the Bill as a whole, as an instrument of progress in many areas of education, clearly deserves our wholehearted support.
11.33 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I was about to tell the fleet that I thought I was sinking but the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has quite buoyed me up with his enthusiastic remarks, particularly about the city technology colleges, of whose trust I am proud to have been a founder member. I am also a governor of the city technology college in Derby.
I congratulate the Government on their determination to carry through the good work started by the 1988 Education Reform Act—the ERA which heralded the new era of necessary change and improvement to the nation's schools. Most of us in the teaching profession welcomed the national curriculum positively and optimistically. Much has been achieved since 1988 with many of the subject orders now well in place.
I cannot pretend that it has been an easy time for teachers, particularly school heads. Change and adaptation have been inevitable. Certainly, many regulations have had to be rushed through with too little time for discussion and professional consultation, but time does not wait for children at school. I was moved by the eloquent support for teachers voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and my noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn. Appreciation from two such distinguished academics will do much to raise the morale of the profession.
Teachers' morale is low at the moment. That is not the fault of the Government. It is because, during the recent years of change, adaptation and development, there simply has not been enough time for teachers to adjust to the new demands and to plan their schemes of work and their strategies for assessment and

293
reporting of achievement. There has not been enough time for essential in-service training. The so-called Baker days of the 1988 reform Act are invaluable, but more training and support are needed. Now teachers need a rest from the stream of orders, regulations and guidance documents - please. I should like to put the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, straight on one point. Teachers are not undermined; they are just tired—like us.
I have two requests to make. Once the subject orders are in place, can they be left alone for a period? Once professional teachers know what they must teach, may they, in the words of my noble friend the Minister, be given the space to practise their art? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, that the best classroom teachers have to be able to teach in their own way, appropriately to their pupils, if they are to give of their best and ensure the high quality of education for our children that we all want.
A good example of what one might call the untapped potential of teachers is home economics. I hope that the powers-that-be will not be too prescriptive when preparing the new technology order. The technology curriculum is one subject that has not been right so far. We all acknowledge that. Clearly, this country is behind others in Europe which treat technology as far more of a practical subject. Many of our schools still have well-equipped home economics rooms with cookers intact. Technology should be about planning and making things. What could be better than making—that is, cooking—food? Prue Leith, the well-known cook and restaurateur, tells me that she started a cookery course in a school in Reading where the boys have, in the past, been pretty disruptive. The boys have taken to their cooking course and are eager to qualify for their chef's hat. Think of the vocational training they are receiving in that food technology class. Moreover, their behaviour is transformed.
My second request follows on naturally. Can the detailed statutory requirements take up no more than 70 per cent. of the time available for the whole curriculum? Schools could then build on their strengths and teachers could develop their own professional skills. Perhaps there might also be a chance for Latin.
It is odd that at a time when emphasis is rightly placed on grammar and syntax the national curriculum seems to be squeezing out Latin from the timetable in state schools. The Kingman Committee argued that as well as expanding vocabulary, Latin could make an important contribution to the teaching of grammar and syntax. Some people tell me that the only grammar they ever learnt at school was in their Latin lessons—sometimes from me. In the United States, Latin for literacy programmes have been notably successful. Despite its bad publicity this evening, I give three cheers for Holland Park Comprehensive School which has just advertised for a teacher of Latin.
I turn from the curriculum and teachers to administration, school heads and governors. As regards administration, proper financial standards are essential for grant-maintained schools which are
294
emerging into the world without the present fairly tight financial and performance review regime. Instead there seems to be an expectation that governing bodies will somehow cope with all the varying financial and performance pressures facing them.
These grant-maintained schools are going to need adequate support and supervision. May I urge a stronger role here for the Audit Commission which, I understand, would otherwise be able to carry out only simple financial audits, if appointed by grant-maintained schools, but would no longer have access to the central evaluation and support functions which it currently provides.
I invite the House to consider the pressures on the heads of newly-created grant-maintained schools. Most are untrained in executive management; yet they are suddenly asked to be responsible for budgets of between £2 million and £3 million. Who will ensure that the grant-maintained head receives the training and professional support she or he needs? For that responsibility a degree and a postgraduate certificate of education are simply not enough.
The role of the head teacher is paramount. For heads to lead as they should, their responsibilities must be clearly defined. That is one area where there is a need for more and not less prescription, The White Paper Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools stresses the importance of the head as a strong leader. The head is the chief executive of a school answerable to the governing body and needs the authority to exercise that responsibility. It is not appropriate for governors to be concerned with day-to-day management. It is for the head to manage the staff, academic activities, financial estimates and the maintenance of student discipline. I am asking for the head teacher to be on the face of the Bill where the role of the head has not been sufficiently recognised.
I worry about governors. There are schools in our inner cities—London, Birmingham and Liverpool—where several governors are themselves illiterate while many governors throughout the country have no knowledge of managing organisations. Nor have they much idea of the overall educational structure, not to mention employment law. Governors will need guidance and training, too. I wonder what safeguard there is in the Bill against incompetent governors. There is no problem in Cambridge or the shires. But what about the inner cities?
I turn to children with special educational needs. I am concerned for a group of children who have very definite, special educational needs. They are the children from very poor homes, often from immigrant families, who are in our inner city schools and who find all their welfare support services being eroded. It may be just temporary, but it is happening to them now. So many children in those schools have severe behavioural problems. They are deeply handicapped by their home circumstances and they are often unbelievably neglected. Surely their educational needs are special.
Imagine children of five or six years of age with a vocabulary of no more than 30 or 40 words! What happens to them at school is their only hope for

295
becoming anything like fully functioning adults. Please remember the wise words of my noble friend Lady Faithfull on the cost-benefit aspects of nursery schooling, particularly in respect of the children I have been talking about. I add my voice in support of those of noble Lords who have spoken up movingly for nursery schools. As a mere secondary school teacher, I cannot emphasise too strongly that the most important stage of education is the beginning—the earlier the better. The Spartans knew a thing or two.
I know from schools in the East End of London, which I visited recently, that there are nothing like enough resources for diagnosing children with special needs or for statementing them, let alone arranging appropriate treatment afterwards. One boy of 11 has just been expelled from his "failing" school. He had been statemented at his primary school, but since transferring to his secondary school last September he has not yet been given his statutory re-statementing. He is totally out of control. Ironically, before the 1981 Education Act, such a child would have been taught in a group of five, albeit in a segregated school. Now he is probably one of 10 children with special educational needs in a class of 30.
I have seen a young teacher in her first post vainly trying to conduct an examination class of mostly disturbed, huge young men aged 15. Her only hope of order in the class was to have her department head in there too, the department head giving up her one precious non-pupil contact period to do so.
There is a debate in the Chamber tomorrow on the inner cities. I hope that it will highlight the part that the Home Office, as well as the Department for Education, must play in supporting the local education authorities in trying to meet the special educational needs of the children and the teachers in these sad, deprived schools. I am all for parental choice. But who will do the choosing for the child whose parents—or more probably parent—neither know nor care what local schooling is available?
Anne Sofer, chief education officer for Tower Hamlets, tells me that in 1991 the Home Office approved a large Section 11 programme involving more than 500 additional staff for Tower Hamlets. This has given a real boost to morale and potentially to achievement. Unfortunately, late last year the Home Office announced that the grant would be reduced from 75 per cent. to 57 per cent. in 1994. For her this means a gap of £3 million, which she cannot fill. Being the largest recipients of Section 11 funding in this country, Tower Hamlets is the largest sufferer from the reduction. Section 11 special funding has in the past helped to provide the essential language and curriculum support that is needed. It must be kept at least until the Bill takes effect.
I conclude by congratulating the Minister on all that is good in the Bill, and also on the Government's new initiative for able children, for they too have special educational needs.
11.49 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we are somewhere in the middle—though at exactly what point on the map it is hard to say—of a necessary cultural revolution in education which is likely to roll on to the end of the century and probably beyond. The question we have to ask ourselves this evening is whether or not the Bill contributes positively to that process.
The Bill has this evening been called many names. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, accused it of ideological dogma; the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, likened it to a bull in a china shop; the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, compared it with an elephant. I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who called it clumsy and the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said that it was coherent. Not a few noble Lords said that it was centralist; and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said that the part which related to special educational needs was "fudged" and in general that it suffered from confusion. So what is it? Who is right? Or is it maddeningly a bit of all those things?
Some of those many-coloured strands of criticism can be woven together. The Bill can certainly be seen as the bull of the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, or the elephant of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, in the local authority china shop. I think that it can also be claimed to be coherent in the mechanistic sense that it sets up the machinery that the Government think they need to carry their revolution forward.
But coherence can be coupled with confusion if the ultimate goal for which the machinery was constructed is itself confused—which I fear may be the case. For my part, I contemplated its great length and Byzantine complexity with some dismay, but for reasons different than those advanced by most noble Lords this evening. My dismay is due to its failure, in my view, to give real legislative life to the slogan "Choice and Diversity", which was the title of the White Paper that preceded it. My approval, therefore, is a little more restrained than that of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky.
I return for a moment to the White Paper. We were to be offered (at paragraph 1.7):
"a new and evolutionary framework … robust enough to last well into the next century. That framework will be stable but broad, allowing a rich and diverse system of state funded education".
That sounded fine. Few people doubt that education is a mixed private and public good the vast majority of which should be funded out of general taxation. It is what happens within that envelope of public spending that matters. The uplifting phrases of the White Paper seem to give grounds for hope. In paragraph 10.1 we were also told that the Government,
"wishes to see the creation of new schools and will be seeking to remove barriers … to their formation".
I shall come back to that point. As a statement of intent it sounded good. On the whole, therefore, one could put down the White Paper—or I did—with some optimism.
Now let us look at the Bill. Much of the bulk of the Bill is due to the fact that no less than 128 clauses, those from 19 to 146 inclusive, are devoted to the promotion and extension of grant-maintained schools. There are a few more, if one includes the

297
facility for schools taken over by education associations to become grant-maintained. The dice are loaded heavily in favour of grant-maintained schools in various ways, including a 15 per cent. capital costs bribe to encourage existing LEA-maintained voluntary schools to opt for grant-maintained status.
The proposed shared regime between the local education authority and the Funding Agency for Schools over the whole wide bracket between 10 per cent. and 75 per cent. take-up of grant-maintained status sets up a tangled skein of responsibilities which seems to be a recipe for increased bureaucracy. A number of noble Lords shared that view and I shall not labour the point.
But the paradox confronting this massive and tortuous mechanism for increasing the number of grant-maintained schools from the present number, which, I believe I heard the noble Baroness say, had reached 500 or so, to about 1,500 in the not too distant future, and to a majority of all schools in the long run, which I understand to be the objective, is that many of the advantages of grant-maintained status are already inherent in the generalised local management of schools. I gather that by 1995 it is expected that in most areas 90 per cent. of educational spending will have been delegated to schools, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said. The Government's determination to keep their hands on all the other important levers seems to me to work directly against the expansion of grant-maintained status on the scale that they seek.
I turn next to some more specific criticisms and end with what I hope will be some helpful suggestions. One of the worst features of the Bill is its obsession with surplus places, reflecting, it is true, a similar obsession in the White Paper.
The Government estimate that,
"LEAs are currently paying for the upkeep of up to 1.5 million more school places than are required for present needs".
That comes from the Financial Memorandum. They have calculated the cost at some £300 million, which they plan to claw back partly to finance new places and partly to fund their new bureaucracies. But that is a dubious calculation, whether based on floor-space, the historical number of pupils or however it is calculated—which we are not told. More importantly—this is critical—it leaves out of account one essential requirement of a system of choice and variety; that is, that there has to be some surplus capacity for it to happen at all. Real parental choice cannot be reconciled with plans to eliminate all surplus capacity leaving virtually all decisions as to which schools should open or close, expand or contract, to bureaucrats and politicians.
Similarly, where an insufficiency of supply is identified, the Secretary of State may order the establishment, alteration or discontinuation of schools so as to secure provision for the estimated number of pupils. But much of that intervention could be avoided if local markets were allowed to do their work and schools allowed to expand or contract in response to parental preference. I therefore submit that Clauses 219 and 220 in particular need to be
298
looked at hard to see if they are susceptible of amendment or a new clause or clauses are required to mitigate those rigidities.
Likewise, Clauses 45, 46 and 48, together with Schedule 3, need scrutiny. Those clauses deal with the proposals for the establishment of new GM schools, either by the funding authority in Clause 45 or by independent promoters in Clause 46. They discriminate somewhat against the independent promoters who have more hurdles to surmount. In both cases the exact number of pupils to be admitted in each relevant age group must be specified. Additionally, Schedule 3 specifies no less than four sets of individuals or bodies who can object to the establishment of a new school under Clause 45, and no less than five sets who can object under Clause 46. Furthermore, in all cases the Secretary of State has to give his personal approval to the proposed new premises to which stringent conditions are attached. When one adds in that the Secretary of State has an effective veto for any of those proposals, one has a formidable series of barriers to entry, rather than a charter of encouragement to new entrants and new providers. I therefore find it hard to see where "choice and diversity" are coming from.
One of the most imaginative proposals I have heard recently is for the setting up of a schools land bank to take control of surplus educational buildings. Some of them might well find alternative uses as social security offices or primary care centres and the like, but equally they may well be attractive to promoters who could be not only the traditional voluntary providers but groups of teachers, active parents, community associations, industrialists and so forth, some with capital, some without, some aiming at profit and some not. Such promoters may well not fall within the rather institutional-sounding "Churches and other voluntary bodies" apparently envisaged by the Government. But they would be just as likely, perhaps more likely, to bring commitment, enthusiasm and innovative ideas into the schools arena. Different types of capital or loan arrangements could be devised to suit their circumstances and they would receive the per capita revenue funding for their pupils provided always that they met the necessary standards. Possibly some existing independent schools may come in also. To me it is intuitively an attractive idea. I do not know whether it is legally feasible, but I certainly propose to look into it before the next stage of the Bill.
To conclude, I cannot see why the Government are so scared of opening up the system to greater competition and genuine variety. The controls over what is taught, over quality and standards are, after all, now in place through the national curriculum (which is too prescriptive, in my view, but that is another matter); through Ofsted and through the independent registered inspectors. That is to say, the regulatory system is almost in place. It is proper that the Government should be the regulator of state-funded education and I have no quarrel with that. Every school must operate within the framework of regulation. The fact that that is now largely complete, should actually make it easier rather than

299
more difficult to proceed towards greater liberalisation of the means of delivery and greater encouragement of a plurality of providers.
Sadly, that is not what we are being offered in this Bill, in which the Government are entering terrain that does not properly belong to them. It is simply not the Government's business to dictate the number of places in every school in the country, or to appoint expensive roving commissions of commissars to hunt out every surplus place in the land. Having whittled away the power of local education authorities, the Government will be taking a seriously wrong direction if they turn themselves into one huge, and almost certainly inefficient, education authority.
We have heard that no amendments, other than the Government's own lengthy ones, were put into the Bill in another place. That cannot be right in as important and far-reaching a piece of legislation as this. I hope very much that it will leave your Lordships' House with some significant improvements.
11.59 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, even as we approach the midnight hour I can still muster a tremendous amount of enthusiasm to welcome this Bill as a truly giant step forward in creating a democratic framework for our educational provision and I offer my thanks to my noble friend the Minister for her comprehensive and encouraging introduction to the debate which reassured us on several important points.
I should like to mention three major areas which cause me to feel this enthusiasm in the Bill, but, first, I must express my astonishment at noble Lords opposite in their defence of the 1944 Act. This was an Act which, on the basis of one short and very unsatisfactory 11-plus examination, divided children, effectively for life, into labelled groups, groups, incidentally, which were based on the 1944 assumption, already out of date, of a workforce where about 75 per cent. of the workers—that is to say, the children who grew up to be workers—were unskilled. It is that assumption, and the structure which was built upon it, which in my view has maintained a stranglehold both on this country's education system and on its economic development for more than 40 years. That stranglehold was broken only by this Government's introduction of the entitlement to a national curriculum and a common system of examinations for all pupils through the 1988 Act.
This Bill offers to all schools enpowerment at the level of their individual school. My 17 years experience as an HMI, and the last six as chief inspector, led me to a very firm belief that the school is the living cell of the body educational, a cell supported, of course, by the lifeblood of parental and community involvement. All the educational research of recent decades has shown that the single most important factor in children's success at school is the degree of closeness and co-operation between their home and their school, between their parents and their teachers. As a parent who myself was once kept at the gate of my two young sons' LEA primary school by a notice saying
300
"No parents beyond this line", I cannot too strongly welcome the opportunity for those with the most direct care, concern, love for and knowledge of their children to have a real involvement in their daily experience of learning.
Turning now to the teachers, to the schools themselves and to those who run the schools, I should like to offer them my urgent message that they should choose as soon as possible to become grant-maintained. I say that not simply from a philosophical standpoint but from my own experience as one who ran one of the former polytechnics at the time when it came out of local authority control into the equivalent in higher education; I suppose of grant-maintained status—direct funding by a funding council. I should like to say to any head deciding how to advise governors and parents that there is absolutely no comparison between the experience of running a school in a permanent state of dependence on the LEA, with a budget controlled and monitored by big daddy LEA, and the experience of managing one's own affairs with maximum business freedom to put money where the logic of internal development determines priorities.
I am sorry to say that it is not only in the area of financial freedom that it makes sense to be free of the LEA. I listened with interest to the passionate arguments for academic freedom from central government which were rightly advanced in this House and wondered where were the voices raised when the polytechnics were subject to daily political bullying, interference and blackmail. That happened on many occasions to many polytechnics in many local authorities over the years of local authority control.
However, my positive experience is that once funding is removed from the LEA, it is much more positive and able to develop a free partnership based on the equality of two equal partners. I find it sad that so many noble Lords define an LEA's relationship with schools as one based on the LEA being the funder of the schools. Surely it is possible—I know from personal experience that it is possible—to form a relationship which includes shared interests, the sharing of information about development plans and support and help in initiatives such as City Challenge. All of that is very different from a relationship based on the concept of the funder and the funded.
Finally, like my noble friend Lord Rennell, I very much welcome the provision in the Bill for the identification and treatment of failing schools. Each year at South Bank we see many young people who have been totally failed by their experience of their inner-city schools but who prove themselves to be not only able and intelligent but highly motivated when given an opportunity, sometimes after many years in employment, of trying their hand at higher education. I feel great joy and pride at seeing their success, even though it comes later than it should have done, but enormous sadness for the many hundreds who do not have that opportunity and whose experience of being so appallingly failed by their schools, alas, stays with them throughout a life of under-achievement.

301
It is a very good thought that that long tale of under-achieving, bad schools will be tackled in the way suggested by the Bill. I am convinced that HMI and the inspection procedures, followed up by the need for identified action and possibly by the education association moving in to run the school, will ensure that all schools are able to perform well - as we know that they can - and, more importantly, that we shall be raising the standards for all our children, not just for a few.
12.8 a.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark. Like her, I warmly welcome the Bill which is good in so many ways. I strongly endorse the drive for higher standards in all schools and I long to see a much higher proportion of our students staying on for higher education. My noble friend Lord Lucas gave the example of a school that now caters for 100 per cent. of its pupils slaying on into the sixth form. That should mean a much greater proportion going on to higher education. I hope so. I warmly welcome also the stronger governing bodies, which will have greater accountability to the community, and the merger of bodies responsible for the curriculum and assessment.
As the first of the Wednesday morning speakers, I do not propose to make a full-length Second Reading speech, but I should like to comment on a couple of points. I echo what my noble friend Lady Brigstocke said about the needs of teachers. I wonder whether the Bill goes as far as it can to encourage teachers and to improve their morale generally. I hope that it does. I know from speaking to teachers that that is greatly needed. Can we reduce the amount of paperwork with which the average teacher has to cope? I have a letter from an English teacher who says that she has to complete 17 criteria in assessing each piece of written work and oral presentation. With a class of 16, that means 16 times 17 - I cannot work it out at this hour of the morning - criteria that she has to complete. She says that it is extremely daunting work. While we need to be thorough, do we need to be as thorough as all that?
I long to see teachers able to maximise their time teaching the boys and girls in their classes. I hope that after the Bill is passed we shall have a real period of stability, as my noble friend Lady Brigstocke emphasised, without too many more changes.
I wish to comment too on the relationship of worship, religious education and spiritual and moral development. There is great anxiety about the inspection of worship. At the very least I believe it is important that the criteria of that inspection are made absolutely clear. Even so, can an agnostic really evaluate it, however well intentioned he or she may be?
I have hope. I wrote to my noble friend the Minister and received a reply from a member of her department saying that the inspection team could have someone acceptable to the governors able to inspect denominational RE and other aspects of the school. The letter was dated 1st February. I wonder whether the "other aspects" include worship and spiritual and
302
moral development because that would cover the anxiety. I can see the great value of a totally independent and outside appraisal of all three categories that are so important in our education. I wonder whether at the same time a denominational inspector could also look at it from the point of view of the denomination involved—Church of England, Roman Catholic or Jewish. I feel that parents and others would gain tremendously if both appraisals were published at the same time. They would give different slants and provide some advantages in the reporting back to the community on how well the school is doing.
Finally, in the light of the NCC report on the agreed syllabuses, I strongly endorse the notion that the NCC should give national guidance on the syllabuses and that these should thereafter by monitored by the SCAAs.
12.14 a.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, in the way that we deal with primary legislation in Parliament this Bill has two Secretaries of State, and I shall address my remarks briefly at this time of the morning to the second of the two because there is a slightly smaller logo on the front of the Choice and Diversity White Paper which refers to the Welsh Office next to the Department for Education. There is an even more grandiose quotation in Chapter 14 which refers to arrangements in Wales. It states:
"The Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for all education matters in the Principality and the reforms will be implemented so as to reflect the distinctive needs and historical, cultural and linguistic characteristics of Wales".
I quote that chapter and verse because it seems to me that the content of the Bill falls substantially short of the rhetoric of the White Paper, and it does so in a number of ways.
It is clear to me that the Government were faced with a difficulty yet again which they should have understood after the exercise of the Education Reform Act 1988. It is that to devise legislation in York Road and then to take it down by 125 train to the Welsh Office in Cardiff is not an appropriate way to deal with the complex structure of the relatively autonomous Welsh education system which was so aptly and historically described by my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I do not have to repeat his historical lecture, save to say that I endorse his conclusions.
In the current climate in which education functions in Wales, the Bill again fails to deal with the needs of Welsh education. Whatever the reception of the proposals for a funding agency in England and the other recommendations contained in the White Paper and the Bill, there is little or no support among the educational providers, or indeed parents, throughout Wales for the proposals contained in the Bill. That is why it is incumbent upon the Secretary of State for Wales, taking note of his responsibility, to proceed with the Bill in a very different way from the way in which it is being proceeded with at the moment by the Department for Education.
The Secretary of State for Wales should do that, taking account of the opinion and consensus that exist in Wales about how the education system is

303
administered. I am not personalising this matter. It is not just the present Secretary of State. It is the Welsh Education Department and Sir Wyn Roberts, the longest serving Minister of State in the history of the United Kingdom, who are responsible for administering the system and they have to deal with it in a way that goes with the grain of the system itself. It is obvious that they have had great difficulty in bringing out the Welsh clauses for the Bill. That applies to the Schools Funding Council for Wales and the other body (Awdurdod Cwricwlwm ac Asesu Cymru) the Curriculum and Assessment Council.
If your Lordships look at the White Paper you will be familiar with the fact that the original proposal was for the paltry number of grant-maintained secondary, junior and primary schools in Wales—I think it is still four secondary schools at the last count—to be maintained by the Further Education Funding Council. But when we reach the Bill we find that there are now two proposals. One is for the creation, by order, with no specific date, of the Schools Funding Council for Wales. But in the meantime, any grant-maintained schools that may appear—I suspect that it will be only one or two, if that many—in the course of the next year or so while the legislation is becoming established will be directly grant supported by the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State himself. There we have two schemes, and no indication of the timing of the introduction of the funding council.
Bearing in mind the grandiose quotation I made at the beginning of my remarks about the Secretary of State being responsible for all education matters in the Principality, I turn to the incredible arrangements for the transfer of functions relating to the curriculum and assessment. Although the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for the whole of education and training, including further and higher education, within Wales, under the arrangements contained in the Bill, it is only up to the age of 14 in relation to the breadth of the curriculum that the responsibility for curriculum development and assessment will be transferred to ACAC, as we call it affectionately in Wales using the Welsh acronym for Awdurdod Cwricwlym ac Asesu Cymru. Not only is that an anomaly, but to add to the complexity and confusion, responsibility for all key stages relating to Welsh medium provision are being transferred. However, the other aspects of the GCSE-level will remain the responsibility of the restructured SEAC, the curriculum and assessment body for England. Therefore, there is a clear inconsistency and a failure to decentralise in a reasonable way.
We then come to the issue which was touched on so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. It was the relationship between that structure, local education authorities and the existing Welsh Joint Education Committee, Cyd-Bwyllgor Addysg Cymru. That is a unique institution in that it extends well beyond the traditional role of regional examination boards in England. It is a broad-based educational development body. It was called on by the Welsh Office and the Government some six or seven years ago to undertake
304
specific development work on Welsh medium provision so as to provide for a full strategic role for the development of Welsh medium education.
It seems to me that the Government and the Welsh Office are making decisions about the structure of the education service in Wales at precisely the time which is the least appropriate. Members of this House will during the coming year debate both the White Paper and the Bill on local government reorganisation within Wales. Yet precisely at this time the Government and the Welsh Office are moving to impose upon us a structure of schools funding councils and a further structure of a curriculum and assessment body which surely duplicates the work already being undertaken at a local level by local education authorities and at the all-Wales level by the Welsh Joint Education Committee.
As regards the clauses in the Bill which are relevant to Wales we must say to the Secretary of State for Wales that it is time he opted out. He should opt out of the Bill and ensure that the structure of education within Wales is organised by those who operate the system democratically. That is the other aspect of the Bill. The main reason why the Bill has been so roundly rejected by the educational bodies within Wales is that we still have a long historical commitment to something called "community", to something called "democracy" and to the link between the two.
The structure of the local education authority has faults. I do not defend any particular authority and I do not say that the status quo is the option. It is not the option in my view because we need to make a radical reappraisal at school and community levels and at the level of the delivery of the education service. However, we need to start by looking at the needs of Welsh communities rather than at a system imposed by what I can only call the "high-speed 125" type of government by diktat from Whitehall imposed on the Welsh Office which we see in the Bill.
I give the Welsh Office and the other Secretary of State due warning that many noble Lords will be moving amendments to ensure that the parts of the Bill which apply to Wales are available for opt-out. The Secretary of State should seriously consider whether it makes any sense at all to proceed with those clauses relating to Wales in advance of his proposals for local government reorganisation.
12.24 a.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, as we now coming to the final furlong of the great educational chase I shall not detain your Lordships long from the finish line. In general I support the broad thrust of the Bill, although I must agree with noble Lords who consider that it is overlong. I am sure that as usual much must be done to improve it. Much was done and left undone in another place, particularly in respect of Clause 1.
As a governor of a city technology college which my noble friend knows well, I shall pay particular attention to what she has to say about Clause 16. However, this evening I wish to put down a marker in relation to Part III of the Bill and, in particular, the provision of special education facilities for the physically and mentally handicapped.

305
I am sure that the Minister knows of the extraordinary work carried out by Lord Mayor Treloar's College in Hampshire, where children with a wide range of disabilities are educated and trained to levels far beyond any that a lay individual would consider possible. Any of your Lordships who have visited the school will have been, as I was, moved and humbled by the devotion and ingenuity of the staff and the courage, determination and cheerfulness of the pupils.
There are two issues in the Bill which particularly concern Treloar's and other non grant-maintained special schools. The first is that the Bill extends the possibility of grant-maintained status to such schools. There can be little objection to that as such, but children attending grant-maintained schools are no charge on the local authority since they are to be funded from a central departmental fund. But Treloar's and others like it are non-maintained schools at present. The specialist nature and extremely wide—practically national—catchment area of the school, to say nothing of the expense of such provision, mean that it is not an obvious candidate for grant-maintained status.
As a result, the children will continue to be sent to the school by the local authorities and, therefore, have their fees paid by those authorities. Under the terms of the Bill as it is drafted, there is a strong disincentive to send a child to Treloar's or any other special school as opposed to a non grant-maintained school because the child sent to a grant-maintained school ceases to he a burden on the funds of the authority. Therefore, it seems that some method of funding a child with such disabilities at a no grant-maintained school should be introduced by my noble friend to bring the funding regime into line with the grant-maintained sector. But I am not sanguine, as attempts to bring about such a change in another place were strongly resisted by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The second issue concerns the principle of parental preference. While the Bill recognises—nay, enshrines —the obligation of local education authorities to take into account any parental preference that may be expressed for a grant-maintained school, it makes no mention of possible parental preference for a non-maintained school. In the case of a special school, and in particular Treloar's, there is frequently an extremely strongly expressed parental preference that a severely handicapped child should be afforded the opportunities that such an establishment offers in an atmosphere of care and affection. There is a real danger that, unless your Lordships' Committee, if not the Minister, can be persuaded to amend the Bill to deal with that omission, a local authority, perhaps beset by the demands of priorities of higher public and political profile, would turn round and wash its hands of an expensive problem by saying that the Bill places no obligation on the authority to consider the parents' wishes in respect of that school because it is in the non-maintained sector.
I trust that the light of reforming zeal in my noble friend's eye does not blind her to the obvious inconsistency of that position. Let us hope that, when the Bill is considered in your Lordships' Committee,
306
the non-maintained sector of special schools will not be ignored. Many such schools for the disabled are extremely distinguished and enjoy wide support from parents and the community at large. As the Bill stands at present, because their provision is perforce expensive, they could be severely disadvantaged in comparison with centrally funded grant-maintained special schools. Let us hope also that the Minister will see fit to address the point of parental preference.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, rightly highlighted those problems with regard to the education of the blind. Much more has properly been referred to by noble Lords and I shall not trespass on your Lordships' tolerance by covering that ground again. I am sure that my noble friend will be able to possess herself in patience until the Committee stage to learn of my opinions on these other matters.
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it appears there is no one who wishes to speak in the gap in the Speakers' List. At about six o'clock my noble friend Lord Ritchie scribbled down a few calculations and told me that I would rise to speak at about 6 a.m. I am happy that that is not the case. However, I realise now that the comment made by the cab driver who drove me here some 10 hours ago was more apt than I realised at the time: he asked me whether I was one of the inmates!
The Minister said at the start of this debate that schools have welcomed self-government. That is the case, but it is so in the context of, and with the support, of local education authorities. For me, one of the saddest things about this Bill is that local financial management and local management of schools which was a good idea—an idea developed by our colleagues in Cambridge and built upon by the Minister—has been taken well beyond its logical conclusion. Zeal moving to zealotry is a dangerous thing.
We have had a good deal of discussion this evening on "Clause Zero", as it was called when it was introduced. It is ominously named. That term is redolent of a horror movie or a nightmare. There is a little of a nightmare quality to Clause 1 in the sense that, like a dream, it does not quite relate to reality as we know it. It makes no mention of local education authorities and surely those analyses which say that it is an attempt to write local education authorities out of the mainstream of education provision must be right.
The Minister also said that Clause I embodies the Government's vision. As speakers including the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, have said, that vision seems to be one principally of power. We have also discussed the replacement of democratically elected, locally accountable bodies by the Secretary of State and his quangos. Quangos too often consist of placemen. The education committee of Conservative controlled Devon County Council has stated:
"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 constitutional implications of this Bill are considerable. I regret that I cannot agree with the

307
comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, on the democratic framework. That is not an analysis I share. But the implications are not just constitutional, they are practical; for example, the role of the local education authority in strategic and co-ordinating terms. I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who referred to the role of the LEA in—to take one simple example—planning for a new development and also its relationship with other services, in particular social services.
I agree, too, with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, with regard to the local government review. It was a point which I intended to make about England but it is even further down the track in Wales, and it has made me wonder again whether considering structure before function was the right way to go about the review of local government.
We have also spoken about the importance of partnership between those who are concerned with education provision; that is, central and local government partnership, among others. I have to say I think that both sides in this argument should show a little humility. I do not think that perfection is found either on the side of central or of local government in this area. On both sides an attempt to come together needs to be made. But the Bill gives no sense of real partnership.
Clause 265 has been mentioned, which concerns the local authority provision of services with a two year limit. If that limit remains, will it not lead to the loss of an irreplaceable, accumulated expertise? Is that not another example of the Government not trusting local authorities? If the Government do not trust local authorities do they not at least trust the structure that they have put in place for compulsory competitive tendering for so many local authority services? The regulating hand of CCT might at least give them the confidence to allow those services to be provided for a longer term.
Clause 255, which moves recoupment for education in another authority area to the Secretary of State, is another nail in the coffin of the link between the local authority and its own community. The local authority loses the responsibility of paying for its own community.
I am very much a supporter of partnership and the use of the skills and contributions of all members of our society. I am very much a supporter of freedom of expression for governors and of real choice for parents. Therefore, to take one example, why does not the Bill permit governors and parents to decide when to raise the issue of opting out? I fear that an annual ballot will be a divisive procedure.
The Bill does not allow the discretion for a ballot to opt back into local authority control, nor for a so-called failed school to decide whether to remain within the LEA. The education association will take it into grant-maintained status or will close it without a ballot. Must there not be a concern that once a school is designated as having failed that will become a self-fulfilling prophecy and it will be impossible to save that school?
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred to the
308
question of standards, both in and out of local education authorities, and the quality of grant-maintained schools. That is an issue to which we shall have to have regard.
I am also anxious about powers of closure in dealing with excess places. I fear that they may be the subject of a short-term approach. There is an interesting conjunction this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who is to follow me, represents a ward which adjoins the ward which I represent, although we are in different boroughs. The school whose governing body I chair is on the borough boundary. It takes many children from the noble Lord's adjacent borough. That is no criticism of the noble Lord, who is an opposition member of that authority, which is the flagship authority of south inner London.
There are real strains as a result of the present position. I sense that some may be short-term strains. The number of pupils in local authority schools are higher, because of the recession, than five years ago. That is a relatively short-term problem with which we have to cope.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, gave a warning concerning the provisions for special educational needs, including the fact that an individual school cannot formulate policies for the whole range of special needs. She also said, as must be the case, that the question of resources is a major issue. We must heed her warnings.
The noble Earl, Lord Stockton, referred to the question of parental preferences in the field of special needs. That is a matter with which I have a great deal of sympathy.
The longest Education Bill ever—the boast of the Department for Education—gave us the shortest period of consultation for a major piece of educational legislation. It also includes the late introduction of amendments by the Government. It is a long Bill, but it does not include anything to enable teachers to teach better. As a noble Lord commented, GTC (General Teachers' Council) is the acronym which is missing from the Bill.
I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the best single step she could take for education would be to give public support to teachers. Not every teacher is perfect, but not every teacher is bad. I see that the Minister is looking sternly at me, but that is the impression that the public have of the Government's view of teachers. Teachers are among many others who are begging for stability and for a period of no change. It was the Conservative Education Association which said:
"We are also concerned that while the FAS will be expected to work with LEAs it will in fact merely undermine them. We are likely to see several years of transition which will mean instability".
Teachers, too, know that education is not just a matter of the market and that children are not just widgets. Today we have heard wide-ranging criticisms of this Bill. My last quotation is from the chairman of the education committee in West Sussex who said:
"I am a Conservative. We are a Conservative LEA and it gives me no joy to say they [the Government] are using all sorts of immoral bribes to persuade schools to go with the dogma".

309
I look forward to attempts to reduce the dogma in the Bill and to improve it.
12.40 a.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I rise because I suspect that I am the only noble Lord taking part in the debate who was educated in an inner-city comprehensive school. I did not realise how badly educated I was until I heard the speeches of some noble Lords opposite. Indeed, I was educated at the infamous Holland Park comprehensive school.
I believe that this has been an excellent debate on an important Bill. I wonder how many of your Lordships would agree with Mr. Eric Forth who said in another place:
"I am confident that when the Bill leaves the Committee it will be in such a perfect state that even their Lordships will have difficulty finding fault with it".
In my response to the debate I shall seek to divide my comments into two broad halves: the constitutional implications of the Bill and the educational aspirations. I believe that there is a consensus that the proposals in the Bill would deplete the role of local education authorities as the main providers of education in England and Wales. As an aside, I hope that the Minister will respond to the comments of many noble Lords, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, about explicitly removing the universities from the provisions of Clause I of the Bill.
I contend that there are all the necessary elements in this Bill to delete the role of local education authorities as the providers of education in England and Wales. Those elements are as follows. We have heard a great deal about Clause 1. It throws into sharp relief the constitutional change. It removes Section 1 of the Education Act 1944. which, together with Section 8, define the constitutional relationship between central and local government in education provision. That partnership is to go. My noble friend Lord Glenamara spoke of the post-war consensus in Britain, and that imposed on Germany, which put the control of education firmly at local level.
I believe that it was the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, who spoke of the concern about the loss of a community of schools at local level. I believe that it was my noble friends Lord Dormand and Lady David who spoke of the undemocratic proposition of the FAS.
A further element is contained in Clauses 2 to 9. Those establish a separate and parallel source of funding for all schools in England and Wales. I believe it was the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who asked how that is to be held to account. A further element is the new balloting procedures for acquiring grant-maintained status. Some of those procedures are undemocratic such as the removal of a second governing body resolution, the limiting of LEA expenditure on publishing information about a grant-maintained ballot and the widely-drawn powers of the Secretary of State to declare a ballot void. That again was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
A further element is the lack of a requirement for a ballot for special schools to become grant-maintained and for schools run by education associations to
310
become grant-maintained. The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, asked why no grant-maintained schools would ever be thought bad enough to need the safety net of an education association. I was also glad that the Minister nodded her head when my noble friend Lord Dormand asked whether LEAs would be given a chance to put schools right before local education associations are brought in.
Another element is the denial of the opportunity for schools to opt back from grant-maintained status to LEA control. A further point was the inequality of funding between grant-maintained schools and the LEA schools. Here, I should like to echo the plea of the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, for keeping Section 11 funding, which is important in my own borough, until the funding arrangements settle down between the two statuses of the schools.
Another element is the loss of the lead planning role by LEAs when only 10 per cent. of the pupils in their area are in grant-maintained schools. Here, my noble friend Lady David spoke of the confusion that may ensue from the dual planning role of the FAS and LEAs. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke of the: same concern, and even the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, spoke of the lack of local flexibility in who has the lead planning role when a particular proportion of schools are between LEA status and grant-maintained status.
All those elements are there to provoke the end of LEAs as they currently operate. 1 draw on my experience as a local councillor in Wandsworth where the then chairman of the education committee and the director of the education department wrote in a paper for the Centre for Policy Studies in 1991:
"The days of LEAs as most of them still operate are or should be numbered. There is no reason why all schools should not be self-governing".
I believe that it is no accident that 'Wandsworth published its education policy paper entitled Diversity and Choice only a few weeks before the Government published their White Paper Choice and Diversity.
If it is the intention of the Bill that all schools should be self-governing, and the necessary elements are there, the Minister should say so. There is an old American saying:
"If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck".
The Minister should come clean about her intentions.
For our part, we shall seek to put forward amendments which take the Bill at its face value. If there are to be parallel sources of funds for schools, if there is to be an institutionalised conflict for those funds, it should be on the basis of a level playing field. A level playing field would have some of the following elements: an equity of funding for children in schools; an ability to opt back into local education authority control; balloting that reflects the views of all parents and does not destabilise schools by annual repetition.
We would also wish to amend the Bill to protect what is currently good in our LEAs. Our LEAs should retain their role in providing goods and services across their area of responsibility. The blooming of our county youth orchestras is the envy of Europe, as we have heard this evening. The LEAs should retain their

311
role in co-ordinating and planning the peripatetic music teachers and music courses, and all the rest of it, which have led to the acclaimed high standards.
I believe that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, who talked of the glory of our county youth orchestras and used the word "wicked" when she said that those standards might be eroded. I myself played in a county youth orchestra for a number of years and I heartily agree with those sentiments.
We also wish to protect the consensus created by the Education Act 1988 in the realm of religious education. We believe that it must not be undermined. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, spoke of the concerns of the religious community about the Bill.
We also wish to amend the Bill to create a GTC. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, spoke very eloquently about that topic. Lest there be any doubt, I believe that all the teaching unions support that concept and have approached the Government about the formation of a GTC.
We also wish to amend the Bill to raise its sights and we accept studies that have consistently shown that nursery education improves a child's chance in life. The resources should be there to provide nursery education, which must be planned and co-ordinated so that it reaches those children who need it most. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, spoke very powerfully about the early need of children to have education, and in some cases intervention, particularly some children from the most deprived homes. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, spoke about how the opportunity is being missed to include nursery provision in the legislation. Those sentiments were echoed, I believe, by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful, by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke.
Part III of the Bill deals with special educational needs, about which we have heard much. For our part, we support the presumption in favour of integrating children with special educational needs into mainstream schools. We have some questions about the resource implications of the special educational needs tribunals.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked whether LEA and grant-maintained schools will have funds for children with special needs who are not statemented. I thought that was a particularly telling question. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, spoke of the local necessity of planning for special educational needs provision. I listened with great interest to the second half of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and to the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, in the area of special educational needs provision. I was very interested in and sympathetic to their comments about parental preference and issues being handled very sensitively.
Another aspect of our concern is the lack of any complaints procedure on the face of the Bill. That is unusual in that there are such procedures in penal legislation and health service legislation. I think particularly of the area of exclusions, where there is a strong case for establishing separate tribunals similar to those to be established for children with special
312
educational needs. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who asked about additional financial benefit for schools which keep children who are particularly difficult to deal with. I thought that an extremely imaginative suggestion. I should also like to say that his proposals for improving school discipline through a greater clarity of rules and co-operation sound both sensible and workable.
I turn to the educational aspirations of the Bill. I was a little surprised to discover that, so far as I know, the White Paper has not been discussed in this House. It seems that a simple educational and ideological logic has led to the Bill. It is as follows. First, there is a need to achieve higher standards. From there, to achieve those higher standards there has to be specialisation. From that point, if there are to be specialised schools, there has to be selection for those schools—both selection of schools by pupils and selection of pupils by schools. That train of logic stems from a belief in the benefits of competition over planning. In my view that belief is almost theological in its fervour. I wryly note that it is a fervour which Members opposite and Members of the Government apply to other people's children and not to their own. One reason why Members opposite use their wealth to educate their children privately is to protect their children from the excessive competition of mixing with children from ordinary families. Nevertheless the logic is there. The need for higher standards leads to specialisation, which in turn leads to selection. Therefore I believe that the Government wish to see in place a diverse choice of selective, specialised schools in a continual state of competition. I was amused by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when he spoke of markets leading to a larger choice of much the same thing.
To achieve that goal the Secretary of State has taken unprecedented powers for himself in provoking the end of locally accountable education authorities. I believe it was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford who spoke of his anxiety in regard to the Secretary of State's "unfettered" powers.
Under the guise of giving parents more power, the Secretary of State has taken more power for himself. Unfortunately for him, Britain's parents have failed the Government. They have failed the Government by not sharing their vision that specialisation and selection are the paths to higher standards and greater opportunities for all our children. Britain's parents have failed the Government by insisting on the benefits of nursery education, which must be resourced, planned and co-ordinated so that it reaches those who need it most. Britain's parents have failed the Government by wanting a locally accountable education authority which can continue to supply the goods and services which enhance the life of the school and its children. Britain's parents have failed the Government in that they want local control of their schools and not state control of their schools.
The Bill is of constitutional importance in that it contains all the elements necessary to provoke the move of education, which is, after all, the single largest part of local government finance, from local to state control. It is of educational importance in that it

313
undermines the 1944 Act and seeks to provoke the introduction of specialisation and selection in our schools. The Government are experimenting with the lives of other people's children. We reject the Bill and all its implications.
12.57 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I had no doubt that the debate would be instructive. So many of your Lordships speak from considerable and varied experience in the field of education. I cannot hope to respond either to each point that has been raised, or to each speaker. However, I shall attempt to deal with some of the points of interest and refer all other matters to more detailed discussion at Committee and Report stages of the Bill.
Let me begin by responding to the anxieties on Clause 1, in which so many noble Lords have expressed an interest. It is true that the department gave it the temporary code name "Clause Zero" but that was to make sure that it was fed in at the beginning of the Bill: it was not a transferred epithet reflecting a bloodcurdling desire to rid the world of local education authorities. Far from it. As I made clear in my opening speech, they have an important and continuing role.
Several noble Lords expressed anxiety about the application of Clause 1 to higher education, in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Adrian and Lord Baldwin, and my noble friends Lady Cox, Lady Young, Lord Eccles, Lord Renfrew, Lord Skidelsky and others. I sought to make clear in my opening remarks that Clause 1 of the Bill does nothing to extend the powers of the Secretary of State over universities.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, if the provision does nothing but what is already done in unrepealed legislation, why is it in the Bill at all?
Baroness Blatch:: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to complete my explanation and we shall almost certainly return to the topic in the course of discussing the Bill. In view of the strong concerns expressed by all noble Lords it may be helpful for me to explain a little more in greater detail.
Clause 1 of the Bill brings Section 1 of the Education Act 1944 up to date. That was its purpose. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State indicated in another place on introducing the amendment, it covers all the relevant education institutions and bodies, including universities and the higher education funding council. But it does so only to the extent that the Secretary of State has specific powers or duties in relation to those bodies. It does not extend those powers or those duties.
As regards universities, those powers are set out in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. As Members of this House will well recall, there was full and detailed debate about the nature and extent of those powers during the passage of the Act. Those powers are limited. Specifically, Section 68 of the Act debars the Secretary of State from imposing terms and conditions of grant which relate to academic issues.
314
This House was fully satisfied that the 1992 Act secured the continuing independence of the universities. Clause 1 of the Bill has to be read with the 1992 Act, which it in no way overrides. I have heard all that has been said today. I shall keep an open mind. I will continue to take advice and will return to the matter again in Committee and possibly on Report.
There has been much talk about the Bill being a great centralising measure, gathering all power into the hands of the Secretary of State. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, prayed in aid at some length the Conservative Education Association. As I suspect he well knows, that body has no official links with the Conservative Party, and I dissociate myself and the Government entirely from its private thoughts. Alternatively, I could join the noble Lord's game and quote at length from the Socialist Education Association, whose advice to parents last month was, and I quote:
"Keep your children at home on testing day".
I have a positive library of quotes from the SEA, so perhaps we should call it a day on cat calling on these matters. I believe that we have much more important things to do in this Bill.
I fully accept that the national curriculum was a centralising measure. It was intended to be so, to bring some coherence to the variety of curricular offerings around the country, the result of which was a failure to educate our pupils properly. But I believe the national curriculum to be a widely supported measure, provided—as we all agree it should—it gives sufficient flexibility for teachers to extend the curriculum in the way which best reflects their skills and talents, and those of their pupils.
Without this centralising measure we all had to take our chance on good, bad and indifferent practice. This was not exposed and it was purely a matter of chance if one received a good education. But I recognise what has been said, particularly by my noble friend Lady Brigstocke. It has not beer an easy time for teachers. The national curriculum has represented an enormous challenge. I know that many of those teachers have risen magnificently to the challenge. However, some of those who ask for a consolidation and for a slow down in the pace of change speak with a forked tongue. On the one hand they say, "Please, no more change. Do not keep reviewing the subject orders." We are asked to look again at home economics. We did in fact respond to teachers in regard to looking at technology. I have to say to my noble friend that home economics does not prepare our young people for the manufacturing world into which many of them will go beyond school. On the other hand, if we are to respond to many of the concerns that teachers have, we shall have to look again at the orders. The National Curriculum Council and Ofsted have both said that there is an issue of possible overload and too much content in each of the orders. We have promised that we shall have a rolling review programme looking at the orders and addressing the needs of primary school teachers in particular. It will address the issues of flexibility and manageability.
Reference was made to room for Latin. The national curriculum is rigid to the age of 14. At 14

315
students can study history or geography. They do not have to study formally, to examination level, art and music. It is possible to do short courses in technology and modern foreign languages. Therefore, there is flexibility to bring in subjects like Latin, other foreign languages and vocational subjects for those who would prefer them. The flexibility is there.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that I listened to some dated, dreary, socialist remarks about people on this side of the Chamber who do not partake of state education. I went through the state education system. My children all went through the state education system. I find that kind of remark lowering to the tone of the debate. I hope that we hear no more of that during the course of the Bill's passage through the House.
Perhaps I may advise the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that I need no prompting to recognise the worth of professional teachers. No politician in this land can pass legislation without having to depend on the commitment and professionalism of teachers to make it happen and work in the classroom. I have spent a great deal of my life not only consuming state education myself, and through my children, but also a great deal of my local government and ministerial time in and out of schools, recognising the worth of teachers, as does my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. But good news is never reported by the media on these matters.
I assure my noble friend Lord Skidelsky that we are determined to secure continuing improvements in the national curriculum and in standards in our schools through an appropriate national curriculum, and the SCAA will bring a new coherence to the national curriculum and assessment regimes. It will not—nor must it—increase the bureaucracy.
It cannot be argued that the Government are attempting to centralise the organisation of schools. Our main objective has been quite the reverse in the past five years—first, through local management of schools and now, based on the decisions of parents throughout the country, by increasing the numbers of grant-maintained schools. It is my belief that it is the success so far of this policy that has a number of people running scared of it. Those schools will be run by their local communities and it is their energy and commitment that will spur the drive to higher standards. We are beginning to see that already. It is precisely because of the increasing numbers of grant-maintained schools that we need a supporting funding framework. That will be the main job of the FAS. I was delighted to hear the splendid speech of my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour who made that point eloquently, supported by my noble friends Lady Young, Lord Lucas, Lord Renfrew, Lord Pearson, Lady Brigstocke, Lord Rennell, Lord Skidelsky, Lady Cox, Lady Perry and Lord Stockton.
Several noble Lords have expressed concern about the LEAs and the new funding authorities having shared planning responsibilities. My right honourable friend and I have given much thought to the responses to our White Paper on this subject and to the debates
316
on our proposals in another place. I am convinced that our proposals are sensible and workable, but more of that when we reach the detail of the Bill.
As the number of self-governing state schools grows, it is important that we put in place a new system to regulate the supply of school places. We cannot give this responsibility to the LEA in respect of schools which have chosen to go grant-maintained. The LEA and the funding authorities will each have clear and distinct duties. Each will be concerned with their respective sectors. At no point does the funding authority acquire planning functions over schools which have chosen to remain with their LEA. Each will be required to provide the other with the information necessary to the exercise of their functions and, to answer the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, LEAs will be obliged to provide information to the FAS on such matters as population changes and new building requirements.
The Bill's provisions mark a departure from the school planning system that has operated since 1944, but that is not a reason in itself for rejecting them. This is an important but complex part of the Bill. I have little doubt that we shall have occasion to discuss it again in more detail over the coming weeks.
I turn now to a very special part of the Bill—that dealing with special educational needs. A number of noble Lords have spoken with great knowledge and understanding of the subject, especially my noble friend Lady Faithful! who, I know, works tirelessly with many organisations concerned with special needs, and with colleagues both inside and outside this House.
Clearly, there must be appropriate planning to secure sufficient school places for children with special needs. The Bill secures that. At all times, the FAS and LEAs will be required to share information on provision for children with special needs. I have no doubt that the FAS and LEAs will work together closely in the interests of all children with special needs. Additionally, governing bodies of self-governing schools must provide LEAs with the information that they need to carry out their duties towards pupils at the school, including pupils with special needs.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway rightly referred to the key role that will be played by the new code of practice. I look forward to hearing him develop his views on that important topic. I also welcome his recognition of the new partnership between local authorities and parents which we seek to foster.
That partnership should encourage openness in giving parents the appropriate access to professional advice on their children's special educational needs —to which the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), referred. But I think this is more a matter for guidance than regulations.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Warnock and Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, also made important points with respect to children with special educational needs. I can assure them that the Bill recognises the needs of those children with special educational needs with statements and those without

317
statements, as I said in my opening speech—the 18 per cent. which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, pointed out, are spread unevenly across all schools.
As I also said earlier, all schools will be required to draw up, publish and report annually to parents on their policies for all their pupils with special needs and those authorities will be able to provide special need support services to self-governing schools as well as to their own local education schools. These provisions will ensure that the needs of non-statemented pupils are met.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, both referred to special schools and GM status. We envisage that regulations will secure that there will always be a ballot before a maintained special school can become grant-maintained.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, would the Minister care to touch on the point that I made regarding some local authorities that are already in the process of making a change that may or may not be overtaken by this legislation?
Baroness Blateli: My Lords, any reorganisation or organisation that is in train will be fully taken into account when my right honourable friend considers an application before him, because no reorganisation of special schools can take place without his being involved in the process.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, in the case of hospital schools special circumstances will apply. It is unlikely that there would be a constituency of parents, which I think was one of the things that he was saying. Therefore, this may not be appropriate in the case of hospital schools.
The Government remain committed to educating children with special needs in a mainstream school, but provided that it is in the child's best interest. I can therefore tell the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Darcy (de Knayth), that the Bill does not give parents a veto over a placement in a mainstream school. While parents may express a preference for a maintained special school, LEAs are obliged to consider that preference in the light of the child's particular needs.
I can also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady David, that Part III of the Bill applies to children over compulsory school age who are still at school.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and my noble friends Lady Faithful and Lord Stockton that I recognise the very valuable contribution made by non-maintained special schools. The Bill gives parents the opportunity to make formal representations to the LEA that a non-maintained special school placement is necessary for their child. It is the LEA's final decision which will be subject to scrutiny by the tribunal.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred to a reorganisation. I have just picked up that point in answer to his intervention.
On trading powers, I hope I have made it clear that LEAs have a future, and a very important future. There has been particular concern about Clause 265 on LEA trading. Clause 265 is a liberalising measure.
318
Far from curtailing LEAs' freedom to trade, it extends and enhances their very limited existing powers. Currently a local authority can only trade at the margin of the capacity it requires to discharge its statutory functions. Under the proposals in Clause 265 the Secretary of State will be able to designate a local authority as able to trade beyond the margin of capacity for two years. This power to trade will relate to grant-maintained schools not just in its own area but also in the areas of adjacent authorities.
The two-year period will vary from LEA to LEA. It will start only when a local authority would have to go beyond the margin of capacity to supply goods and services to the grant-maintained schools that wish to buy them. During the two-year period, I am confident that private sector provision will develop to meet the needs of the GM schools. I am sure that that will include many current providers, a good number of whom are already looking at ways of becoming independent of the LEA.
We have examples already of trusts and units offering services including music, building advice, legal and personnel services, cleaning and grounds maintenance. There are also some 30 independent outdoor education centres.
In the long term, independent providers of goods and services must be the best way forward. I believe that is the way to ensure the highest possible quality and the widest possible choice of services for schools. A take-it-or-leave-it choice is no choice. It would not be right to legislate to allow local authorities to act as large-scale providers in perpetuity.
I appreciate concerns that instrumental music provision both within schools and in county orchestras should continue to flourish. Music has always been an area where our schools have excelled, and it has brought enjoyment and a great sense of achievement to very many children. Locally organised school orchestras and bands should not be affected by the Bill. Section 145 of the Local Government Act clearly allows LEAs which currently make provision for such organisations to continue to do so. No provision of the Bill will have any impact. Pupils who attend GM schools will be able to continue to participate in those organisations on the same basis as before.
I have listened with care to the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, and my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. I made clear in my opening speech that I want to see Church schools thrive and retain their distinctive identity as self-governing schools. As my noble friends acknowledged, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has taken careful account of the Churches' concerns and, I believe, has done a good deal to allay those concerns. That process will continue. In particular, we intend to bring forward amendments to' the Bill that will require the Secretary of State to consult the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church on the membership of the Funding Agency for Schools; will ensure that, where a former voluntary self-governing school closes, the trustees will receive the premises or the market value of the premises; will offer small schools that are interested in

319
becoming self-governing a way of associating together for common interest—that is, short of a formal grouping of schools; and will involve the relevant Church education authorities very closely in all the stages that might flow from a Church school that was found to be failing its pupils, including ensuring that the Churches are closely consulted on the membership of any education association that might need to be set up.
We have made no secret of our hopes that more Church schools will seek grant-maintained status. But we see that status as fully compatible with being part of a family of diocesan schools. I know that there are fears that, say, a Catholic school might lose its Catholic ethos on becoming GM. Those fears are understandable but groundless. The name of a GM school can indicate clearly that it is a Roman Catholic school.
The Churches have other concerns—I was not surprised to hear a mention of school transport from my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk—but there is no time to respond to those tonight. There must be plenty of time for debate as this Bill goes through Committee; and I very much hope that the fruitful discussions that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, I myself and my officials have been having with the Church authorities, will continue to a mutually satisfactory set of outcomes.
I was a little saddened that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford did not give recognition to the way my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, I and my officials in the department have consulted him, his colleagues in the Church and various other Church authorities on all these matters. However, this is something to which we shall continue to give a real commitment.
Some anxieties have been raised about the particular effect of the provisions of this Bill on Wales. As I said earlier, my noble friend Lord St. Davids will deal with those as this Bill proceeds through Committee. However, I should emphasise that we have taken great care to ensure that, wherever appropriate, the Bill does cater for the special needs of Welsh Education. For example, because there are not as yet any grant-maintained schools in Wales the Schools Funding Council for Wales may not be set up immediately. Another example, as I explained in my opening speech, is the separate set of arrangements for the development of the Welsh curriculum.
Many noble Lords spoke eloquently in favour of nursery education. I am happy to join them in recognising the importance of giving children an effective early start to their education. That is the foundation of their subsequent progress. This Government believe that there is no single right form of nursery provision for young children. We believe in diversity but I can assure the House that the Bill does nothing—positively nothing—to threaten the continued healthy existence of nursery education.
One should take into account nursery education which is already in the system—nursery schools, nursery classes, nursery units and private nursery schools. There is also the contribution of the
320
Pre-school Playgroup Association-19,000 playgroups serving the needs of 750,000 children—and the incidence of taking rising fives, which gives children three years in an infants school. Indeed, in my own authority almost all rising fives are accepted. When all that is taken into account more than 90 per cent. of children in this country receive some form of under-fives provision. I do not think that that is a bad record. We must also remember that we have one of the earliest statutory starting ages for children in schools.
Mention was made of education associations and grant-maintained schools. Perhaps I did not make myself clear in my opening speech; and I cannot assume that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, have actually read the Bill. There is no escape or hiding place for a failing school, whether a church school, a grant-maintained school or a local authority school. They will all be dealt with, and swift action will be taken. The necessary provisions are contained within the Bill.
Many issues were raised tonight. The specific answer to the question about spare places is that it is wrong to say that 1.5 million places are to be taken out of the system. There are deemed to be about 1.5 million spare places in the system. My right honourable friend recognises that it is not possible to take out that number of places for logistical reasons. We are engaged in an exercise to ascertain what it is practicable to take out of the system. We know that much of the money deployed in sustaining empty places could be put to better use in local authorities.
There was considerable talk about a general teaching council. We must return to that subject during the passage of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the approval of selective admission arrangements at two schools in Hertfordshire. He claimed that we had "forced" those schools to become selective against their will. That is far from the truth. I was personally involved with the governing bodies, the schools and the parents of children at those schools. What my right honourable friend the Secretary of State did was to enable those schools to preserve their existing character and mix of pupils on becoming self-governing. They did no more than that. Those schools did not want to be neighbourhood comprehensives. That is why we endorsed their existing form of recruiting children. In one case that happened to be 50 per cent. above a particular stated IQ level and a similar figure in relation to the other. Therefore, they are partially selective but both schools take in all-ability children.
My noble friend Lady Cox wants new schools to be able to be set up before the FAS takes on a planning role. That was supported by other noble Lords. My noble friend Lady Young would like a clearer delineation between the responsibilities of a head-teacher and his or her governing body. I know that to be a vexed issue and no doubt we shall return to it. I shall not attempt to deal with those points tonight. I could not do them service and that would spoil what has been a excellent debate—a vigorous and impressive curtain-raiser to the detailed scrutiny of the Bill in Committee.

321
I assure your Lordships that the Government will continue to listen to the concerns expressed by all noble Lords as we move on to detailed consideration of each of the 276 clauses of the Bill. Indeed, as I have said, I shall bring forward amendments as a result of debates in Committee in another place and also which reflect discussions which we are having with the Churches and others.
This debate has shown beyond doubt that we are all agreed on the aim of improving standards in our schools. I believe that most of us are agreed that important contributions to that goal are to be made by giving schools more responsibility for running their own affairs and giving parents more say in their children's education.
This House now moves into its own. We have already begun to burn the midnight oil and I suspect that we shall burn a great deal more over the next few months. It will be in a worthy cause. I do not doubt that we shall scrutinise the Bill with our customary vigour and rigour. It is my task to return the Bill to another place without invalidating the Government's
322
serious objectives for education. It is the job of your Lordships to test my case. My noble friends Lord Henley, Lord Astor and Lord St. Davids and I look forward to that challenge.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend has not answered my questions as to whether before we reach Committee stage we shall have an answer from the Government about the consultation on exclusions.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot be specific about that. I know that there will be consultation on exclusions. There have been many questions in the course of the debate which I have not answered and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for that. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

London Underground (Jubilee) Bill
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past one o'clock.

  PLUTONIUM AND URANIUM: TRADE FIGURES
  PLUTONIUM AND URANIUM: TRADE FIGURES
  ARMS SALES EMBARGOES: ALLEGED CONTRAVENTIONS
  ARMS SALES EMBARGOES: ALLEGED CONTRAVENTIONS
  DOT: USE OF CONSULTANTS
  DOT: USE OF CONSULTANTS
  EC BANKNOTES AND COINAGE
  EC BANKNOTES AND COINAGE
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: TIMETABLE
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: TIMETABLE
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: COHESION FUND
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: COHESION FUND
  INCOME-RELATED BENEFITS AND VAT ON FUEL AND WATER CHARGES
  INCOME-RELATED BENEFITS AND VAT ON FUEL AND WATER CHARGES
  CHARITIES ACT 1992: IMPLEMENTATION
  CHARITIES ACT 1992: IMPLEMENTATION
  PORTLAND NAVAL BASE
  PORTLAND NAVAL BASE
  FLEET MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ORGANISATION, PORTSMOUTH
  FLEET MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ORGANISATION, PORTSMOUTH